Can Anything Be Called A Religion Now Or What Do Conservatives Stand For?

Since the 2015 Obergefell SCOTUS decision, more and more religiously conservative Christian leaders and influencers have been singing the Things Ain't What They Used To Be blues. BTW, by referring to singing that song as blues, I am referring to the title only because the lyrics of the song look optimistically to the future (click here for a lyricless performances of the song). FYI here, Things Ain't What They Used To Be was written by Mercer Ellington, Duke's son,  and has been performed by quite a few jazz artists.

What should be noted here is why I am saying that these Christian leaders and influencers have been singing the blues since the Obergefell decision. That is because the Obergefell decision was the final nail on the coffin of the recognition that Christianity no longer had the influence on society that it once had. It wasn't that Christianity hadn't already lost its grip on society and culture; it had. But the Obergefell decision cemented that in the minds of many of my fellow religiously conservative Christians.

Another singing of those blues was written by Dr Anthony Bradley (click here for a bio). Only in this article, Bradley is not complaining about the Obergefell decision, he is writing to question how universities are showing their commitment to pursuing diversity, equity and inclusion by how they are screening their faculty applications. And one of his first comments was to hearken back to how most Ivy League schools were started not just as religious schools, but as 'religious missions' (click here for the article).

Bradley starts his article by lamenting over the fact that American universities have now 'replaced' Judeo-Christian religion with a 'religious commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion.' By religious Bradley is talking about both the degree of commitment to those ideas, especially diversity, and the faith statements that are presumed by such a commitment. Thus incoming professors are to trust that increasing the diversity of the students in college will promote 'diversity, equity, and inclusion' (DEI).

Citing Justin MacBreyer's work, Bradley repeats how statements that show agreement with DEI, which can be used to qualify those applying to teach at secular institutions, and Christian faith statements, such as statements made by those who would teach at Christian institutions, are similar. Bradley repeats MacBreyer's point here so as to attribute a religious nature to the promotion of DEI. Both kinds of statements can be used to distinguish those who believe in the mission of the institution from those who don't. Both require those who would teach to accept and support claims that are beyond their 'epistemic pay grade,' both exhibit 'tribal loyalty,' and both religious faith and diversity statements act in ways that end any debate or discussion on their respective issues. 

Bradley goes on to express his concern on what might follow what he describes as a religious devotion to DEI. What follows, according to Bradley, is an acceptance of progressive ideology, especially the belief that 'institutions are the causes of injustice and human failure,' and thus to correct our injustices, we only need to correct our institutions. This also includes the believe that 'material and social power disparities' between racial minorities and those who are privileged provide adequate proof that there are structural problems that require attention.

In the end, Bradley believes that these commitments to DEI statements filters our those evangelical candidates from those applying to teach. And if those commitment to statement doesn't filter evangelical candidates out, then it 'binds their consciences' into following those statements and the assumptions on which those statements are based. This might indicate that Bradley objects to challenging of the societal structures from the old status quo being challenged and thus are displaced by political progressives.

Bradley ironically concludes that the disparity between the percentage of the faculty of Arts and Sciences who are at least significantly conservative in their leanings and those who aren't proves that the new institutional structure that is built around DEI principles proves his point. As a result, he cites MacBreyer in predicting that American universities will become less diverse in terms of their position on DEI.

I struggle with Bradley's overall position here. But I have read enough similar views from other Christians that would make me say that his views are understandable for Christians to have.

First, equating religious beliefs with secular views can be problematic. Can a secular movement, theory, or ideology be considered a religion? The answer to that question depends on one's context. From a Scriptural point of view, anything that people value more that they value God is idolatry and thus religious in nature. Here we need to always remember what Chris Hedges said about idolatry. He basically said that the core of any idolatry is self-worship.

But if we were to look at the issue from how our nation's founding father saw religion, the answer would be that religion always involves a belief in a supernatural deity. And thus there is no adherence to a secular movement, theory, or ideology that could be called religious. The reason why they said that was because belief in a supernatural, powerful being was how religion was referenced back then. And they knew that religion could be very divisive. In addition, in writing the Establishment Clause, they were concerned with preventing any religion from gaining a privileged position in governing the nation. This was especially true with Jefferson and Madison and was evident in Virginia's constitution of 1776. Though not all state constitutions were so religiously neutral, Virginia's was and it served as an influential model for the writing of the Establishment Clause.

Bradley, as evidenced by his citing of McBrayer, is not the only religiously conservative Christian to call some adherences to secular theories and ideologies religious commitments, there are others. And it is quite understandable as to why they would think that way. It is because by making adherence to secular thought a religious issue, then religion becomes a fixed cost when it comes to movements, theories, and ideologies that any part of society adopts. What follows then is that religiously conservative Christians who see things as Bradley does, feel that they have brushed aside any concerns about imposing their religion or religious values on society.

And so if we couple that equating of secular values with religious values with Christianity's fall from being a dominant force on much of society, what follows is a sense of entitlement and duty for Christians, like Bradley, to restore Christianity's past position and to recapture lost ground. Here we should remember Bradley's lament over how some of our universities that were founded as Christian missions have fallen from grace into secular hands. What Bradley's lament seems to have missed is that society now seems to have a higher percentage of unbelievers whom universities are now serving. And thus it seems only logical that these universities broaden the scope of their mission in terms of serving their students.

At the same time, Bradley seems to have associated political and social conservatism with the conservative Christian faith and progressivism with what seems to be anti-Christian ideology. And because of how he makes these two associations, we need to ask if there are any progressive ideas that us religiously conservative Christians can agree with. After all, what American, especially one who belongs to a minority, could not sign on to statements that commit to promoting dignity, equity, and inclusiveness for all people?

For Bradley, the answer is that he can because of the implications he sees in the statements supporting DEI. The implications that Bradley sees in DEI statements is that they work on secular presuppositions about reality rather than Christian ones. They work on assumption that our institutions are solely to blame for any economic and power disparities we see in society whereas religiously conservative American Christianity heavily stresses individual responsibility for personal failures. Such scapegoating would excuse any individual from responsibility for their plight as well as defend the institutions as they once were. And so it seems that Bradley might be approaching DEI statements from a colorblind approach to racism that was embraced by the Reagan Administration and promoted by people like Thomas Sowell.

Certainly there are progressives who see the different economic and social disparities as being the fault of our institutions and society. Kimberlé Crenshaw who writes from a Critical Race Theory (CRT) perspective seems to be saying that as she has argued against the colorblind approach and for 'equality as a result.' And lest anyone believe that equality as results is owned solely by progressives, Martin Luther King Jr. argued for equality as results in his 1967 interview with Xander Vanocur (click here for the interview). For in that interview, King spoke of his earlier work, which included getting the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1965 passed, as a struggle for dignity. And now, he was then engaged in a struggle for 'genuine equality' which was concluded from the then current economic disparity between the races.

King's interview puts Bradley's views on conservatism vs progressivism in a dilemma. That is because either King's later struggle indicated that he would be considered a progressive by Bradley's standards, or that conservatives can agree with progressives on some social positions for different reasons.

Perhaps Bradley's problem is in that he seems to view progressives as scapegoating institutions for today's problems. But can progressives see no individual responsibility in today's social problems. Consider the following definition of racism that is attributed to CRT: Racism = race prejudice + social and institutional power (click here for the source). And though that same source goes on to define racism in terms of systems as well, this first definition that includes race prejudice shows that the individual also plays a role in racial prejudice. It isn't just the fault of society and our institutions.

One might also ask conservatives if they cannot sign on to DEI statements, is there something about conservatism that opposes significant parts of diversity, equity, and inclusion.

A related issue to DEI statements is how they apply to the LGBT community. Though Bradley does not mention the LGBT community in his article, there are conservatives who would object to signing on to DEI statements because such would be seen as support homosexuality and transgenderism. Such conservatives do not want the LGBT community to enjoy equality in society. Rather, through social and/or institutional power, they want those in the LGBT community to be marginalized in society lest their way of life is seen as normal. But again, Bradley does not include the LGBT community in this article so, as far as the article is concerned, we don't know if equality for the LGBT community plays a role in his thinking here.

Though religion is presented as an issue, the sharp divide between conservatism and progressivism in Bradley's article makes it seem like he is, in part, giving a tribal response. That is seen in the opposition of making DEI statements. Such statements would, according to Bradley, imply agreement with the progressive assumptions behind progressivism's  promotion of DEI. It makes one wonder why Bradley couldn't agree with at least most of the DEI statements for different reasons. And if he couldn't agree with a commitment to DEI as a conservative, then what is it in conservatism that would prohibit them from supporting DEI at our universities?

Bradley was clear in saying that assent to the DEI statements would imply that one agrees with progressivism's blaming of institutions for disparity problems. And the question is not whether progressivism's assumptions are right or wrong there, but there is some degree of truth regarding the presence in our institutions. But it seems that Bradley was thinking in terms of progressivism  as being either right or wrong.

Despite all of that, there is a religious concern on Bradley's part. He legitimately expresses the loss of the influence of Christianity on some of our educational institutions. And here Bradley is understandably reacting as a Christian. But with the percentages of unbelieving students at many of our universities, why does it seem that the loss of that Christian impetus in our universities is not understandable here?

For me, the irony in reading this response by Bradley is that I really didn't begin to understand what white privilege is until I heard him talk about it in a video presentation on racism. So it confuses me to read his article that seems to exhibit an all-or-nothing view of DEI statements. 

So it seems to me that much of Bradley's response here is simply a rejection to the changing times. Though that is a simple statement, being able to adapt to unwanted changes is one of our most difficult tasks in life. And so perhaps one way to adapt to unwanted changes is to find some partial agreement or good in those changes even if one  agrees with those changes for different reasons than the reasons why those who are promoting those changes want those changes.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For June 15, 2016

June 5

To Bradly Birzer and his blogpost that cites a work by a James Otteson and Thomas Smith which declares the end of Socialism and how Socialism can never work. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

While Professor Otteson would like to pronounce the end of socialism and condemn it at the same time, the trouble that exists in this article is defining socialism. For the definition given here is not very precise or accurate. It is defined by example as well as the notion of centralized control. 

The problem with the definition is that examples such as the Paris Commune, the Spanish Revolution, and Nicaragua are not at all represented by the examples given nor is a form of Socialism called Libertarian Socialism represented by either the definition of central control or the examples given. Libertarian Socialism actually oppose the existence of the state. But Otteson insists on equating the models provided by people like Lenin-Stalin, Mao, Castro, and the rulers from North Korea with Socialism. However, not all Socialists would agree that these examples were examples of Socialism. As Chomsky pointed out, that both the West and the Soviet Union wanted to call what was practiced there Socialism was motivated by two different reasons and both were wrong. The reason why Chomsky saw the Socialism label as being wrong was because the necessary ingredient to Socialism from the Marxist tradition, the proletariat dictatorship, was missing. In fact, at a session on Stalin presented at the Left Forum this year, I challenged the leaders of the session on this point. I asked about the breakdown of the central committees that existed during the times of Lenin and Stalin. And the response was to note that Lenin was not even a worker, he was petty bourgeoisie. And thus they could not show that workers were in control of these governments.

To make a long story short, Marxist Socialism does not equal centralized government. Centralize governments that were run by elites is what the Socialist and contemporary of Lenin, Rosa Luxemberg called a bourgeois dictatorship. Why is Marxist Socialism not a part of such an organization? It is because workers are not in charge. And if the workers are not the ones with power, it is not Socialism from the Marxist tradition. 

If the workers were in charge, they would rule by a partial democracy consisting of workers. Though the exclusion of the bourgeoisie from this democratic form of governing is the weakness I see in Marxist Socialism, we are not talking about weaknesses, we are talking about definitions. Thus, only the Paris Commune and the Spanish Revolution serve as examples where workers had the political power. Nicaragua would be more socialist leaning, but it deserves mention because, despite the terrorist war the US supported against the Sandinistas, Nicaragua not only provided programs to help with the various needs of the people, it relied on democratic procedures for determining its leadership as evidenced by the fact that the Sandinistas have been voted both out of power and then into power.

Though while employing a continuum between Socialism and Capitalism as evidenced by the concepts of Socialist-inclined and Capitalist-inclined are strong positive contributions made by the writers Birzer is relying on; in the end, this blogpost is simply another attempt to scare people out of an honest look at Socialism and it employs an imprecise and faulty definition of Socialism to accomplish that task. In addition, what is never mentioned here are the governments that either Socialism replaced in the places used by Birzer or the governments installed by US interventions to replace elected Socialist-inclined governments in places not mentioned here. For these were dictatorships in the vast majority of cases. And for its interventionists efforts, what the US has become is a centralized planning committee for much of the world. In other words, by Birzer's working definition of Socialism, the US has run much of the world employing Socialism

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

June 7 

To Tim Keller and the Gospel Coalition Staff as their blogpost consists of a podcast discussion on revival. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.

Praying for revival and praying for others to believe can be two different things The former could be a sign of being insular and waiting for God to prove we are right. Praying for the latter shows an interest in another person. I think revival has become a combination of both our Godot and the Holy Grail that keep us distracted from some important issues that are being ignored.

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

To Joseph Pearce and his blogpost on multiculturalism and what makes for creating a successful melting pot of people and cultures. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog

We should note here that some of the melting pots celebrated in the article above came into existence through the rule of force. Does such suggest that we adopt an ends justify the means ethic or some form of moral relativity? In addition, it isn't as if Europe and America are the only melting pots in the world, global capitalism itself is creating some melting pots in other areas of this world and perhaps some of the refusal of some Muslims to fit in here in the West has to do with what is being forced on them in their own homelands.

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

The official status of the comment below has been changed from awaiting moderation to published.

June 9

To Thomas Kidd and his blogpost that defended the Declaration Of Independence from accusations of being systematically racist. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.

Was the Declaration systematically racist? With race not being a key issue, I think that the sparse comment about Native Americans and Blacks slaves indicates that it was a racist document. But more important than to question the Declaration is to question our Founding Fathers. For when we see how our founding documents were implemented, we have ample evidence that the nation they had created was not only racist, it was sexist and based on economic class. 

As for the Declaration being sexist, we should note that not only did Jefferson say that all men were created equal, a woman's right to vote didn't come until well over 100 years later. In fact, women still feel the sting of sexism in society.

As for racism, we only need to note the emerging British attitudes on slave trading at the time and question whether the Founding Fathers thought that continued allegiance to Great Britain would threaten our nation's use of slaves in the future. Perhaps this was a contributing factor to our declaring independence and the fighting of the Revolutionary War. We should also note that during that time, the predominant view was that Blacks were not viewed as being equal to Whites. That belief even carried through to some who opposed slavery during Lincoln's time.

We should also note that economic classism played a significant part in the founding of our nation. Though not apparent in documents like The Declaration Of Independence, we should note that The Constitution was written in response to widespread dissent and Shays Rebellion. It was written to give the Federal government power to put down such insurrections--the latter point is evident in The Constitution's references to the militia. So while the Declaration of Independence was written in protest of the actions of British elites, The Constitution was written in order to maintain the status quo for the American elites who replaced them.

We should also note the awareness of class distinctions discussed during the Constitutional Debates (see http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/yates.asp ) and we note how Charles Pinckney listed  3 economic classes of the time--Professional men, Commercial men, and the Landed Interest--and how the first two classes must forever depend on the last class while saying how these classes should not be able to infringe on the rights of the other classes. Here, research is needed to determine the definition of those classes especially since  many people were not included in that list as evident from Federalist #10 (http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm ). Or perhaps we should quote James Madison while expressing his fears that Great Britain might open their elections to all classes of people (see http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/yates.asp ):

In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of the landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be jsut, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. 

Here we should note that around 5% of Americans could vote when The Constitution was ratified and that was based on class. We should also note that what was called innovation were the demands of those from the lower economic classes.

Despite the talk of equality by our Founding Fathers, it was never intended to apply to all whether that all was based on gender, race, or class. That we have started to approach equality for all is due to people demanding it;  it is due to activism. And it is only with this understanding, rather than romantic views of both our Founding Fathers and Documents which would place both on pedestals, that we could properly interpret both and then go beyond what they said to  accomplish what is just.

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

June 10

To Joe Carter and his blogpost on what Christians should know about Crony Capitalism. This appeared in the Acton Blog.

Though I agree with Carter in that we should reject crony capitalism and that such has been going on for a while, his criticism is wanting because it is overly simplistic. It is overly simplistic because it looks at this form of Capitalism from a limited perspective: the view of the consumer. And while mentioning the producer, the seller, and the buyer, what is missing are the other stakeholders in the Capitalist venture. Those other stakeholders include the workers, the community in which a business is located, the environment, and vendors to the business. Thus, to solely focus on what happens to the consumer when crony capitalism is practiced forgets these other stakeholders. And because these other stakeholders are forgotten, they are more vulnerable to being exploited. And such exploitation can happen even when it provides the lowest prices for the consumer.

There are other names for crony capitalism. One such name state capitalism. In state capitalism, the state ensures the survival or even the prosperity of a business by becoming a valued customer and thus a valued consumer. The Defense Industry, for example showers its blessing on many kinds of businesses from those that expand technology to business that produce means of transportation to the arms industry to those businesses that provide basic goods and services to our troops. 

In addition, to state capitalism, there are many times when foreign policies are pursued that protect business interests ahead of the rights of the people of a given nation. So, when we orchestrated a coup in Chile (1973) to prevent the democratically elected government from nationalizing communications, our policies helped ITT. When we jointly orchestrated a coup in Iran (1953), we not only helped our oil companies, we helped our arms manufacturers because Iran, under the Shah, bought weapons from us. When we orchestrated a coup in Guatemala (1954), it was done to protect the interests of United Fruit. That is just a small sample of over 50 interventions we have practiced since WW II. We should note all of the ways that crony capitalism paid off for businesses during the Iraq invasion of 2003. And one only needs to look at the pre WWII interventions described by former Marine Corp Major General Smedley Butler to see how they were used to benefit banks, the oil industry, and other businesses. 

See, crony capitalism has been a way of life for us at least since the 20th century if not earlier. And all incidents of crony capitalism, both the ones listed here and the ones not mentioned lead us to ask this question: Can we have Capitalism without Crony Capitalism?

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

To Anthony Bradley and his blogpost on how the funding of our justice system is hurting the poor. This appeared in the Acton blog.

Anthony Bradley brings up an important issue about the cost of justice in society. But we shouldn't be surprised because many of those who benefit the most from society, private sector elites, find more and more ways, many times with the cooperation of elected officials, to reduce or even avoid contributing to the society, through the paying of taxes, from which they benefit and could not exist without. If we are really concerned and interested in stopping the problems that come from how justice is funded, then private sector elites must step up to the plate and contribute their fair share in taxes.

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

To Joe Carter and his blogpost containing a video tape comparison of Milton Friedman’s statements with those of Bernie Sanders. This appeared on the Acton Blog.

So according to Friedman, Roosevelt's economic initiatives didn't help the nation back then? And would Friedman celebrate the greed-based speculative economic system that led to both the stock market crash of 1929 and the economic collapse of 2008? After all, wasn't it people acting out of their own self-interest that led to both economic crises?

And what does Russia and China have to do with Sanders' Democratic Socialism when we know that Sanders is basically an FDR New Dealer?

And has Friedman ever looked at the Paris Commune or the Spanish Revolution? After all, in neither of those cases did we have either Capitalism or a dictator. Or should we examine how his economic theories were installed in Chile or Argentina where a military coup and dictatorship paved the way for the implementation of his economic theories? How much freedom does a military dictator allow?

This post is so overly simplistic  and ill-fitting in its comparisons of Friedman to Sanders that it misrepresents both people. Friedman warned that that a market participant could get so big as to disrupt the Free Market. And isn't that what happened in the economic crisis of 2008? And Friedman explicitly stated that it is the government's job to prevent the players of the market from gaining such an advantage. And as said before, Sanders is an FDR New Dealer. That makes Friedman's references to Russia and China inappropriate when describing Sanders' views.

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

June 11

To Suzanne Sherman and her blogpost that laments how revisionist history has dominated the telling of our founding fathers at the historical sites of their homes. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

People's political values and beliefs are not just made evident by their words, but they are also demonstrated by their actions. And if the focus on the slave owning penchant of our founding fathers seems to be revisionist history to Sherman, we should note that the validity of history revisionism depends on the quality of the original accounts of history. And with what Conservatives consider to be the original accounts, at least some revisionism is in order. And perhaps Conservatives might consider the writings of Frederick Douglas on slavery to be revisionism as well (for example see http://www.masshumanities.org/files/programs/douglass/speech_abridged_med.pdf ).

What seems to be the problem experienced by the writer of the above article is that the pedestal many of us put the founding fathers on is not merited by the accounts of how they treated people from other groups, such as from other races. For the treatment of nonWhites by our founding fathers should be cause for national shame rather than something that can be glossed over while we gush over their political ideas where the beneficiaries of those ideas depended on the race and even class of the person back then. In fact, this is still the case.

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

To Joe Carter and his blogpost about the Church of England’s assessment of Margaret Thatcher’s Christian faith. This appeared on Acton’s blog.

Here, we might want to ask if Thatcher's support for Pinochet was also guided by her Christian faith. Or we could ask what part of her Christian faith told her to denationalize certain British industries and to attack unions. Or, returning to the subject of Pinochet, we could ask what part of her Christian faith led her to embrace the kind of Neoliberal Capitalism that Pinochet first installed in Chile when he was ushered into power through a military coup. See, it just wasn't provisions that she objected to. it was a more democratic society she guided the nation away from. Because that is what she did when she embraced Neoliberal Capitalism. For this kind of Capitalism relieves private elites from more and more of their social responsibilities. The result is that there is greater consolidation of wealth and power into the hands of private sector elites. Here we should compare the degree of democracy the British now enjoy vs the degree of democracy they experienced before Thatcher came into power.

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

June 13

To Bruce Frohnen and his blogpost on the West’s War on the family.This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

It would be interesting to see who is at war against whom here: Is Christianity at war against Western society and culture or is it the West at war against Christianity and the family?. For I don't remember our society and its culture forcing Christians to do anything outside of their Christian values while I see some Christians trying to force unbelievers in society to try to adhere to Christian values. And outside of the abortion issue, there is no compelling reason for Christians to press for laws to ensure that nonChristians adhere to Christian values. Thus, wouldn't it make sense to answer the question of who is at war with whom by examining who is trying to use laws to force the other to comply?

But I guess in an age of victimization, the mere presence of counterexamples to Frohnen's  model of the family with its male and female roles could be considered to be a firing of shots of sort. But doesn't that tell us something about the degree of control Frohnen expects Christianity to have over society?

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

June 14

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost interview of Nebraska Senator Ben Sasse on what government is and how it should function. This appeared in Heidelblog.

I listened carefully to the interview between R. Scott Clark and Nebraska Senator Ben Sasse and this is what I came up with. There seems to be a lack of awareness of the ease in which we can easily call the ways we grew up or live in exceptional or special. The references to the desire to return to what is Tocquevillian along with claiming that the job of gov't is to provide an environment so that we can live while focusing on what is going on in our local communities are such examples. We should note that when Tocqueville is mentioned by conservatives, it done uncritically. There is no mention of Tocqueville's, what would now be considered to be, racist views toward Blacks and Native Americans. Likewise, there is no mention of why Tocqueville regarded British society as the most superior society in the world. Nor is there mention of how society and our nation's economic system has changed since Tocqueville's time. All there was were positive comments on Tocqueville and how he saw the dynamism of American society and its economic system.

But in the glowing comments of the past, which those in rural states would naturally relate better to than those from more urban settings, one of the main factor's for America's economic dynamism was the use of exploitation of people. One of the reasons why America grew was because it ethnically cleansed the land of Native Americans. Another reason why America grew was because of our use of slavery and child labor. We should note that in 1820, over half of factory were children under 10 (see https://www.apstudynotes.org/us-history/topics/a-growing-national-economy/  ). These workers were often abused. And children were not the only ones who were exploited for their labor. Of course, what enabled this exploitation of people by business is the emphasis on individualism and a disdain for government interference. We see a continuance of worker exploitation today only the means of exploiting workers have changed some.

Something else we should note about the interview is this: the conservative view of government as expressed by Sasse is that government is almost considered to be a foreign entity to its people rather than an instrument of self-rule. Thus, not only is there a certain detachment between government and its people, so that the people can be free, government should be limited to certain duties such as protecting the people from foreign enemies. At the same time, government should take special care not to infringe on personal freedoms of individuals and business owners and this is one of the reasons why Sasse opposes raising of the minimum wage and makes a disparaging remark about the EPA.

Here we should note that such a conservative view of government plays well in midwestern states like Nebraska and thus we have another example of seeing the settings in which one grew up to be exceptional. For both Clark and Sasse are from Nebraska. But in discussing the minimum wage issue, what is neglected is the fact that many businesses use government assistance programs to subsidize their payrolls. How this works is that because many of the wages, such as minimum wage, are too low to live on, workers must apply for government assistance to survive. In fact, there is a significant number of full-time workers who, because of their income, are homeless. Of course, conservatives like Clark and Sasse wouldn't want this foreign entity called government to infringe on the individual rights of employers to pay their workers as they deem fit. However, such an approach to the individual rights of employers helps continue the dependence on exploitation our economic system maintains.

Thought there should be limits on government actions in society, if we viewed government as an instrument of self-rule, government would speak for the people in determining how we will live with each other. This puts a different perspective on how much government should intervene in the society of people who it represents.

Other things could be said, but to stop here allows one to connect the historical dots between where we are today and the past. The views expressed by Clark and Sasse, since they are both religiously conservative Christians, makes the Conservative Church a supporter of wealth and power over the individual. Clark and Sasse would disagree here but only because both associate power with government authority. But those who have studied or worked in the business world know that power and authority are not the same. Now this support of wealth and power by American Conservative Christianity has historical parallels in the times leading up to the French, Russian, and Spanish Revolutions where the Church, in each of those cases, stood with wealth and power. And during and in the aftermaths of those revolutions saw a persecution of the Church and a dishonoring of the Gospel. And the question becomes for us religiously conservative Christians, are we contributing to the present and future dishonoring of the Gospel by political positions that support wealth and power?

Making A Good Point In A Bad Way

Anthony Bradley makes a valid theological point in a blogpost on the ideological tribalism practiced by some Evangelicals (click here). His point is that too strong of a commitment to a particular political ideology, regardless of whether it is on the Left or on the Right, can compromise one's reading of the Scriptures. In fact, one can generalize this problem to commitments other than political ideologies. This trend sees certain Evangelicals, those who approach social issues without training in past Christian social thought tradition, compromise the Scriptures for the sake of their ideology or group. The following acts of compromise come directly from the Bradley's article linked to above. 

• For a variety of well-intentioned reasons, choose a preferred political ideology you believe is the right one and will adequately to address the differentiated problems in society.
• Read your preferred political ideology into Bible in a such way that it becomes a tool for interpreting and applying the Bible to social issues. That is, your political ideology becomes your hermeneutic for “Biblical” views on justice.
• Cherry-pick Bible verses (often taken out of context) and repackage them to make the case that your preferred, tribal, political ideology is indeed “Biblical,” “follows the teaching of Jesus,” is “Christian,” and so on.
• Now that you have baptized your political ideology by pouring on a random assortment of Bible verses, you are ready to declare your ideological tribe and those who agree with you, “right.” As a result, any other tribe that does not read the Bible through your ideological lens is not only wrong, they are the enemy and a threat to the church and the world.
• Issue a call for all other Christians to embrace your tribal ideology. Now that your tribe is “right” you are free in the blogosphere, for example, to declare all of those who are not-like-us — that is, not in our tribe — to be “wrong.” Those in the other tribe (i.e., the enemy tribe) need to change their views so that they can more closely adhere to what your tribe believes the Bible teaches and, therefore, advance to the right side of Truth. Your tribe’s truth.

In fact, if we generalize enough from using political ideologies, we see how the above steps can provide an explanation for the origins of some Christian denominations. So we should note that those who could care less about politics could practice the above actions.

My seminary education explained the above in part. Suppose we take one principle or trait and claim that it exhaustively explains everything there is to know about God. And then we use that principle to interpret the Scriptures. Note that the most common trait with which to do this is love. Those who only use love to define God filter out all of the passages in the Bible which talk of how He is just and holy. All of this allows some people to state that certain acts, which are declared by the Scriptures as being immoral, are Biblical. Of course, their declaration is governed by their desires and is endorsed by the selective understanding of God because they have reduced Him to fit their finite understanding of love.

What triggered this article by Bradley? It was an article and followup dialog with a Duke Divinity student who claimed that Bradley both spoke 'comfort to power' and threw the 'vulnerable' under the bus (click here for the article and followup dialog). Bradley defends himself in the article being commented on here by calling this student's accusations an instance of ideological tribalism and insinuating that this person's accusations were due to his not reading the majority of Bradley's writings.

What this blog would like to do with Bradley's article is to 1) talk about the definition of tribalism; 2) evaluate the claims made against Bradley to see if they have at least some validity; and 3) see if Bradley is as tribalistic as the people he opposes in the article being reviewed here.

Before starting, however, I would like to state my personal view of Bradley. On the one hand, I am indebted to him. Though I have heard of "white privilege" before, listening to him explain it using his personal experiences allowed me to better understand what it means. In addition, his response to Michael Horton and Horton's blogpost on 2K theology and slavery is well worth reading to further understand some of the weaknesses of 2K theology (click here and read the first comment). What I struggle with Bradley on are his political-economic views.

Part of the article by the Duke Divinity student uses Bradley's assessment of James Cone's theology. I am not familiar with Bradley's view of Cone. But what I would suggest is for people to read Cone and then Bradley's reaction to Cone and let one's own powers of observation serve as the final judge. Personally, though I have some theological differences with Cone, I see much merit in what he says.

There are a variety of definitions for the word 'tribalism.' Most of the social science based definitions I've seen revolve around that which pertains to belonging to a tribe where a tribe is defined as a kind of group which lacks certain political structures. What we should note is that many of the dictionary definitions of tribalism goes beyond a literal tribe and focus on the kind of loyalty one has to one's own own group. Tribalism involves a high degree of loyalty. And as has been defined by this blog in previous articles, tribalism occurs when loyalty to a group trumps commitment to principle and morals. The end result of tribalism is that what one sees right and wrong being determined by who does what to whom (click here). 

The importance of this blog's definition is this: one can belong to groups without succumbing to tribalism. How can one both belong to one or more groups while escaping the trappings of tribalism? One can do that by showing a higher commitment to morals and principles than to our groups. Whistleblowers, for example, show a greater commitment to morals and principles than to the groups they expose. Our commitment to principles and morals can save us not just from pathological groups, but from committing the common sins and mistakes made by any group. Thus, Bradley's question, 'Aren't we all tribal?' made in response to comment by Andrew Dowling in the article by the Duke Divinity student should hopefully be answered with an emphatic 'NO!'. If we can belong to groups without practicing tribalism, we should all the more strive to not be tribal regardless of our degree of identity with or affection for any particular group.

The Old Testament provided a number of examples of children of Israel who were not tribal. They were called prophets. Their loyalty to God trumped their ethnic ties and this allowed them to speak prophetically to their own nation. And such an accomplishment should not be minimized considering that it was the nation of Israel that was counted as God's chosen people. Even in the New Testament, we have such examples such as when Paul had to correct Peter (see Galatians 2).

We should note here that there are two ways to combat the temptation to surrender to the tribalism defined by this blog. The first way is to be able to recognize the weaknesses and faults one's own group or ideology. Perhaps reminding oneself of the parable of the two men praying can be helpful here (click here). The more resistant we are to acknowledging the faults and weaknesses of our own group or perspective, the more likely we will become like the pharisee from the parable. And we should note that that pharisee's attitude toward the other man praying is not significantly different from how we view peer or rival groups when we engage in tribalism.

Another way by which we can resist the siren call of tribalism is to recognize the contributions and legitimate points that rival groups make. Martin Luther King Jr. talked about the West's inability to do that during the Vietnam conflict when he said the following (click here for the reference):

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

King's quote is why Tim Keller's "blended insights" from his model of church and cultural influence is so important (click here). The value of his work in that model is not based on the accuracy of his identification of those blended insights; rather, it is based on recognizing that other groups have significant contributions to make.  

So the more we can recognize the faults and sins of our own group as well as the contributions others can make, the less likely will our identification with and affection for a group lead to tribalism as defined by this blog.

As for the claims made about Bradley which triggered his article, we should note Bradley's defense. He questioned the validity of that claim by stating that the person making the claim had not read most of his works. The implication here being that one must have read most of Bradley's writings before one can properly interpret what he has said. Is that implication true? Do all of us really need to first read the majority of Bradley's or anyone's writings before forming accurate assessments of what is being said?

Certainly, just like any with other writer, the more we read of Bradley, the better we will understand the various nooks and crannies of his thought. But when one reads articles like his article on McDonalds and the minimum wage (click here), it isn't difficult to see that Bradley puts full responsibility for the low wages that the McDonalds' workers have about whom he is writing squarely on shoulders of the workers themselves. And he does this without providing any demographic information on those workers as well as without acknowledging how McDonalds and other businesses sometimes use government assistance programs to subsidize their payrolls (click here)--such is built into the system so that business leaders' could fulfill their 'fiduciary responsibilities,' to the shareholders. After all, that is what Bradley said the low wages enabled business leaders to do.

Of course, those responsibilities are never questioned or critiqued by Bradley. And that is an important point because what Bradley seems to have neglected is to mention how the workers at businesses like McDonalds are not the only ones who financially suffer because of the claims made on them by shareholders. Franchise owners for some corporations do too as certain business procedures are forced on them so shareholders benefit these at their expense. If Bradley knew how franchise owners can also lose out to shareholders, would he then examine the responsibilities to shareholders that business leaders have? And if so, would that show favoritism for business owners over workers?

And if Bradley's attack on some McDonalds workers doesn't show enough of his view of workers and business leaders, perhaps his article attacking the requirement that interns be paid should help seal the deal (click here). In that article, Bradley considers the learning of new skills payment enough for some young people. He partially attributes the demand that all interns be paid to a generational narcissism. 

Suffice it to say that Bradley hasn't really studied narcissism so as to make that kind of assessment. For narcissism, whether it be individual or group, is about far more than feeling entitled or important. Note that there are 9 characteristics that narcissists can have and before one can be called a narcissist, a diagnosis that must be clinically made, one must have at least 5 of those characteristics (click here). And we should note that being exploitive and lacking empathy are included in those 9 traits. So should we surmise, because of Bradley's possible support for business exploitation of workers and his lack of empathy for those same people, that he is narcissistic? Such an analysis would be completely irresponsible. And yet, the narcissism label is one he feels comfortable flinging at Millenials who are progressives (click here and see his comment to Hannah Anderson then and click there).

So from what has been reviewed here, is there some truth to the divinity's student's claim that Bradley speaks comfort to power while throwing the vulnerable under the bus? Click the links that have been provided and see for yourself.

Finally, we need to ask if Bradley is into tribalism as much as the progressives he seeks to oppose. After all, he writes as if it was bad for them. Does he think that tribalism would be bad for him too? We should first note that one of the practices Bradley associates with progressive Evangelicals who are into social ethics is that they attach themselves to a particular ideology and has attached it to their understanding of the Bible. We should also note that Bradley associates himself the Acton Institute and it too has chosen to attach itself to an ideology and has, perhaps uncritically, attached that ideology to Christianity. When we read the page on the principles adhered to by the Acton Institute, before the first principle is listed, we read the following (click here for the link):

Integrating Judeo-Christian Truths with Free Market Principles

Notice the juxtaposition that Judeo-Christian Truths has with Free Market Principles. Doesn't such a side by side placement at least indicate that an equal status exists between the two? Thus, doesn't such an association imply that Judeo-Christian Truths and Free Market Principles are peers? And from there, we must not only ask Anthony Bradley, but the Acton Institute itself, whether they have used Judeo-Christian truths to critically assess the Free Market? Or, as Bradley has charged progressive Christians with doing, do Bradley and those at the Acton Institute use the Free Market to interpret the Scriptures? And if the answer to that last question is yes, then how are Bradley and the Acton Institute any different from the progressive Evangelicals Bradley is so critical of? Perhaps in claiming that we are all tribal, as Bradley did in the comments of the article being reviewed, he is admitting that there is no difference except that he considers the Acton tribe to be superior to that of the progressive Evangelicals. And perhaps this allegiance to the Free Market contributes to Bradley not critically looking at the relationship between business leaders and shareholders in his article on McDonalds.

But let's notice something else. Note how Bradley shows no concern over critique of him provided by progressive evangelicals. The reason for this lack of concern is that, according to Bradley, they don't value past Christian social thought tradition and that they have different presuppositions than he does. Thus, it appears that he considers their criticisms to be insignificant. And again, this hints at assuming some superiority over his critics. 

In analyzing Bradley's lack of concern, we should note a couple of things about the Christian social thought tradition. First, it comes from the same Western context as Free Market principles come from. This context is being challenged by post modernism as well as other models of thought. This context might be a reason why the Acton Institute can so easily put Judeo-Christian values next to Free Market principles and not bat an eye. The assimilation of the two has been occurring for a long time.

We should also note something else about Bradley's Christian social thought tradition. It does not have a monopoly on the kinds of values it holds to. Does it emphasis solidarity? So does Socialism. Does it emphasize subsidiarity? Doesn't anarchism? What about natural law? Here we must ask: Whose version of natural law are we relying on? For while Christians will talk about natural law from the design revealed in the Bible, others will talk about natural law from what is observed in nature. And who isn't concerned with personalism and who doesn't make distinctions as sphere sovereignty makes? The difference for Bradley here is that conservative evangelicals take the "Biblical" approach to these subjects. But can't such a belief cause one to have an inflated view of themselves and their beliefs?

But hold it for a second, aren't there those who hold to conservative Christian theology while embracing what some would call progressive political views? I am one who does both and don't think that I am the only religiously conservative Christian who does so. So doesn't that challenge Bradley's assessment of progressive Evangelicals?

But something more must be said here. Is Bradley claiming that, because of his presuppositions, that he has nothing to learn from the political views of progressive Evangelicals? Do their differences with him concern him? If not, then perhaps we need to remind him of the Martin Luther King Jr. quote provided earlier. The feeling that one has everything to teach and nothing to learn is not only unjust, but according to Bradley, it is a practice exercised by progressive evangelicals whose political ideologies cause them to not only compromise the Scriptures, but to look down on those who differ. For in believing that one has everything to teach and nothing to learn, one has implied that one's  own group is right while declaring others to be wrong. That, according to Bradley, is ideological tribalism. And as this blog has already shown, that kind of tribalism does not have to follow one's belonging to an ideological group.

Certainly, Bradley does us a great service by drawing our attention to the problem of what he calls ideological tribalism. The practices he notes accurately depicts how people are willing to compromise the clear statements of the Scriptures because of their higher commitment to other ideas. But afterwards, Bradley provides a mixed message. The mixed message says that, on one hand, other groups than his are guilty of the kind of tribalism described above while, on the other hand, he admits in the comments that we are all tribal and the difference is found in what we admit up front and the superiority of our assumptions. 

Perhaps the difference between Bradley and myself is in how we define tribalism. After reading the article and comments, he seems to say that being tribal is a fixed cost to belonging to groups. But at the same time, he states that when discussing things, we should refrain from attacking each other. But the view of tribalism put forth by this blog says that tribalism does not necessarily follow belonging to groups. Rather, tribalism is something to avoid because of competing loyalties between both principles and morals and group loyalty.  Thus what this blog is saying is that tribalism gives us permission, if not encourages us, to attack other groups. 

If Christianity is to influence the world without compromising its standards, we must avoid tribalism as defined by this blog lest we imitate the world by how we try to both preach the Gospel and show its implications. Imitating the tribalism in the world is sin. And though Bradley provides some useful points, perhaps his biggest weakness is found in his definition of tribalism. For his definition allows us Christians to embrace tribalism only from an assumed superior position.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For August 27, 2014

Aug 15


To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost and blogcast on grace and race including  his interview with Rev Leon Brown. This appeared on Heidelblog.


Our problem with race is an instance of a more general problem: tribalism. Though it is natural for us to divide into groups and have an affinity for each group, when loyalty to that group trumps our commitment to principles and morals so that what is right and wrong depends on who does what to whom, we have tribalism. And we have this problem with a number of different kinds of groups including, race, economic class, religion, political ideology, theology, and national identity.

And though the Church has the answer in the Gospel, it often seems that those outside the Church are living that answer while we get mired in tribalism.

One more problem here is that those of us who are White need to reach out knowing that we will not understand what Blacks have gone through because such understanding requires that we share their experiences ourselves. But we can still reach out by listening in order to learn, by being sympathetic, and by showing solidarity with those from different groups. We need to show solidarity with those from different races, economic classes, religions, political ideologies, theologies, different nations, and whatever else divides us.

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

Aug 26


To Joe Carter and his blogpost comparing Great Britain's economy to that of  the 50 states. This appeared in the acton blog


There are a number of problems here. First, if you want to criticize Great Britain's economy, realize that starting with Thatcher's regime, there was a neoliberal drive to privatize many of what was public services. In addition, there was an attack on some unions during that time. So what is it that we are singling out when criticizing England's economy when both economies still pursue neoliberlism?

But we also want to note that single variable evaluations do little to tell the whole story. For example, we can compare the purchasing power as done above. However, if we don't factor in state provided services, such as healthcare and other safety nets, then how do graphs like the one above give an adequate enough picture of wealth? This is especially true regarding healthcare because healthcare costs here are one of the most common causes for personal bankruptcy. How many people from the UK suffer from healthcare related bankruptcy?

We might also want to ask what similarities exist in the countries being compared. The above point about the UK adopting neoliberal capitalism is such and example of a commonality between the two. 

We might also want to ask what does comparing a nation that was once a mighty empire to the states prove? Does it prove that Britain should resort back to being an empire?

So we might ask what other information being excluded in order to try to prove the point above. Of course that point is that as long as we take care of the richest among us, the rest of us will do well.

-----------

To Anthony Bradley and his blogpost on when the Church was the center of society and took care of the poor. This appeared in the acton blog.

Are we comparing apples to oranges here? After all, when the church met needs during the 1600s, wasn't there a smaller population who were more dispersed with an agrarian lifestyle and economics? How does that compare to now? 

In addition, how well did the Church meet the needs of the poor especially of those who lived in urban areas? What were lives of the poor like right before FDR's programs? Did his programs help people who were previously living in poverty?

And how will the Church react to the nonChristian poor whose lifestyles go contrary to the Scriptures?

Finally, how interested are today's churches in meeting all of the necessary needs for all of the poor?

That we would want the Church to be more involved with poor is commendable. But to use that as an attack on government so that government can forget representing the poor because the Church is taking care of them seems to forget that our government should be a government of all of the people. 

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For July 23, 2014

To R. Scott Clark and his 2nd response to my comment on his blogpost questioning how biblical it is for the Church to try to change culture. This appeared in Heidelblog.


Dr. Clark,
When are you going to understand that quests for justice do not necessarily have anything to do with utopian eschatology? Many quests for justice have fixing an immediate problem as their focus just as when the session of a church intervene to fix an immediate problem when two people in a church have a dispute. This is what I pointed to when I wrote in my 2nd comment:

Also, if we are followers of God, shouldn’t we celebrate every act of justice and peace, regardless of how temporal, rather than thinking in all-or-nothing terms? 

or when I wrote

And finally, I don’t know of anyone who works for justice and peace who presume that they are Christ. Nobody. The ones I know aren’t looking to bring some sort of utopia or the final Kingdom of God. Rather, they are trying to partially address what is before them. 

So while you categorize the concerns which I and others have expressed as being out of bounds by misrepresenting us as being utopian, the problem is still there. Isn't there a problem of being a respecter of persons when we so eagerly preach to the individual sinner to repent of private sins but are silent in the face of system sins especially when these sins are committed by those with wealth and power? And historically speaking, the conservative church tends to align itself with wealth and power. So how does the silence before and thus complicity with sin help the Church be a minister of word, sacrament, and mercy?

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

To R. Scott Clark and his last response to my comments. This is my second attempt to reply to his response seeing that he blocked my last response. This appeared on his Heidelblog


This is my last comment on this discussion. The some questions that come to my mind here are:

1. What does classifying any attempt to improve the current system Utopian say about the current system?

2. Why do you insist that any attempt to improve on the current system is done from an eschatological perspective? I ask this especially because much of my views on changing the system come from secular scholars who do not have a Utopian vision and thus no eschatological perspective.

3. Is your view more based on the Bible or on an affinity for a more simple Christian life?

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

To Elise Hilton and her blogpost on whether the current border crisis was predictable. This appeared on the Acton Blog


When our foreign policies involved coups and support violent dictators and when unfair competition from trade agreements wreck financial sectors as well as temporarily employ workers until cheaper labor is found elsewhere, what shouldn't we expect on our border? To try to address the border crisis without acknowledging our part in creating the need to leave one's country is to embrace something beyond neurosis. 

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For April 9, 2014

April 4

To Elise Hilton and her Blogpost on Mozilla's intolerance to Conservative Christian views of marriage. This appeared on the Acton blog

Is it possible that this post hyperbole? After all, to say that the resignation of Brandon Eich because he contributed money to a California proposition banning same-sex marriage implies that religious conservatives need not apply to work at Mozilla is a bit of an overstatement. So is implying that to believe that it is ok for same-sex marriage is to reject the Biblical definition of marriage.

See, it was certainly intolerant of Mozilla to pressure Eich into resigning for making the contribution he did. But before Christians throw the first stone at intolerant progressives we should remember the history of persecution and the striving for rights that gays have had to endure. It wasn't that long ago when homosexuality was a criminal offense. Then my fellow Conservative Christians wanted  gays to be fired from certain jobs like teaching. Then my fellow Conservative Christians fought against laws allowing for same-sex marriage lest people in society think that homosexuality was normal and should be accepted. And now my fellow Christians want laws that allow Christian businesses to have the right to deny public services to same-sex weddings and even gay couples who are already married and the only intolerance that my fellow Christians notice is when it comes from the people they are asking society to persecute. 

This kind of selective perception indicates a blindness in how my fellow religiously conservative Christians perceive themselves. And that blind spot is a result of either the presumption of having a privileged status in society or having a pathological lack of awareness of how one's actions affect others or perhaps both. Whatever the reason for our shortsightedness, those who encourage a modern Christian martyr industry are leading the charge in filtering the past and present. And they are manipulating my fellow Conservative Christians into a stronger xenophobia as well as isolation from society. And it is tragic.

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


April 5

To R. Scott Clark and his brief blogpost on what happened to Brandon Eich at Mozilla. This was posted on Heidelblog

What happened to Brandon Eich was wrong. But how gays have been treated in this country was far worse. Homosexuality was first criminalized, then many Christians asked that gays be fired from certain jobs, then some Christians tried to prevent same-sex marriage, and now some Christians favor Jim Crow laws targeting gays. And what is our response?

Our response is to use instances like what happened to Eich in order to further a Christian martyr industry in this country to further separate Christians from nonChristians in this country. Yes, we now see some signs that the pendulum is swinging the other way but we didn't complain when pendulum was going in the other direction as it is in some African countries somewhat due to the influence of Christian missionaries. 

We all have a choice of being tribal here. That is we can join the gay rights fanatics, and note that not all favoring gay rights are fanatics, in one side or position ourselves on the side of those Christians who wish to prevent gays from enjoying full equality. In either case, we will imitate the other side by practicing tribalism, by adopting a gang mentality, by defining fair and unfair by who does what to whom. Or we can be principled by defending the equality and rights of all regardless of their view of gay rights.

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

To Anthony Bradley and his blogpost on the progressive plot to eliminate the normal boy. This appeared in the Acton blog.

Why is it that this website likes to scapegoat the nebulous group, "Progressives." Certainly there has been a progressive reaction to malehood but instead of totally rejecting or accepting that reaction, we should listen to see what we can learn. After all, learning from anyone does not imply agreement. Perhaps we need to examine whether what these "progressives" want to remedy in boys is a problem or a perceived cause of a problem.

If one happens to ask the left about education, you'll find that most Leftists will say that education is a bipartisan institution to teach and enforce compliance. That is part of what the No Child Left Behind, which had bipartisan support and targeted both boys and girls, was intended for. Don't ask kids to understand and think, simply demand that they memorize and regurgitate. In fact, if you look at how the Left views education here, you'll find that, like the Church, it is considered to be just another institution of indoctrination to maintain the status quo for the benefit of those with wealth and power.

Is the problem being observed and mentioned here legitimate? Certainly. And there is no doubt that there is some progressive participation involved. But do all progressives agree with what is happening? No. Are there broader issues involved? Yes.  And are the some progressives the only ones involved in abnormalizing and drugging normal boys? Not at all especially since the pharmaceutical industry, a member of the free market, is now an active participant that has something to gain here.

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

To Marcia Christoff-Kurapovna and her blogpost on democracy and aristocracy. This appeared on the Imaginative Conservative blog

The good part of this post is that there is a refreshing honesty about the kind of "democracy" or republic designed by our founding fathers. It was a partial democracy where there would be voting but that control would remain in the hands of those with wealth--these were the ones who belonged to the "landed interest," that is the wealthy landowners.

But the bad part of this post is that it shares the same vulnerabilities as all other partial democracies. That weakness is the rule of one group of people over the other. And when those who rule view themselves as superior and the provider for others, at the most we could graciously call this a paternalistic democracy. Note that, according to what is written in this post, if everybody had an equal voice, then we would be ruled by a pejorative mob. We should note that all representative democracies are ruled by mobs. In fact, we could say that when the representatives in such representative democracies are those with wealth and power, we could describe such democracies not as places where we have mob rule, but as places where the Mob rules.

In any case, the aristocracy in such a democracy seems to quickly embrace the role of the pharisee in Jesus' parable of the two men praying. In that story, the pharisee thanked God that he was not like the tax-collector-sinner because he was righteous while the sinner was not. So think about how such a democracy would rule over a country where only the elite were righteous enough to be qualified to rule while everybody had to be protected from the masses. It makes sense that those who picture themselves as either being a part of the elite or dependent on them would favor such a partial and paternalistic democracy.

BTW, my apologies to the Imaginative Conservative Blog for listing the above comment as being blocked. I discovered later that it wasn't blocked. This is my fault.

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

April 6

To Joe Carter's blogpost against "distributionism" by calling it utopian.  This appeared on the Acton blog.


It seems that "distributionism" is another name for a kind of "distributed capitalism." It is where more individuals are more self-sufficient and own their own means of production. And the objection here is that it doesn't fit in with the current global economy.

Those defending the status quo call most proposed changes to the current structure utopian. And the implication here is that though what we have is imperfect, it is the best available in an imperfect world. Therefore, calls to change need not apply and those calling for change, though sometimes well-intentioned, are not just calling for something that is unrealistic and unattainable, they are calling for what could only hurt what we have worked so hard for in the end. So the defense of the status quo relies on an immune system that attacks any  calls for change by discrediting them so as to inhibit public inquiry. 

But what isn't really examined here is the direction in which the current global economy, an economy supported by the writer of this post, is taking us. For in the current global economic system, wealth and power are being consolidated. And wealth and power are being consolidated because more and more restrictions on those who have proven to be exceptional are being removed. While that consolidation can build bigger and more majestic structures, fewer people are in control and, as with any centralization of resources, the first concern of those in control is to preserve their own current status. And this blogpost against "distributionism," though claiming to share some of the concerns of those calling for change, follows the method of operation practiced by those who defend the system. And the question is why?

An irony that exists here is that the same people who fear the consolidation of power in the gov't fully embrace what leads to such a consolidation, which is the consolidation of wealth, so long as that those acquiring such wealth are in the private sector. So those who sound the alarm against too much power in the government the loudest are supporting those in the private sector with wealth who want a powerful government to exist because they are becoming more able to purchase that power. 

It isn't that I am a big fan of "distributionism," it is that our current direction needs changing. And it isn't utopian to inquire as to whether we can improve on the way things are. And it isn't utopian to think about whether different systems can make things better. But so long as we accept the standard line that calls any desire for changing the system utopian, we will be unable to change our current direction, a direction that makes our current system not only unsustainable, but self-destructive as well.

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


To Leon Bupkiss's response to my comment to a blogpost on the differences between the french and american revolutions. This was on the imaginative conservative blog. In his comment, Loen Bupkiss denies the existence of corporate liberty in favor of reducing all liberty to individual liberty

Leon,
Democracy is about corporate liberty. It is about community deciding on how it will exist. And the problem that exists for some conservatives is the notion of corporate liberty, it is the all-or-nothing thinking that comes with reducing all liberty to individual liberty. And all-or-nothing thinking approaches to individual liberty leads to tyranny. That is true even of the all approach to individual liberty because such an approach relieves the elite individual of all social responsibilities.


BTW, my apologies to the Imaginative Conservative Blog for listing the above comment as being blocked. I discovered later that it wasn't blocked. This is my fault.