Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For November 7, 2018

Nov 4

To Joe Carter and his blogpost that cites a Joseph Loconte article on Luther’s 95 theses and what that did to promote religious liberty and a free conscience. This appeared in the Acton blog.

There are problems with Loconte's article on Luther and conscience. Besides the fact that appeals to our conscience do have a limit, we should note what else Luther supported. He sided with wealth and power by supporting a brutal suppression of the Peasant's Revolt as well as he, later on in life, expressed strong anti-Semitism sentiments and suggested harsh treatment of the Jews in Germany with the purpose of seeing them gone through attrition.

From these two facts, we see that even Luther put limits on the conscience: the consciences of some with whom he disagreed. The limits we should note about the conscience here is that we can't excuse our oppression of others on our consciences. This excusing of visiting injustice others occurred during Jim Crow when some Christians used the Scriptures to defend segregation and white supremacy. Here one could say that they included an appeal to consciences as a defense of their abuse of others. At least that is how they saw it and the same could be said of those who owned slaves or supported slavery that preceded Jim Crow.

How some Christians used their religious beliefs to defend the oppression of Blacks is an important point to bring up here because a similar defense is being made for Christians being able to discriminate against the the LGBT community. Though there are significant differences between the past marginalization of Blacks in during slavery and Jim Crow and how many religiously conservative Christians want to discriminate against the LGBT community today, the basic theme of not sharing society with a targeted group as equals is what both kinds of discrimination have in common.

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

Nov 5

To Caroline Roberts and her blogpost that references an article by Samuel Gregg that speaks of what is good and bad about our economy. In listing what is bad, Loconte lists several entitlement programs as causing current and future harm to our economy. Roberts’s article appeared in the Acton blog

In actuality, the article cited (see  https://stream.org/economy-booming-but-theres-trouble/ ) is rather disingenuous with its claims about the economy and especially about entitlement programs.
Is the economy improving? Yes, but it has been for a while especially during much of Obama's Presidency. In other words, part of the success of the economy has to do with the momentum created by what went on during the Obama Administration.
But is the economy improving for everyone? No. Wealth disparity continues to grow and with that there is a growing disparity in political power so that the wealthiest gain more and more political power. Wages for many jobs have not increased significantly for decades when accounting for inflation. Basically, we have an economy that revolves around the whims of major shareholders rather than one that accounts for the needs for everyone.

The grouping of entitlement programs as being blamed for 70% of the Federal budget is deliberately deceptive. Both Social Security and Medicare are self-funded and thus cannot negatively contribute to the National Deficit or Debt. In fact, the Federal Government has borrowed more money from the Social Security Trust fund to finance its spending than any other lender including China. Realize that that fund is financed by individual payers for their collective future for when they retire and much of that spending goes to corporations. Thus we are seeing a transfer of funds from the middle and lower economic classes to the higher ones. Also, to include Social Security and Medicare with programs that are not self-funding in this 70% of Federal spending is deliberately dishonest. In addition, one of the reasons why we have some current spending problems with Medicare is because of Federal laws that prohibit Medicare from negotiating lower drug costs with Pharmaceutical companies.

To merely call self-funded programs like Social Security and Medicare entitlement programs is false labeling. To call the non-self funded programs entitlement programs without including other labels is highly selective. Along with Social Security and Medicare, these programs are survival programs for many in this nation.

From an overall perspective, the most apparent reason for calling for cuts in these entitlement programs is that those with wealth want to pay less and less in taxes while enjoying the benefits from living in and/or doing business in our nation at the current and previous tax rates. Basically we have an ongoing Ayn Rand Coup of the government. But let's suppose we cut those "entitlement programs," what happens? This has been occurring in Greece and even the IMF has come to the conclusion that national austerity policies lead to economic harm. From other perspectives, these cuts lead to a society and culture that value things over people. Such according to Martin Luther King Jr maintain what he called the 'triplets of evil': racism, materialism, and militarism.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For February 14, 2018

Feb 9

To Joe Carter and his blogpost on the Dow Jones exchange and other economic tidbits. This appeared in the Acton blog.

There is something missing in what people, not just Christians, should know about the Dow Jones Industrial Average. The Dow, and other exchanges, shows that our economy revolves around the shareholder. And when that is the case, all other stakeholders of the economy are relegated to being mere objects of profit for the good pleasure of the shareholders. And when referring to shareholders here, we should note that since in publicly owned companies, each share gets a vote, those with the most shares, those who have the most  money to invest, get the most votes and thus are able to control the direction and decisions made by any publicly owned company. Those with the least power in such companies are the other stakeholders. The executive board of a given publicly owned company are there to serve the interest of the shareholders with the most say.

We should note something else about publicly owned companies. Only those who have bought stocks that were originally issued by the company have invested their money into the company. Those who bought shares from previous owners gain the political power of those owners but have invested no money into a given publicly owned company. So they are there to garner the profits of the company more so than those who bought shares from the company itself. This can make shareholders the economic equivalent of absentee slumlords.

The de facto purpose of many publicly owned companies is to maximize the ROI for the shareholders--which is part of maximizing profits for a given publicly owned company. Maximizing the ROI for investors and maximizing profits for the company presents themselves as a conflict of interest with paying all employees fair pay and in protecting the environment from any environmental footprint that the operation of the company and use of its products causes. In addition, part of the maximizing ROIs and profits causes companies to employ lobbyists whose job is to get the government to favor their own companies over the rest of the population. And part of getting the government to favor their own companies includes the use of both legal and illegal bribes in the form of providing favors for elected officials and giving campaign contributions to ensure elected officials job security.

Now the ability to make above observations doesn't require one to take any classes in economics. One only needs to read and ask economists a few questions. And the ability to draw implications from the above observations only requires one to employ logic. And so it doesn't take an economist to realize that we have an economy that exists to serve the interests of the wealthy while all others are made into disposable objects for profit. And why we tolerate a system where investors, who never have put a dime into a company, have all the say and workers, some of whom have labored for a company for decades, are mere disposable objects for profit who have no say in the company is a mystery for a nation that once was a "Christian nation" whose scriptures that teach that the love of money is strongly associated with evil. 

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

To Caroline Roberts and her blogpost on how Millennials prefer Socialism. This appeared in the Acton blog.

I would agree that Millennials don't know what socialism is. But what is also true is that they could never learn about socialism from its conservative antagonists. For those conservative antagonists of socialism are content both to be  historical opportunists and content to describe socialism as a monolith.

First, what many conservatives called socialism was Bolshevism. And the leader of the revolution that made Bolshevism into Communism was not only criticized by some of his socialist contemporaries for introducing a bourgeoisie dictatorship, Lenin mocked those to the left of him as being 'infantile'--a description that seems some what synonymous with some conservative criticisms of socialism. This, as well as Mao's and Castro's revolutions are what conservative antagonists of Socialism want people to think about when they think about Socialism. Of course, conservative antagonists of Socialism forget that, in Nicaragua, a leftist revolution turned to a democracy rather than continued a dictatorship. In addition,  conservative antagonists forget that many of the leftist revolutions were executed in order to overthrow Capitalist supported dictatorships. Also, conservative antagonists forget that some Socialist leaders were democratically elected by their people. Thus a very selective use of history is opportunistically employed by many conservative antagonists of Socialism.

Second, if many socialists dissented from what Lenin and those who followed him did, how is it that socialism could rightfully viewed as a monolith? And yet, conservative are more than happy to do that. In addition, what helped Bolshevism obtain the power it wanted was due to a walkout of a Socialist Russian Congress by the Mensheviks. In addition, not only did Lenin purge his own Socialist party, he called those on the left who opposed him 'infantile.' Socialist detractors denounced Lenin for the structure of his government and how he ruled. So how is that conservative antagonists of Socialism can honestly portray Socialism as a monolith?

Let's be clear, the number 1 priority of Socialism from the Marxist tradition is the redistribution of power, not wealth, into the hands of workers. Why? It is because the structure of Capitalism relegates workers to that of being disposable objects. So Marx saw the empowering of workers, what he called the 'proletariat dictatorship,' as the way to change society from being controlled by the bourgeoisie to that of his utopian classless society.

Now, one doesn't have to agree with Marx on his belief in a utopian dreams or in the proletariat dictatorship to believe in the empowering of workers. For the closest thing we have to Marxism in the world today can be found in Germany, which has a very successful economy, that has laws called codetermination laws. In those laws, publicly owned companies of varying sizes are required to have certain percentages of workers on a company's executive board. This partial transfer of power from owners/employers to workers partially follows Marx's Socialism. And thus Germany's use of codetermination starts to approach the Marxist socialism that is so demeaned conservative antagonists.

As mentioned before, the monolithic view of socialism is based on some of the socialist revolutions that overthrew dictators who were supported by Capitalists. Those Capitalists that supported the dictators came from both within nations that went through a revolution as well as capitalists from nations like the the US. Emerging socialist leaders who were democratically elected to office often found themselves targeted by the US for regime changes that saw the replacement of democratic processes with dictators who showed favor to American business interests. Such examples can be found in Iran ('53), Guatemala ('54), Brazil (around '64), Greece ('67), and Chile ('73). An example where a leftist revolution that resulted in a democracy but was viciously attacked by terrorists sponsored by the US can be seen in Nicaragua during the 1980s. There are other examples capitalist engineered coups. But none of Capitalism's attacks on democracies and support for dictators ever finds their way into the comments made by conservative antagonists of socialism. I wonder why.

With growing wealth disparity both within nations and between nations along with an economic caste system maintained by the use of  comparative advantage, we see that today's form of Capitalism, which is called neoliberalism, gives more and more power to those with wealth even over their own nations' governments as well as over the governments of other nations. This form of Capitalism is not the same form of Capitalism that followed WW II. And yet, just as conservative antagonists of Socialism refer to Socialism as a monolith, they do the same to Capitalism. Thus, the successes of a previous form of Capitalism, a Keynesian form called the Bretton-Woods system in which egalitarian economic growth was seen in all of America's economic classes even though it was under a state-capitalism model, are attributed to today's neoliberalism. And such dishonesty can fly under the radar for most people because they are preoccupied with other matters and rely on the stereotypes of economic systems provided by conservative defenders of not just Capitalism, but of neoliberalism.

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

Feb 10

To Joseph Mussomeli and his article protesting victimology and what he sees as other inappropriate reactions to past oppressions. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

What is apparent in the above article is that once oppression stops, the writer of the article expects the victim to think and act as if the oppression never existed. And it isn't just Mussomeli who expects that; it is those groups who oppressed others who believe that as well. Such an expectation is the wishful thinking of all oppressors and their allies everywhere. For such an expectation basically says that though the oppression suffered was wrong, it was really not so bad that there should be long-term aftereffects. Such an expectation is at least a denial of the full guilt that should be felt by the oppressors.

After all, we are talking about centuries of severe marginalization for Blacks and the LGBT community in this nation--of course, let's not forget Native Americans and other minorities. And that marginalization, though significantly reduced, is still in effect today. We still have significant racism in our nation. And though same-sex marriage is now legal, the LGBT community is far from experiencing an equal status in society in many places in our nation.

If we were to look at the marginalization and oppression of different groups as we look at severe traumas, we wouldn't be surprised at what some would call overreactions and/or overcompensation for past wrongs. So why should we be upset by what conservatives call 'victimology'? This is an important question because the term itself is just meant to demean the degree of past suffering certain groups experienced for very long periods of time. We shouldn't be upset at 'victimology' and other reactions to past and current oppression by those who have been oppressed and marginalized because they are exhibiting normal human reactions to past, and unfortunately still current, horrific conditions.

The above article shows more concern for the sensitive feelings of groups guilty of being oppressors than it is concerned for the reactions of victims that have gone too far. And considering that those groups of oppressors consist mainly of white, male Christians, what we see is that an appropriate repentance has never been experienced  by my fellow white, male Christians. Rather, what we is a tribal response that only guarantees future conflicts and thus crushes all hopes for any kind of real resolution. And worst of all, what we see is a case being made by these white, male Christians that says: "Even though we made mistakes, we still deserve our place of supremacy over all others.."

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For October 18, 2017

Oct 17

To John Gallagher and his blogpost that commends President Trump for withdrawing from the Paris Climate Agreement. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative Blog.

The logic and facts used by Gallagher in the above article are deeply flawed. For one thing, criticisms of the Paris Climate Agreement from environmentalists is because the agreement is inadequate, not invasive.  And it seems that the Trump Administration's objections to the agreement has nothing to do with forging our nation's own path in protecting the environment. For his administration is cutting the clean air and water standards set by the Obama Administration. Rather, the actions of his administration revolve around cutting social responsibilities for corporations so that they can increase short-term profits and ROIs for investors instead of spending money on protecting the environment.

Gallagher's use of the failure of the Kellogg-Briand Pact as an argument for rejecting the Paris Climate Agreement is logically flawed. How is that we  can develop a precedent for refusing to participate in all international agreements based on a failed agreement from the 1920s?

And celebrating Trump's withdraw from the agreement because it is an exercise in national sovereignty when the issue is the environmental health of the world is like celebrating the decision of a person who drives their car without any regard for traffic laws as an exercise in personal freedom.

Some controls that government puts on us citizens are valid and are for the protection and welfare of others. The same applies to some international agreements that can serve to protect other nations and promote their welfare.

Whether its Gallagher's thinking that one failed international agreement implies that we must reject all international agreements or  his warning that progressives are looking to control our future implying that we must reject all progressive proposals and ideas exhibit all-or-nothing thinking patterns that reject the notion that we examine proposals and agreements on a case-by-case basis. Such thinking is not psychologically healthy for it is overly simplistic and fails to recognize the complexities of the world around us.

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

To Joe Carter and his blogpost that celebrates the reduction in the number of people who living in extreme poverty across in the world. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition blog.

The logic behind Carter's article is flawed? Why? Because the eradication of extreme poverty is based on the measuring of a single variable based on a single standard without regard for understanding any of the dynamics involved. So assume that extreme poverty has diminished, what grounds, given in the article, do we have for concluding that such a reduction will continue or mean anything?

We should note the price China has had to pay for the reduction of extreme poverty in their nation. Not only do you have many people in China working in sweatshop labor conditions, we have seen a monumental increase in the pollution of the environment there. In addition, how many people in China actually escape extreme poverty just because they are living on $1.90 or more per day? Does living on $1.90 per day in major city in China mean that one is not living in extreme poverty? And what should we say about China's political/economic system, which is far different from the political/economic system in Western nations simply because fewer people in China are living on less than $1.90 per day?

We might also ask who suffered in order for China to reduce the number of people? Are there more people living in poverty, though not extreme poverty as measured by the less than $1.90 per day standard elsewhere because they lost their jobs to Chinese workers?

And when talking about India, we might want to consider that the number of people who are forced into slave labor has significantly increased in the recent past. So do slaves makeup some of those who are now living on $1.90 or more per day? If so, how the reduction in number of those who live on $1.90 per day significant?

How much is there to really celebrate here?

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

To Caroline Roberts and her blogpost that cites a Samuel Gregg article on the relationship between intellectuals and the free economy. This appeared in the Acton blog.

Link to cited article:
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2017/10/20255/

There are at least a couple of Gregg's ideas that need to be challenged. First, that there is more than one role government can play with regard to the economy. Yes, government can see itself as a manager of the economy. And in order to justify such a position, government can claim to be a vanguard for the interests of the people. But that claim to having a vanguard role, as seen with Lenin's hijacking of the Russian Revolution, can be more of a rationalization rather than a justification for exercising control in the nation's economy.

On the other hand, government can act as the representative of the people to those in business telling them how they can act in society. Whether government acts this way depends on the integrity of its elected representatives and/or a structure of  government where people are represented by both vocation. We should note that before Lenin hijacked the Russian Revolution, the creation of soviets was providing for the Russian government the capability to allow for the representation of people based on vocation provided that one's vocation was practiced by the proletariat. That kind of capability was rejected by both the Tsars and Lenin. That rejection exercised by Lenin triggered  Rosa Luxemburg's charge that Lenin had instituted a bourgeois dictatorship rather than a Marxist regime. We should note that in America, we are doubly represented by location with no representation by vocation for those jobs that are considered to be proletariat vacations.

BTW, we should note that government can also act as a servant of business. Whether we want to look at the neoliberal revolution-coups that existed in South America, such as in Chilé in 1973 or Argentina in the 1970s, we see that coups were supported by the US to install governments that were friendly to a kind of free market economy called neoliberalism. We should note that in such instances, only the markets were free while the government acted as a ice hockey enforcer on all those who resisted or sometimes even questioned the validity of radically free markets. We should note that some consider our political system to be an oligarchy rather than democracy (see http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746 ).

The second of Gregg's points that needs to be challenged is the roll of intellectuals in the economy. Gregg cited Marx's influence as an example where an intellectual gave direction for economics. Here we should note that intellectuals cannot provide a recognized way forward unless their analysis of the past or present resonates with the perceived experiences of enough people. Why was Marx seen as a leading intellectual? It was because of the accuracy of his analysis of both some of the past and the present economic conditions of his time. But for the analysis of any intellectual to gain public favor, the analysis must also resonate with the values of enough people. This is why Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged has become so influential. It is because her values that celebrates selfishness resonate with enough who have means and live privileged lives that her ideas are so influential in our economy. In that sense, the role of intellectuals, while providing leadership, does not provide the kind of leadership over the economy which Gregg sees.





  

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

July 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

July 3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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