Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For August 30, 2017

August 23

To Rev. Ben Johnson and his blogpost on Frank Bruin’s take on the Charlottesville protest. In that review, Bruni is said to have embraced identity politics. This appeared in the Acton Blog.

The problem with this article is the same problem that followers of Lenin have when they claim to be Socialists from a Marxist tradition. For what we should know about Lenin is that he did not practice what he preached. Thus, we should note the following about the West from the above article:

The traditional view of the West, inspired by Christianity, holds that a person’s primary identity is as a child of God. His defining attribute is his immortal soul which, through the illumination of the Holy Spirit and leading a moral life, can elevate anyone of any background to the heights of blessedness and contemplation. Rather than genetics, the Venerable Bede wrote, “Love alone, therefore, distinguishes between the children of God and the children of the devil.”

For when we look at the history of the West, what we see is race-based colonialism, slavery some of which was race-based, religious wars, economic and environmental exploitation, ethnic cleansing, imperial wars, and so forth. It should be evident that the West has oppressed its share of racial and religious groups. And all of that does not include how the West has traditionally treated the LGBT community. Is there any wonder why identity politics has emerged? From an objective view of how the West has treated people, it should be obvious that identity politics is necessary for some to survive. It is because, like Lenin, the West does not practice what it preaches.
Identity politics is defined in the following way:

a tendency for people of a particular religion, race, social background, etc., to form exclusive political alliances, moving away from traditional broad-based party politics.

From that definition, it seems that identity politics suffers the same vulnerability as any other group does regarding morals and treating others with dignity. That vulnerability is tribalism. Tribalism is when group loyalty becomes so great that one loses their objectivity in being aware of the weaknesses of one's own group and the merits of other groups. And with tribalism, our group competes with other groups for some coveted prize be that of wealth and prosperity  or control over new areas. Thus with tribalism, what is right and wrong depends on who does what to whom rather than on any moral standard that is universally applied. With tribalism, we have moral relativity rather than having absolute values and universal principles. And with tribalism, we have group authoritarianism where we respond to those who do not give our group the respect we think it deserves in a hostile and aggressive way. It is tribalism that turns the belonging to identity groups into idolatry.

Certainly some of the identity groups that clashed in Charlottesville demonstrated tribalism in how they so freely attacked opposing groups. But identity groups do not have a monopoly on tribalism. Tribalism can exist in any kind of group from identity groups  to ideological groups to political parties and so on. Tribalism can even exist in nations and civilizations where people think so highly of their own nation or civilization that they believe that their nation or civilization has everything to teach and nothing to learn from those outside their tribe--note that the wording there is an adaptation of a Martin Luther King Jr. statement.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

August 26

To R. Scott clark and his blogpost that complains about how the old definition of racism that relies on how one thinks about or acts toward those of a certain race is being replaced by a definition that revolves around privilege and class and thus whether one is racist can be determined by their position in society. This appeared in Heidelblog.

There are some good parts to this definition of racism, but there are some deficiencies as well. Confessing that racism is still a problem for all of us and that it can be subtle as well as open and brazen are strengths to this article by Clark.

But some of the deficiencies of this article includes the lack of a modern definition of racism that is causing concern. In addition, we have a pejorative use of the term 'Marxist' with the implication that because a definition is more Marxist, it must wrong. And finally, we have the assumption that the old definition of racism is adequate. And the test of whether the old definition of racism is adequate or not should not depend on white ideologues alone. Why? It is because 1) ideologues, and theologians are spiritual ideologues, insist on using their definitions, or ones accepted by them,  only to define a problem; 2) Ideologues insist on the primacy of their definitions over facts on the ground; 3) being white might mean that such definitions were formulated by those who had a conflict of interests; and 4) should the victims of racism be listened to and heard when formulating an adequate definition of racism. We should note that because our society revels in being punitive, and that being racist carries with it a harsh stigma, that we expect it normal for whites to face a conflict of interests in determining whether they are racists, how racist they are, and whether their creations, like their systems such as our economic system, involves, depends on, or revolves around racism.

In other words, Clark's opposition to the new definition of racism is much like the objections to history revisionism. And the validity of those objections depends on the adequacy in which history was first reported. So too, does the original  definition relied on by Clark adequately define racism we have and currently witness or experience it today? Clark assumes that the definition he relies on  is adequate and does not need to be revised or added to especially by a definition that perhaps challenges a possible sacred cow of his: our current economic system.
We might ask Clark whether slavery in the South and the economic system that depended on it demonstrated racism. And if it did, is it possible that our current economic system does the same? And if that is true, then does the new definition of racism about which Clark complains but never gives a precise definition of other than to pejoratively characterize as being Marxist has merits?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

August 26

To Gordon Arnold and his blogpost about the influence Jonathan Edwards had on our nation’s founding fathers. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

I am not sure about the claims that Edwards, in his own way, helped contribute to the idea of the American Revolution and independence. That some continuity is found between how Edwards exhibited or encouraged 'defiant individualism' or 'spiritual egalitarianism' with our Revolution and independence might be accidental or misperceived.

In terms of the continuity of Edwards' thoughts that were also held by those who were involved with the American Revolution, it is possible that it was accidental or that Edwards views and/or practices were merely the result of going along with a certain crowd from his own time. And trying to connect Edwards ideas about any 'spiritual egalitarianism' with our revolution and resulting independence might be due more to a undeservedly charitable view of our nation than any kind of real connection. The combination of our Revolution and the writing of The Constitution was, in the view of some, really about which set of elites would be in charge of our nation: Would it be American elites or British elites?

The idea that one's own time and/or place has a unique role in history, such as Edwards' view of New England and the millennium, is not uncommon. The people of other nations have believed something similar about their own countries. After all, history teaches us that claiming to be special is normal.

But regardless of the past, Edwards view of liberty seems to be at the heart of some of the changes in our society today especially regarding the legalization of same-sex marriage and rights for transgendered people. Is our liberty found in doing what we please or in doing what God demands. Can both sets of liberty coexist in our nation or must it be an exclusive-or choice? It seems to me that Edwards's view of liberty contributes to many of today's Christians are taking the latter option in defining liberty.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

August 28

To Joe Carter and his blogpost on what we need to know about hurricane Harvey hitting Houston. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition blog.

There are some other things we should know about the tragic Houston flood.

1   There is a need for a sufficient, rather than small, size government that can respond to huge natural disasters. Government resources that help people in tragedies don't emerge overnight, they must be built and maintained.
2    And speaking of government, we need to look at what regulations could have been in place that would have lessened the damage caused by such a strong storm. That was the case with Hurricane Katrina, that is the case now.

3    Not that there would be no longer any more strong hurricanes if we had already been addressing climate change issues, but we need to see if climate change contributed to the strength of the hurricane.

4    Finally, as we, the government, individual citizens, and private groups, liberally offer help to the residents of the Houston area whose lives have been turned upside down, we need to remind the elected officials of Texas of their responses to the calls for help after Hurricane Sandy hit the Eastern states of New York and New Jersey.

Do More People Share The Blame For Charlottesville Than The People Who Were There?

I know that with the Trump Administration, last week's news can become old news very quickly. But I wanted to review the article linked to below because it is perhaps one of the best articles written on what happened with the protests in Charlottesville. The article is by Leonard Pitts (click here for his bio) of the Miami Herald. In that article, Pitts notes that the violence and racism that occurred in Charlottesville had been building up for a time and that many of us who were not in Charlottesville must share blame for what happened there. And that message is a tough sell to people who almost always demand hear the message that their nation is the best nation in the whole world (click here for the article).

 Pitts starts off by blaming what happened in Charlottesville on our 'intellectual dishonesty' about race starting from beginning with the writing of The Constitution. He goes on and states that because of what happened in Charlottesville, we can no longer afford to avoid the racial problems we have. For not only did we see violence occur, we also saw white supremacists of all shades feel more free to demonstrate their hatred because they feel supported by the President.

Now where the rest of us come into play is our apathy regarding the changes made to the Voting Rights Act and the number of police officers who have abused and killed unarmed Blacks with impunity. And that does not include how Fox News and politicians benefited from our views on race.

Thus, Pitts is saying that what happened Charlottesville did not happen by itself. It had a context. Thus, more of us are responsible for the violence and the racial verbal attacks than just some of those who were there in person. For it isn't just the Trump Presidency that has animated the racist protesters in Charlottesville, it is also our lack of taking necessary stands which led to the protests and thus the conflicts between the protesters and counterprotesters.
 
So far, there is really nothing to disagree with Pitts's article. It ends with a challenge to us not to let racism and fascism--referring to Trump's apparently preferred style of being President--win.

We could add to Pitts wrote. We could add some of what it takes for us to successfully take on Pitts's challenge to us. I can think of two changes that must be made if racism is to be significantly reduced in this nation. The first change was suggested by Martin Luther King Jr. The second change is a challenge to how Christianity has taught us to structure society from the beginning--and I am speaking here as a passionate religiously conservative Christian (a.k.a., a flaming fundamentalist).

What did Martin Luther King Jr. say that addresses our problem with racism outside of his famous statement that we should judge people by the 'content of their character'? He said the following when speaking against the Vietnam War (click here for the source):

I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin the shift from a "thing-oriented" society to a "person-oriented" society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.

Here we should note that Capitalist economic systems do not promote person-oriented societies. Rather, they promote thing-oriented societies because any Capitalist economic system is primarily judged by how well it distributes material goods. Capitalist economic systems do not promote counting people as being more important than the things King mentioned. So right away we have a problem in address racism because of our economic system.

Why did King say what was quoted above? My guess is that he thought that for as long as people counted things as being more important than people, that they would not order their government to spend enough on the resources required to eliminate poverty. If that is how he saw it, then I would agree with him; but I also would add one more point. That point being that for as long as things are more important to us than people, then we will have racism because we compete for things in groups. This encourages a certain tribalism. And the groups that have been most competitive for wealth in our nation's history are those that have included race as part of their definition. Thus, we are put at odds with others which have been significantly based on race.

In any event, unless society changes so that it cares more for people than for things, we will never see the end of racism. This what King told us decades ago.

Another change we must undertake is how we respond to racism. First, we should note that racism exists on a continuum rather than at a specific point. Racism is expressed in a variety of ways other than what we saw expressed by the white supremacist and nazi groups. We need to realize that there are also subtle ways in which racism is expressed. Pitts understands this from his objection to people watching news reports on police abusing and killing Blacks with impunity. A sign of racism here exists when we start questioning the police only when whites, like the woman from Australia, are killed by a non-white police officer.

But noting that racism exists on a continuum is not the change being mentioned here. The change being mentioned here is that with the stigma that the label 'racist' brings, honestly looking at ourselves to determine if we have any racism in us causes a conflict of interests. For who wants to be stuck with the stigma of being called a racist? How can one honestly face the question of whether one is even a mild racist when there is such a stigma for being labeled a racist?

The problem rests in the scenario where racism can't be tolerated and we live in a punitive-oriented society. That means that when someone does something wrong, society's first response is to punish by inflicting pain on the guilty party. And this first response isn't practiced by our legal system alone. If we think of the blogs and how someone who expresses an idea that disagrees with the current group think is treated, we see much evidence that supports the notion that we live in a punitive-oriented society.  For many times, such a person is pelted with insults and verbal abuse and these come from additional sources than from trolls.

It seems that many in our society revel putting people on pedestals only to see them fall. Gossip columns are not the only place where this occurs. This tendency to respond with punishment first when a perceived transgression occurs comes from our Christian history. For many a Protestant unconsciously regard temporal punishments here as a purgatory on earth to cleanse the exposed sinner. But if we were really aware of our own sins and what we deserve, we would be far less eager to see others punished for their sins. And that is the religious irony that exists here.

So one possible solution is, in addition to society becoming more person-oriented and less thing-oriented, is for us to become less dependent on punishment and the infliction of pain in order to change people. That doesn't mean that punishment is never used. It simply means that, in many cases, punishment should not be our first response when someone does something wrong. So instead of looking to punish a person who demonstrates racist attitudes and/or actions, we should seek to persuade the person to change. For if the fear of punishment, such as the stigma that comes with being called a 'racist,' causes a conflict of interests that prevents us from seeing racism in ourselves, perhaps the removal of punishment as a first resort would provide a necessary amnesty to help us be more honest with ourselves and to at least partially change from our racist ways and attitudes.

This means that how we protest against the white supremacists and nazis must change from engaging in verbally and/or physically violent confrontations to that of seeking to win people over from harm they do to both themselves and others when they harbor racist attitudes and exercise harmful racist actions. However, we should note that such a plea for a soft reaction to racism so that people would be enabled to look at themselves honestly must seem rather sheepish to those who have suffered from being victims of racism. It will also look like another form of privilege if we don't extend to them this hesitancy to resort to punishment when they do things wrong.

Comments Which Conservatives Blog From Their Blogs For August 22, 2017

Aug 2

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost warning Christians not to marry non-Christians because of how one can be uniting Christianity with idolatry when doing so. This appeared in Heidelblog.

There is a very legitimate concern here expressed about not being joined with unbelievers in marriage because one is entering into a 'spiritual relation' with an unbeliever. And yet, believers have no qualms over entering other spiritual relations with unbeliever in other ways. To give an example, unless we have covenant nations today, it seems that patriotism provides another spiritual relation with unbelievers where Christians would face the risk of embracing a syncretism that joins Christianity with idolatry--here we should note that syncretism is what results when we try to pound a square peg into a round hole, both the peg and the hole will be damaged. And not only does patriotism present us with this temptation, so do all of the political and economic ideologies that we have an affinity for.
Of course the remedy to the dangers posed by the different idols we wished to be joined with: we pronounce them as being founded on God's Word. Such is all too a common practice among religiously conservative Christians who want to put their nation or specific ideologies on high pedestals that neither the nation nor any ideology merits. In addition, all too often our pronouncements provide just another example of how we prefer to think of the groups we are in as being special and superior. And that makes us more like pagans than any political or economic ideology we could embrace.
On the other hand, we live among unbelievers and that means that we will be joining them in causes and projects. And to do that we have to find points on which we agree. Living a monastic life is not an option

The trick to not letting the groups we belong to cause us to compromise our faith is to keep a certain detachment from them so we can objectively analyze them using the Scriptures. It is difficult and wrong to be so detached in marriage. Certainly, some Christians will marry non-Christians. At that point, what Paul says about how to live with unbelievers comes into play. But deciding that we can marry unbelievers is not an option we should take. But the rest of us should be careful in how we talk to such believers about their marriages considering the different ways we have found to be in spiritual relations with unbelievers ourselves.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Aug 18

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost on the need for a doctrine of humanity. In that blogpost, Clark describes where he thinks  various secular views and how some Christians fell short in properly understanding humanity. In addition, he linked nazism to Socialism. This appeared in the Heidelblog.

If you understood political ideologies, you would know that Nazism was not a kind of socialism. Nazism campaigned on a 'nation first,' traditional values platform. While the basic tenet of Marxist Socialism was the proletariat dictatorship, neither Lenin/Stalin nor the Nazis even pretended to be socialists. We should note that what we call Communism is merely Bolshevism. What is left out are the Mensheviks. What is left out is how the Soviet Union, under the leadership of Lenin, dismantled the soviets--soviets were peer elected workers committees that made decisions democratically. Marxism revolves around the control exercised by workers and often the Western Christian understanding of the abolition of private property in Marxism is grossly misunderstood.

What is also left out is how the Church has failed to recognize the humanity of people other than was mentioned above. The Western Church has often sided with wealth as it did prior to the French, Russian, and Spanish Revolutions. It does so today as conservative Protestantism, while failing to recognize the change from the Bretton-Woods system of Capitalism to neoliberal Capitalism, supports Capitalism and mistakenly equates of Socialism/Communism, which it often fails to distinguish,  with big government. Has Clark never heard of libertarian socialism? At the same time, it fails to recognize that when a nation increases the size of its military, it increases the size of its government and its power to intimidate or conquer other nations.

And while neoliberal Capitalism has made man into a disposable commodity even more than the previous forms of Capitalism, and while neoliberal Capitalism has allowed great harm to be done to the environment, and while left-leaning democracies were overthrown and replaced with dictatorships in order to install neoliberal capitalist economic systems, such as was done in Chile and Argentina in the 1970s, conservative Protestantism has supported this kind of economic system though it has greatly increased wealth disparity both between nations and within nations.

There are some good points made in the article above. And while there is some corporate self-awareness of Christians from the past, there seems to be no corporate self-awareness of how today's Christians of Clark's ilk fail to view their fellow man with the compassion and dignity taught in the Scriptures.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

August 22

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost on Charlottesville. In that blogpost, he talks about ties between both the white supremacists and nazis and antifa with Occupy. This appeared in Heidelblog

This is perhaps the most irresponsible post I've seen on this blog. The attempts to tie Occupy with both the Neo-Nazi participation in the Charlottesville protest and the antifa movement are beyond belief.

The alleged link is found in the person of Jason Kessler. That Kessler's involvement with Occupy doesn't tie Occupy with his current ventures. After all, Clark's source tells of how Kessler stopped participating at the Occupy Movement's encampment at Lee Park after Occupy members made it know that he wasn't wanted there because of his behavior (see http://www.dailyprogress.com/news/local/kessler-described-as-one-time-wannabe-liberal-activist/article_c072c0a0-83b8-11e7-ae17-6fb7a9eda079.html ).

Clark goes on though with the following:

According to the SPLC, which CNN accords impeachable authority, reports that the murderer was formerly a member of the Occupy movement.

The murderer being referenced to here refers to an unidentified person mentioned in Clark's first paragraph who is part of the white supremacist movement. But tying the unidentified murderer being referenced to Occupy was not backed by the source Clark provides (see https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/jason-kessler ). In fact, when one reads the SPLC article Clark references, Kessler appears to be portrayed as an attention seeking, unstable person who has had past run-ins with the law. [should note here that the last line of this paragraph could suggest that Kessler was the murderer being referenced. That is NOT the case. This last line about Kessler simply was inserted because of the previous discussion of the ties between Kessler and Occupy]

Then comes the following statement about antifa and Occupy:

When the two sides clashed, it was impossible to tell them apart. Antifa are, as CNN has conceded, are the same folks who made up the Occupy movement and those who have silenced free speech on campus.

The problem with that statement is that Occupy isn't even mentioned in the source Clark provides (see http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/14/us/what-is-antifa-trnd/index.html ). So how can it be linked to antifa or those who try to stifle free speech?

What is tragic here is that the subject of self-righteousness is an important and needed topic to discuss in today's world. So why does Clark engage in such an irresponsible attempt to tie Occupy with both groups that practiced violence in Charlottesville?

Finally, I was member of Occupy. I participated in 3 encampments and was a member of Occupy's Global Justice Working Group in NYC. We attracted a wide variety of people not all of whom represented what Occupy was about. Some of the people who attended our encampments included conservative libertarians, Democratic Party Co-opters, Democrats, and Socialists. We probably attracted some Black Bloc members and other violent anarchists, noting that not all anarchists are violent, but they had to comply with our nonviolent approach to protesting. Many of the people who helped start Occupy came from the Occupy movements from the Mediterranean region such as Greece and some Middle East nations. In addition, we had members from OTPOR, which was the group that played instrumental role in democratically overthrowing the dictator, Slobadon Milosevic) come speak to us on how to relate to the police.
One of the strengths of Occupy was that we emphasized being nonviolent. One of our weaknesses is that we did rely on nonviolently provoking the police so that their responses would get media attention. One of the strengths of Occupy was that everybody's voice was given a chance to be heard in an orderly fashion. And one person could derail any deliberated position statement, proposed policy or procedure by blocking it. This meant that there was no tyranny of the majority forced on the group.

At the same time, I am familiar with antifa having seen them in person. I believe Clark is right when he calls them thugs. I see no resemblance of what was promoted and practiced at Occupy in either how they present themselves or in their tactics. It seems that antifa seems content on reliving the street battles that occurred between the Communists and the nazis in pre-nazi Germany. They also seem ignorant of the fact that they failed back then to stop the nazis. And I really like Clark's suggestion that no one should show up to watch their rallies.

So why is Clark trying to tie Occupy with both the protesters and counterprotesters who engaged in violence at the Charlottesville protest when such a point is irrelevant to what he has to say on self-righteousness?