Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For July 29, 2015

July 21

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost quote that claims that the Left's Identity politics has control over all of society's driving institutions including all parts of the government and the media and thus blames it for closing American minds as well as a host of other problems. This appeared in Heidelblog.

Bloom was against indifference. But the cause for indifference when he expressed his concerns is not at work today. Rather, what is causing indifference is more accurately identified by Francis Schaeffer. To Schaeffer, the threat of the day consisted of two idols: personal peace and prosperity. The first idol said was defined as one not caring about those who are suffering whether they were neighbors or the one suffering lived on the other side of the globe. These second idol was prosperity itself. King, whether knowingly or not, agreed with Schaeffer about the second idol. For King stated that as long as we are more concerned about profits, gadgets, and property rights, we are a 'thing-oriented society' rather than a 'person-oriented society.' And for as long as we are the latter, the triplets of racism, materialism, and war could not be undone. We should note that for King, the reference to materialism was really a reference to a multisided object which had materials on one side and economic exploitation on another side.

Now I write the above because from my 19 and 1/2 years experience of teaching in college, it is not leftist faculty who are closing the American mind in college. It the ever increasing control exercised by administration who are businessfying their institutions so that it can tell faculty that students are customers in an effort to control to educational process. And part of the businessfication of college also includes with that course offering emphasis on vocational training and decline in the offering of liberal arts majors. The more businessfied college becomes, the more students are pushed in the direction of being thing-oriented rather than person-oriented.

The above blogpost quote seems to be nothing more than a lamenting of the loss of privilege by a group eager to scapegoat its replacement for all of today's troubles, which was done in the article cited. But since their scapegoat no longer is in the driver's seat in colleges today, the charges ends up being empty. That is not to say that there are no abuses from the PC crowd, there are. It is to say that the effects those problems have are being exaggerated without any due reference to the need for a PC crowd and what it gets right. So while the above blogpost quote wants to target the elite universities, assuming that it accurately portrays them, what about the all of the other colleges that produced the vast majority of graduates and thus having at least potentially a greater influence over society?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

July 27

To William Doino and his blogpost about the errors of Liberation Theology. This appeared on the First Things blog.

What I find disturbing here is how easily Marxism is painted with a single brush. In addition, there is the assertion here that Christians should have nothing to do with Marxism. At the same time, while acknowledging the hardships and injustices to which Liberation Theologians were responding, nothing is said about the Capitalist system that produced such troubles nor was anything said about who was supporting the paramilitary troops who so persecuted Liberation Theologians.

There is no contradiction between agreeing with Marx's analysis of Capitalism and Christianity. The problems with Marx really lie in his solutions. But Christians can adapt some of those solutions and there is an important reason why we should. The exploitations that are inherent in Capitalism demands that we seriously learn from its critics, like Marxism. Martin Luther King Jr., who had no high regard for the Soviet Union's Communism still understood that it provided a corrective to Capitalism's overemphasis on both the individual and its own promotion of materialism. And we should note here that much of the exploitation that is such a part of Capitalism is because of its dependence on and promotion of the consolidation of wealth and thus power. That oppression from an upper class, though not being the only source for conflict between people, plays a predominant role in the history of mankind. Thus the redistribution of power first and wealth second cannot only provide some structural safeguards from Capitalism's exploitation of people and the environment, it can also put people in the position where they must act more conscientiously toward others.

We should note here that one of Martin Luther King's mistakes in judging Marxism was that he equated what Lenin and Stalin created in the Soviet Union was the epitome of Marxism. Too many Marxists, even from the time of Lenin, opposed that form of Marxism and were more than eager to distance Lenin from Marx. Whether one agrees with their assessments of the differences between Lenin and Marx is not the issue; the point is that Marxism is not some monolith that will forever have the same relationship with Christianity.
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

July 28

To Ryan T. Anderson and his blogpost that warns us that religious liberties are being threatened by the SCOTUS decision on same-sex marriage and America's changing values. This appeared on the Firstthings website

Ok, let's return to the good ole days of America's founding so we can reacquire what our founders had. Of course, if you were Black, Native American, or a woman, the Biblical values recognized back then would subject you to the White man. And the Constitution and other documents would tell you that you would not be subjected to just any White man, you would fall under the reign of White men who were were landowners.

Of course, things changed in this country but not because we stayed with those original Biblical values. Though we fought a war to eliminate slavery, Jim Crow ensured that we would have an ordered liberty. And religious values were used to support that hierarchy. A similar hierarchy existed with regard to women. And what emancipated them were the same religious liberties that enslaved them--not. So perhaps those two examples are proof for some that the same religious values that moved our society to once criminalize and now persecute those who have a different sexual orientation could never guarantee the religious liberties of those same people who have been marginalized because of their sexual orientation. Of course, bakers florists and photographers say thank you to those same values.

Finally, we need to see why some push for limited government. For those who favor limited government know that democracy is a form of government. So if one promotes limited government, one also promotes a limited democracy. And when democracy is limited, that is when collective self-governance is limited, then power is procured by elites in the private sector with no one strong enough to stop them. In fact, with the lack of either regulation itself or the enforcement of regulations, what has arisen are financial institutions that are too big to control. It is here that government is like love in one way: size doesn't matter, fidelity does. When wealth and power are allowed to consolidate in elite portions of the private sector and the voting public becomes apathetic to what its government is doing, government naturally becomes unfaithful and thus it can use its great power to either rule over or support wealth and power from the private sector, or, if it is small, it become impotent to handle the challenges presented by elite sectors from the public sector.

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





The First Things Blog had put a 'Removed' notice next to the comment below.  Some time after that they reversed that decision and published it.
 
To Carl Trueman and his blogpost about finding a Calvary Option to responding to the SCOTUS decision on same-sex marriage. His option basically said that we should live our Christian lives the way we were before the decision. This appeared in the First Things blog.

Carl,
there are some things in your life that shouldn't change. The life you have with the Church and your wife should remain. But here are some things that should change. Just as you have warned us against same-sex marriage, you should also preach against economic exploitation, the destruction of the environment, and the reliance on militarism and war.

Why should you change in the ways suggested above? Because real Christians are victims of economic exploitation, destruction of the environment, and the willingness to rely on militarism and war. But not only that, real sinners, including some Christians, are perpetrators of economic exploitation, destruction of the environment, and the willingness to rely on militarism and war. So if you add to your preaching, challenges against economic exploitation, destruction to the environment, and the reliance on militarism and war, perhaps your opposition to same-sex marriage will be interpreted differently by those outside the Church. So all you need to change is the scope of your ministry.

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

To Elise Hilton and her blogpost on the certainty that entrepreneurs can rescue communities by their economic dynamics. This appeared in the Acton blog.

Markets are one place where value is created. And that slices several ways. First, there are other places where value is created because not all value is monetary. In addition, the markets can be manipulated to serve a few rather than many. Third, the overall system itself determines value and that isn't always a good thing.

Neither people nor products shouldn be reduced to monetary value. Yes, in an age where greed reigns,  the monetary values that markets produce carry much weight. But society can assign other values besides monetary value. Societies can recognize the intrinsic value of each person and thus offer safety nets to those who aren't producing an adequate value to the markets. When the only value people and things have is the monetary value from the markets, then we've seen the falling of the shroud of the love of money.

That markets can be manipulated is a given. That they are manipulated to give some a competitive advantage over others to the extent that the financial survival of others is threatened is ominous.  And we should note that not all manipulation practiced by the markets is illegal. For example, when globalization was applied to the labor force of different kinds of industries, such as the textile industry, the supply of workers increased dramatically thus cutting the cost of that labor. Sweatshop labor, both here and abroad, was a result of the globalization. And the market responded by providing cheaper prices for some clothing. But invisible people paid the cost for those lower prices.

We should also note that when the labor force for other industries was globalized, continued offshoring was the result. This increased the supply of low skilled labor domestically had a predictable result of freezing or even lowering wages for low skilled employees. BTW, owners of different industries are the ones who benefited the most from this globalization. So did those consumers whose jobs were neither offshored nor were impacted by lower wages. So when labor for certain industries was globalized, the value for same work as before was reassigned a lower value by the same markets being exalted here.

Finally, we need to address the system. Marx noted that the labor power of wage earners had become a commodity just as much as raw material and other commodities used in production were. This objectified the wage earner and made him/her disposable since a business could always replace the wage earners with new ones who were willing to work for less. What also became disposable were both the families of the wage earners as well as their communities because both were dependent on what the wage earner made. If we add to that mix that Capitalism is always changing the means of production, this puts many wage earners at risk in becoming surplus people in society --the term 'surplus people,' if memory serves, comes from Naomi Klein.

Yes, we want people to be productive and to earn good pay. However, if the system is designed to enrich the wealthy at the expense of many others, then many entrepreneurial ventures can only bring disillusionment. And this will continue to be the case for long as the market value of people and things is the only pertinent value recognized by society. And that the system is designed to enrich the wealthy at the expense of many others is easily shown by determining who loses that which has the most critical value during our economic busts and who gains the most wealth during our economic recoveries.
 

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For June 17, 2015

Please note that for around a month the posting schedule will change on this blog. There will be a post every Tuesday and a post on Wednesdays when feasible.


May 29

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost calling climate science a fad. This appeared in the Heidelblog.

The biggest challenge that comes with climate change doesn't revolve around science, it revolves around materialism. Those who cannot accept the possible changes in life that acceptance of climate change demands find reasons for denying both the facts and possibilities. Facts such as the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere and oceans, the increasing number of dead zones in the oceans, or the thawing of the tundra along with the release of greenhouse gasses such as methane that comes with it. Possibilities include the approach of a tipping point from which there is no return and the climate changes that comes with it.

A scientific approach would look to test the possibilities. But those addicted to materialism or for other reasons who support the status quo deny the facts around them and refuse to consider the possibilities that exist. 

The history cited in the above article above does not address the facts and possibilities associated with climate change. Rather, the above citing of history is a power play; it is an attempt to claim authority over science and thus the issue of climate change. The history cited above demands that the audience trusts the Church and Christianity over those in science. It is a variation on a theme seen when Galileo and Copernicus were condemned by the Church because what they were saying was stealing the Church's thunder.

We shouldn't be surprised about power plays such as the one exercised by this article because the history of the Church is replete with such examples of the Church. And such examples show the Church using its authority to serve wealth and power whether that wealth and power is the Church itself or some other source. And for the West, wealth and power are best served by preserving the materialism that comes with our economic system. And part of that materialism includes eliminating the chains of social responsibilities that come with the former standard definitions of the word stakeholder. 

A stakeholder is anyone impacted by a business. And with that definition comes business' responsibility to listen to and consider the interests and concerns of all the stakeholders involved. Isn't the cutting of social responsibilities what we see when jobs are switched overseas to sweatshop factories or when the environment suffers from how we extract fossil fuel resources such as in the mountain top removal of coal? Are we keeping regimes in Africa in power because of the freedoms they are bringing to their people or because of the economic gains our businesses obtain from their tyrannical rule? And isn't that what we see when our materialistic and consumeristic way of life leaves many deprived while it is possibly killing the future of our descendants?

And while we fight against homosexuality and same-sex marriage as if our lives depend on it, we say nothing about our unjust wars based on lies conducted by our own nation, the economic exploitation of Capitalism, and the destruction of the environment caused by our economic system and our way of life. In other words, this article tells us to keep the status quo by being apathetic to the welfare of others and thus obedient to those with wealth and power because there is nothing to fear about the future. Ironic that such a message should be pronounced by a theologian when those in the Old Testament who preached similar messages were called false prophets.

And what is the key apologetic here that preserves the hope that we don't have to change? That 100% of the scientists don't agree. Of course, that apologetic ignores the actual percentage of scientists who are sounding the alarm.

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

June 14

To Steve Hays' May 26 response comment to my comment saying that my analogy of Nazi suppression of rights was incoherent in defending equal rights for those in the LGBT community. This appeared in Denny Burk's post on gay marriage being against Christian teaching in denny Burk's blog'

Steve,
Incoherent? All I wrote was that the Nazis opposed recognizing some groups because they oppose their vices is hardly incoherent. And drawing an analogy to the denial of equality to those in the LGBT community for the same reason is hardly incoherent. Remember that it was the Nazis who were into suppression. 

What we need to distinguish is the moral demands we are to put on fellow believers from the moral demands to be put on society. The moment we cannot make that distinction is the moment we confuse the roles of both society and the Church. The argument that many conservative Christians have made against recognizing the equality of those in the LGBT community is that their immoral sexual orientation causes them to forfeit any claim of equality in society. Thus, you say that I am comparing unlike things.

But in a land based on religious liberty, who am I to say that those in the LGBT community are not my equals in society? And considering that Paul follows his Romans 1's comments about homosexuality with Romans 2:1, who am I to look down on those in the LGBT community. And I mention this because this is what it is all about: It is about the insistence made by some conservative Christians that they are above, and thus have the right to suppress, those in the LGBT community. Some Conservative Christians are claiming to be the morally superior people. And with that, we return to the Nazis and not only their suppressions of others, but the reasons why they felt entitled to the right of suppressing others. That is certainly not incoherent.

Finally, totalitarianism works against 2 kinds of liberty: individual liberty and group liberty (a.k.a., democracy). We find that our fellow conservative Christians oppose both kinds of liberties for those who are different than themselves. In the end, we find many fellow Conservative Christians to be suffering from xenophobia. In itself, that isn't a bad thing; but it does hurt our witness to the Gospel.

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

June 16

To Joe Carter and his blogpost on the Pope, global warming and Catholics. This appeared in the Acton blog.


Perhaps we should note that the real resistance to responding to the accumulation of greenhouse gases in both the atmosphere and the oceans comes from those who want to see as few to zero restrictions on businesses and their activities. In other words, the real resistance to global warming comes from hawkish supporters of Capitalism who believe that eternal growth is possible in a finite world.

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

To Elise Hilton and her blogpost about a coming cultural implosion that will be the result of a lack of faith. This was posted in the Acton blog.


This article would be easier to take if it were not for history. HIstory has taught us that followers of Jesus Christ, if how they have treated others is a reflection, have not always been all that happy. We can think of our country's early days when 9 of the 13 colonies had state churches. The presence of state churches often included religious intolerance to varying degrees of other denominations and religions. And we could include with that intolerance the choice of many Christians to favor mammon over morals in their support and practice of slavery as well as their part in the ethnic cleansing of the land of America's indigenous population.

Fast-forward to today and we see that the Conservative Christian definition of religious freedom still includes protecting intolerance as practiced by these same Christians. Only here, the target is the LGBT community whose moral standards qualify them as having a lesser rather than equal status in society--that is according to many Conservative Christians.

Again, if happiness is measured by how we treat others, then the claims made above about the highest level of happiness coming from faith in Christ are contradicted by the actions of many Conservative Christians.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For May 6, 2015

May 1

To Gavin Ortlund and his blogpost on when a leader falls. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.

Perhaps leaders letting us down is a reminder of how their pedestals should never be higher than a step or two.

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

To Joe Carter and his blogpost on how same-sex marriage threatens Christian Schools. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.

There is a broader problem here. The Conservative Christian reaction against same-sex marriage has, for the most part, revolved around how its legalization will affect Conservative Christians. Very little attention is paid to issues of equality and how same-sex marriage has the potential of reducing promiscuity in the LGBT community which, in turn, could reduce the transmissions of STDs. Nor is there any discussion about the religious rights of those in the LGBT community who are not atheists and who believe that God blesses same-sex marriage.

This primary concern for how same-sex marriage affects us does not lead outsiders to want to hear the Gospel more objectively. The stance of many fellow Christians of associating calling homosexuality sin with marginalizing those in the LGBT community in society by not recognizing their equality is what will cause problems for Christians if same-sex marriage deemed constitutional. That is because this marginalization was a push on the pendulum and now the pendulum is returning to swing the other way.

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

May 4

To Daniel Darling and his blogpost claiming that we cannot escape from the culture war. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.

Though I wouldn't classify poverty, racial injustice, and the need for prison reform as part of a culture war, at least these issues are being addressed along with same-sex marriage.

A culture war exists when one group's dominance is challenged. Usually, the challenger wants more than just deliverance from oppression, it wants to reverse the direction of the pendulum. And thus, instead of referring to culture war, we might want to itemize the wars around the issues they address and thus call them culture wars. And with some of those wars, we might want to consider engaging in a peaceful coexistence than a war. That, IMO, should be the case with the conflict over same-sex marriage.

But other things can't be tolerated such as racial injustice, prison conditions and incarceration rates, and poverty. And behind those issues are the bigger issues of economic exploitation, destruction of the environment, and war and militarism. On a personal level, it was Martin Luther King Jr who identified a thing oriented society as being behind much of the evil he opposed including racism. And he defined a thing-oriented society as being one where gadgets, profits, and property rights were more important than people. And thus, any culture war has to challenge the dominance of treating things as being more important than people.

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

May 5

To Joe Carter and his blogpost about foster care rules restricting the religious freedom of foster parents to discuss the sexual orientation of their foster kids. This appeared in the Acton blog.

There are a number of sides to this issue. One is that the religious views of more than one group should be protected by the state. And the religious views of some people allow for, if they do not embrace, the sexual orientations of those in the LGBT community. And since foster parents have a position of power over foster children, a necessary line must be drawn to prevent the abuse of that power. We could  debate where that line should be drawn, but line's existence is necessary. 

In addition, what we in the religiously Conservative Christian Church need to wake up to is that we have, and continue to do so, relied on marginalization and shame to inhibit people from acting on their own sexual orientations. We have wanted people who have different sexual orientations than ours to not just feel estranged in the Church, we wanted them to be marginalized in society too. And perhaps, that is a reason for why the above mentioned line is drawn where it is. In any case, we can't wash our hands from the current situation because our past actions have helped to create it. 

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

To Elise Hilton and her blogpost parsing free trade. This appeared in the Acton blog.

We should note that our choice is not between free trade and no trade. And we should note that free here means that the voices and concerns of the communities involved in the trading have been silenced for the sake of those profiting from free trade. This trade is called "free" because the restrictions that might come about from the hearing of these voices are never considered. We should also note that free trade isn't always free trade. Many times, "free trade" agreements have pitted subsidized goods, such as our agribusiness products, against locally made goods and have thus benefited imports over a region's or nation's ability to provide for themselves.

But what most advocates of free trade fail to acknowledge is that the globalized labor market that comes from free trade has, by increasing supply, held stagnate or lowered wages of many working people. In addition, this expanded global labor market has caused many to lose their jobs and communities to lose their economic base. In the meantime, those controlling the terms of free trade prosper.

Examining the tradeoffs involved in free trade must be able to look out to horizon and see how all of the stakeholders of free trade are affect rather than just ask the political question: What is in it for me?


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

To Michael Severance and his blogpost comparing May Day and the feast of St. Joseph the worker. This appeared on the Acton Blog.

Here the question becomes this: If St. Joseph was being exploited for his work, separated from his family because of the need to travel to work, and was being abused by the police, how would he be celebrating May Day/ And why is it that, on this blog, the economic exploitation of both workers and the environment and the abuse of power never comes into consideration?

It seems to me that if one wants to honor Labor Day, one would insist that laborers be treated justly, that immigrants would be welcomed especially when they come here to escape violence and/or deprivation, and that abuse of police power would be challenged.

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

To Elise Hilton and her blogpost about how raising the minimum wage will cause unemployment. This appeared on the Acton blog.

What is also priceless is the system that gives you a choice between being paid wages that require you to get gov't assistance and losing your job. Why is it that minimum wage is being challenged rather than the system?

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For April 29, 2015

April 28

To Elise Hiton and her blogpost on the minimum wage. This appeared in the Acton blog.

We should note that the first people who like minimum wage jobs are employers. And considering how much gov't assistance is being used to subsidize the payroll of some fast-food businesses, some retail businesses, and even some banks, the issue of minimum wage jobs cannot be settled by the information given above.

Other missing information includes the demographics of workers who are being paid minimum wage and poverty wages. In addition to that, we could include the changing job market between when I worked minimum wage jobs and now. The globalization of the workforce for many jobs has meant a reduction in number of lower skilled jobs. This makes it more difficult for minimum wage jobs to act as stepping-stone jobs. Even some technical jobs have been offshored because of the globalization of labor for certain jobs.

Finally, we should note what Chris Rock said about minimum wage jobs. He stated that when a boss is paying an employee a minimum wage, that boss is actually saying that they would pay his/her minimum wage employees less if they were allowed to. So how does Chris Rock's comment here demonstrate that employers value their workers as people? And according to Martin Luther King, isn't that the crux of some of our major problems today:

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.

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

To Joe Carter and his blogpost on the economic effects of the Baltimore Riots. This appeared in the Acton blog.

Expressing economic concerns here without mentioning the social and human concerns is troubling. Because with the social and human concerns are actual experiences of people who have been abused by the police--the actual reason for the riots. While many have won court cases and have received some compensation for their pain, others have had their cases dismissed. And this point made by Ta-Nehisi Coates leads to another one of his points. When will our calls for peaceful protests be accompanied by demands for the end of police brutality (see http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/nonviolence-as-compliance/ar-BBiL0kQ )?

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

To Joe Carter and his blogpost on lobbying and corporate cronyism. This appeared in the Acton blog.

A key mistake here is the association made between 'corporate cronyism and lobby. In reality, corporate  control over the government existed when Eisenhower retired and warned us of the emerging Military Industrial Complex. In fact, corporate control over the government existed before that in the 1950s as corporate influence played key roles in the government's decisions to back coups in Iran ('53) and Guatemala ('54). And one only needs to read the writings of former Marine Corps Major General  Smedley Butler to see the tie between business interests and foreign policies. Other ties, such as domestic ones between business and government can be found too--our labor history provides many examples. 

The trouble with this article is that it provides too limited a time when government took care of business. In addition, the naive reductionistic definition of a corporation by its shareholders, thus not including workers, shows a perspective that is lacking.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For April 22, 2015

April 15

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost on how much scientific evidence is required to accept what is said about global warming. This appeared in his Heidelblog.

And those who resist accepting as even a possibility what much of the evidence points to do so because they know that doing so calls on them to change. And that change would be drastic and would involve one of their most sacred cows: their prosperity and way of life. To be a responsible member of society and to accept as being probable the evidence regarding man induced climate change means some cutting back on both consumption and some producing along with doing more sharing of what we already have.  And they don't want to make those changes. Well, none of us do.

And lest anyone look down on them for not wanting to risk their prosperity for what they accept about man induced climate change, we all have key issues on which we must make tough decisions. And sometimes we are responsible and sometimes we aren't. We're equals here.

BTW, there is a difference in comparing Einstein's theory of relativity and man induced climate change. The former carried with it no sense of urgency because nothing was risked. The latter involves a limited window in which to act in order to avoid serious, if not catastrophic, future losses.

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

April 21

To Joe Carter and his blogpost video on the importance of property rights. This appeared on the Acton blog

There seems to be a false dichotomy here between having property rights or not having them at all. Also, It isn't just having property rights that is the issue, it is the priority they are given in society. And considering that the presenter described property rights as the path to peace, he seems to put a very high priority on those rights. Finally, the hypothesis of property rights providing the path to peace needs to be test in reality.

So there are property rights. The issue is how important are such rights--realizing that property here involves more than just land. Martin Luther King Jr. said the following:

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.

To King, property rights existed in a larger context. How these rights are used depends on the orientation of society. When the use of property rights hurt people but gain a profit, we learn whether we are 'thing-oriented' or 'person-oriented.' If we are thing-oriented, then we will use property rights to get more stuff regardless of how that affects the property of others. We should note that property rights were used to foreclose on homes during the bubble. And we should note that laws that explain property rights are written by people some of whom have a self-serving agenda. We should note here that the name 'property rights' is empty in terms of revealing what those rights should be. These rights are based on man-made laws.

Finally, we need to ask if property rights provide the path to peace. Here we should note that the U.S. can be viewed as a champion for property rights. In fact, much of The Constitution was written to protect property rights. And here we should note how many of its writers owned large quantities of land. Yet, with all of those property rights, as a nation, we lead the world in the ratio of lawyers to people. And we see a large number of lawsuits regarding property.

But not only do we have the highest percentage of lawyers, we've been in wars for over 200 years of our nearly 239 years of existence, we have been involved in armed conflicts or wars. The wars started here with one of the reasons why we fought the Revolutionary War: westward expansion. And in expanding westward, we took property from America's Indigenous people. So does the theory that property rights lead to peace match the practice? That might be a hard sale to make.

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

To Elise Hilton and her blogpost on the upcoming Encyclical on the Environment. This appeared in the Acton blog.

The issue with 'demonizing Captialism' has nothing to do with creating a partisan document. Rather, the issue would revolve around the accuracy of such an analysis of Capitalism. 

In addition, acknowledging that climate change exists but doing nothing gains nothing. And who is giving an exact formula for confronting climate change? No one that I know of. 

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

To Joe Carter's criticisms of liberal Christians' support for the Iran nuclear agreement. This appeared in the Acton blog.

I am not sure of the reasons why Conservatives oppose the framework. If they think that they can forever prevent Iran from creating nuclear weapons, they are foolish. We should note that Iran has a right to use centrifuges to enrich uranium and enriching uranium does not imply that Iran is developing nuclear weapons.

IMO, the real objection to Iran's developing nuclear technology is that it challenges Israel's adaptation of the Bush Doctrine in the Middle East. Applying that doctrine makes Israel leery of any substantial technological development in the region.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For March 25, 2015

March 17

To David Robertson and his blogpost objecting to Edinburgh being called a not-Christian city. This appeared in the Wee Flea blog.

To me, calling a place a Christian place does not refer to the number of Christians there or their activity level. Rather, calling a place a Christian place means that Christians have a privileged position in that place to determine that place's laws and mores. 

Our challenge as Christians is how to reach out to the people where we live in order to both share the Gospel and help those in need without seeking a privileged position there. The desire for a privileged position comes from the desire to be in control. And our history of being in control over places has now caused us to see the pendulum swing in the other direction.

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

March 20

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost criticizing the PCUSA on its decision to  accept same-sex marriage in the churches of its denomination. This appeared in the Heidelblog.

I think that there are two tragedies here. The first one is definitely the failure of the PCUSA to distinguish between what should be acceptable in the Church and what should be acceptable in society. The denomination has a very valid concern for those who are marginalized (a.k.a., victims in Heidelblog-speak). That concern was also shown in the most recent decision regarding Israel. But that concern has trumped their commitment to the Scriptures. I have a friend who from the denomination who, unfortunately, thinks that the denomination is offering the love of Jesus by regarding homosexuality as being acceptable before God. The PCUSA is right to be concerned with how homosexuals have been marginalized in society and it is right for it to stand against that marginalization. But the Scriptures are clear on this matter and one must practice an olympic level of exegetical-gymnastics to read the Scriptures in any other way.

The other tragedy is the switch from using the conservative-liberal model in understanding the Church to the confessional-nonconfessional model. Why? It is not because of the adequacy of the conservative-liberal model of thought, this model of thought has many faults. It is because, as important as the confessions are, the confessional-nonconfessional model makes, in the hearts of many conservatives, the confessions operate like the traditions of the pharisees in Jesus' day. For we start regarding the confessions in the same way as those pharisees regarded their traditions as they used them to replace God's Word in their thinking. 

Yes, the confessions are important and they can be a useful guide. But dividing churches using the confessional-nonconfessional, especially when it comes to what the confessions say about the 2nd table of the law, puts those confessions on a dangerously high pedestal and forgets the cultural influences that were a part of the writing of those confessions. 

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

March 21

To Joe Carter and his blogpost predicting significant unemployment from Seattle's new $15/hr minimum wage. This appeared in the Acton blog

What is not mentioned here is that with the current wage situation, public funds are being used to subsidize corporate payrolls for many chains and that also involves chains not in the restaurant business. 

The problem with the conservative approach is that it never questions the system. And if Carter is right about there being too many negative side effects of the $15/hr minimum wage, then the choice we have is between public funds being used to subsidize corporate payrolls because of the poverty wages vs livable wage and fewer jobs. How is it that we are not questioning the system that limits our options to these two options?

Also, time will tell how many negative side effects there will be to the $15/hr wage. But regardless of those effects, we can't afford to be silent on what many are  now experiencing. To be silent while reporting on the negative effects of the new minimum wage indicates a conflict of interests.

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

To Elise Hilton and her article that attacks socialism by calling it fascism. This appeared in the Acton blog.

The trouble with this post is that it tells 2 stories from only 1 perspective. Both the description of socialism and the relabeling of it as fascism  along with the religious citations supporting and absolutized notion of property rights is stated from the conservative perspective. And the story is fuzzy because it is neither historically nor ideologically accurate. 

Historically speaking, the fascists were enemies of socialism. In addition, the fascists were hypernationalists. Don't believe me? Check the WWII record. Spain, Italy and Germany were fascist nations. And despite claims to the opposite, the so-called socialism of Germany and Italy had as a main driving force industrialists (a.k.a., capitalists), not workers which is the hallmark of socialism. The nationalism and the military spending was very good for businesses.  And they, along with Franco, opposed the left and socialism. Hitler supported Franco against Spain's Leftists. Hitler opposed the Soviet Union--even though Leninism-Stalinism was not really socialism. Both of those Soviet regimes were autocratic tyrannies. Unlike Nazi Germany, their governmental concerns was not driven by industrialists. In fact, Russia's capitalists, who favored the Tsars and kept their policies after the 1917 February overthrow of the Tsar, were defeated by Lenin. Then go ahead and read Mussolini and look at who supported his running of the government.

The topic brought up here is often obscured by rhetoric that absolutizes property rights and this is often done in ways that drown out concerns for workers' and others' rights. And what goes unsaid here is that the maintaining of property rights and the accumulation of wealth is due to a varying number of interdependencies including the essential contributions made by workers. And covered by obscurity and inaccuracies here is the fact that the Left, by definition, revolves around workers' rights and workers' control of manufacturing.  And those rights and control were not even seen in "Leftist" nations like the Soviet Union and Red China let alone the fascist nations like WWII Germany, Spain under Franco, and Italy under Mussolini. Whereas a legitimate Leftist government in Spain was defeated by Franco during the Spanish Civil War and in the name of nationalism--here, we should note that strong nationalism is a common trait among fascist nations while the international is a trait of socialist nations--with the help of Nazi Germany.

See, property rights, property rights, property rights is the battle cry for the capitalists and the business elites. And no challenges are allowed to be made without the accusation that all challenges come from "fascism."  The actual  battle here pits Capitalism's rule of wealth vs Government's rule of power vs the Left's democracy--rule of the people. That is what the stories of both World Wars tell us, and that is what is being played out today.


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

March 24

To Joe Carter and his blogpost about redistribution and how it is losing support among some of its beneficiaries. This appeared in the Acton blog.


The problem with this post is that because of its limited view of redistribution, it makes a false state, pertaining to our elected officials that is. Redistribution, according to conservatives can only flow in one direction and that direction is toward those who have less. 

But isn't there also a redistribution of wealth upwards? Think of the group that has benefited the most from the financial recovery from our economic collapse in 2008. It is the wealthy. And think about the flow of money that occurs when corporations use gov't assistance programs to subsidize their payrolls. And think about the flow of money which occurs when lobbyists write bills and obtain gov't contracts that richly reward their corporate employers. Most of our elected officials from both major political parties and wealthy recipients of the upward redistribution have no problem with feeling richer and more dependent on government with this upward redistribution. 

Why is it that what is redistributed to the poor is dumped on here, but what is redistributed to the rich goes unmentioned? Past revolutions suggest that this selective process of describing redistribution is not in our best interests. That is especially true for those who have any religious associations.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For March 18, 2015

March 10

To R. Scott Clark's response to my comment comparing his list of references for settled science vs the list of scientists who are convinced that climate change is caused by human activity. This appeared in the Heidelblog's article on Settled Science

Dr Clark,
The problem with your answer to BD is that it is first based on a false assumption and second, it filters out the details. 

Now to clear things up, BD was actually me who was visiting my daughter and didn't realize her logged-in status on her blog would be recorded as the sender of the message. For that I apologize. It was inadvertent. 

The false assumption was that you thought that the 97% was based on a NASA article. Actually, it is based on  a National Academy of Sciences article. The link is 

http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.full

Please be specific in detailing your scientific objections to the study's methodology--that is if you so choose to, I understand if you choose not to.

Second, there was no systematic documentation for giving a specific figure by the NASA article. However, by simply saying it was unscientific, you waved your hands at the number of scientific  organizations that do recognize climate change as being caused by human activity. 

Now again, compare those organizations with the single reference you gave in the 1970s about the coming ice age being settled science and tell me how the two different sets of references are comparable. Note that the list of scientific organizations that are convinced by the evidence is also not the same as any list of media outlets that report a story. The NASA link is below:

    http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Finally, what conservatives are not upfront about are the personal issues involved in acknowledging the possible reality of climate change. The quote comes from Naomi Klein.

it is always easier to deny reality than to allow our worldview to be shattered

We should note that the above objection to acknowledging the possible reality of climate change is often the same objection made by many who reject the truth of God's Word.

Finally, I am not clear on your view of climate change. Do you deny that we are experiencing human activity caused climate change or are you saying that it is possible but that the jury should still be out? 

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

Not sure when this happened, but the status of the comment below has been changed from awaiting moderation to published

To David Robertson and his blogpost on a secular organization's argument against Christianity. It has to do with alleged sexual misconduct of a Christian. This blogpost appeared in the Wee Flea blog.

We have to realize that as cultural values drift further and further from Christian values, the greater the change which is called for by the preaching of the Gospel. And the greater the change called for, the stronger the resistance will be. Therefore, examples of hypocrisy will have their significance magnified. 

Sex is not the only issue which opponents of Christianity are blaming the Church for. The Church has also been portrayed as an oppressor of man's creativity and freedom. And one of the ways the Church has done this is through doctrine.

We should also note the Church's past history at playing the hypocrite. Think of how much scorn the Church earned for itself prior to the French and Russian Revolutions by aligning itself with wealth and power.

Yes, we preach a stricter code of sexual ethics to the world and some, perhaps with some merit, will link how we have taught sexual ethics with the sexual misconduct by some of our own. And since we are calling for bigger and bigger changes in people's lives as cultural values continue on their present course, we should expect the kind of reaction described above.

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

March 14

To Russell Moore and his blogpost on the changing status of Christianity in America and how we can react. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.

There are some good observations made in this article especially in the section titled, 'Path Forward.' But there is something missing as well. For not only must we consider how to advance the Kingdom of God in America, we must also decide on how we will share society with others. We must determine how we will share society with others because society has joined us with others. Thus, choosing how to share society is a responsibility.

In the past, Christians sought and maintained a privileged position in society in that we had the biggest voice in determining its laws and mores. But we should note, lest the less than honest comparison between Muskogee and Woodstock gives us a false sense of superiority, who was marginalized when Christianity was the dominant force in society. Minorities were not just marginalized, they were persecuted. Homosexuals have shared their own version of that marginalization and persecution as well. Those belonging to other political ideologies, such as socialists, were marginalized and sometimes persecuted. The list could go on.

The fact that we call the recent turn in events a culture war shows how oblivious we have been of our privileged position. For the current culture war more resembles the conflict portrayed in the first Star Wars movie. We had a rebellion against an empire where, in America, the empire stood for Christianity and its values.

There is a way to end the current culture wars while optimizing our ability to advance the Kingdom of God. That way is to share society as equals. And in sharing society as equals, we commit ourselves to including those groups whom we have, in the past, either worked to marginalize or neglected their marginalized status. Working to share society as equals rather than as a chosen few will reduce the number of stumbling blocks we set before those to whom we wish to preach.

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


March 17

To Elise Hilton and her blogpost on Christian persecution and our loss of liberties. This appeared in the Acton blog.

The trouble with this post obviously is not the recognition that some other Christians have it worse than American Christians or that we should try to better the plight of both Christians in Islamic countries and those here. The trouble is that, besides not being specific regarding the troubles Christians have here, there is no context provided for why Christians here are "losing" liberties here. Certainly some have lost jobs because of their views and citing those actions are legitimate citing of lost liberties by a few number of particular Christians. 

Other than that, we really haven't lost any liberties; but we are seeing a pendulum swing. That pendulum swing is returning from a period where Christians had a privileged place in society. And while we had that privileged place, there were those who suffered marginalization. For many, especially America's Indigenous people and Blacks, we ignored their suffering and disenfranchisement, or some of us even pushed for, their discrimination. For homosexuals, we continue to push for both their marginalization and our right to estrange them. Much of that revolves around our opposition to same-sex marriage and, in some states, our reactionary attempts to pass Jim Crow like legislation against them. In fact, homosexuals are still subject to marginalization through legally protected harassment and job firings in some states.

Now the pendulum is slowly starting to swing the other way and we feel "persecution." Certainly our trials here are not comparable to the persecution Christians in other areas of the world are subject to. But neither is our persecution comparable to what we've put, and still do, homosexuals through. Which makes us think whether the current persecution of Christians in Islamic countries, some of which consists of horrific atrocities, are a sinful reaction to what Christians there have done. We should note that for protection payment, some, not all, Christians in the Middle East have supported tyrannical regimes. Two nations where this has occurred are Syria and Egypt. All of which points to our need to be able to step back from our proclivity for myopia to get a wider perspective.

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

To Joe Carter and his blogpost citing Acton colleague Samuel Gregg's assertion that our understanding of God shapes us and society. This occurred in the Acton blog.

The trouble here is that we often measure civilization by how we treat those in our own group while neglecting to mention how we treat those from other groups. Thus de Tocqueville was so impressed with how civilized British Society was that he neglected to consider how the Brits treated those in their colonies. 

So when we examine the main premise, what does the history and present of our nation's treatment of nonWhites, both here and abroad, say about our understanding of God?

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For February 25, 2015

As usual, remember that these comments will contain more grammatical errors than the regular blogposts do.  Sorry about that.


Feb 20

I attempted to post the comment below on the Imaginative Conservative blog. Comments might have been closed at the time of my attempt to post the comment below. We should note that there are blogposts on the Imaginative Conservative blog site which were published earlier than the blogpost responded to here which do not have their comments closed. 

But we should also note that in another discussion attached to a blogpost on the Imaginative Conservative blog site, my response to the blogpost was posted. And this is despite the fact that the author of the blogpost was very upset with my views. So the omission of the comment below is a rare exception to the practices and policies followed by the Imaginative Conservative blog in its publishing of opposing viewpoints.

To Eric and his comment describing all Socialists as wanting to consolidate all power to themselves. This comment followed Joseph Pearce's blogpost on how the Great Britain has been corrupted by false gods and atheists. This appeared on the Imaginative Conservative blog.


Eric,
Again, in a desire to portray socialists as a monolithic group, you are showing a lack of awareness of what socialists have debated about since the Lenin hijacked the Russian Revolution. To help provide some additional information that might challenge that monolithic group some are tempted to give into, I provided the links below:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_jRd59qy0A

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsC0q3CO6lM

https://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1918/russian-revolution/ch08.htm

Below is a quote from the last link. The writer is a socialist contemporary of Lenin:

Lenin and Trotsky, on the other hand, decide in favor of dictatorship in contradistinction to democracy, and thereby, in favor of the dictatorship of a handful of persons, that is, in favor of dictatorship on the bourgeois model. 

and 

But socialist democracy is not something which begins only in the promised land after the foundations of socialist economy are created; it does not come as some sort of Christmas present for the worthy people who, in the interim, have loyally supported a handful of socialist dictators. Socialist democracy begins simultaneously with the beginnings of the destruction of class rule and of the construction of socialism. It begins at the very moment of the seizure of power by the socialist party. It is the same thing as the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Yes, dictatorship! But this dictatorship consists in the manner of applying democracy, not in its elimination, but in energetic, resolute attacks upon the well-entrenched rights and economic relationships of bourgeois society, without which a socialist transformation cannot be accomplished. But this dictatorship must be the work of the class and not of a little leading minority in the name of the class – that is, it must proceed step by step out of the active participation of the masses; it must be under their direct influence, subjected to the control of complete public activity; it must arise out of the growing political training of the mass of the people.

So the question is in criticizing the regimes like that of the Soviet Union, Red China, and so on, are you criticizing socialism or are you criticizing those who deviated from Socialism but kept the name.

As for my own view, I have a substantial amount of agreement with Luxemburg. But I disagree with her criticisms of Kautsky. That is because Kautsky didn't make socialism his goal, he made it the preferred means in eliminating oppression. At this point Luxemburg was too ideologically tribal to see Kautsky's point.

BTW, after he hijacked the Russian Revolution, Lenin criticized those Russians on the Left who opposed his consolidation of power.

Finally, counterexamples to your description of socialism can be found in the Spanish Revolution and the Paris Communes. Though not perfect, their methodology followed the practice of Socialism to a significant degree as opposed to the Lenin's Soviet Union or Mau's Red China neither of whom followed socialism.  BTW, to show that Socialism is not a monolith, there is debate between socialists regarding these issues. Some Socialists do follow Lenin. Some even follow Stalin. But many others do not. So your contention regarding how all socialists behave is neither historically nor theoretically true. And, btw, I am a Christian Fundamentalist and a Socialist. And there are other Christians who are Socialists as well. And many of my fellow Socialists accept me with my faith. In fact, Marx himself never advocated the elimination of religion unlike contemporaries like Bruno Bauer. For Marx, the abolishing of religion was really the abolition of the state from religious control.

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

Feb 21

To R. Scott and his blogpost quote comparing political correctness with communist propaganda and declaring that its purpose is to 'humiliate' its opponents. This appeared in the Heidelblog.


There are some problems with what Theodore Dalrymple said in the article quoted from. For example, he described his father as a communist who read people like Plekhanov, Maurice Hindus, and Edgar Snow. At the same time, he reported that his father personally acted like Stalin. But with the people he listed as those who influenced his father, only one of them, Plekhanov, was listed in the www.marxists.org website list of Marxists. And, btw, Plekhanov was opposed to dictators because the workers' interests could not be served by them The two others he listed were reporters who covered different communist areas but were hardly communists that I know of by reading. During WW II, Snow defended allied regimes that were not democratic because of the urgency demanded by the war.

So the question becomes, why is political correctness 'communist propaganda writ small'? Remember that political correctness came into being in order to protect those who were marginalized. And racial slurs were among the first terms deemed politically incorrect. Is that what Dalrymple is protesting? Or is he using these terms pejoratively? And he could do the latter by using these terms to refer exclusively to the extremes and abuses practiced in each group.

Finally, by categorically referring to political correctness and communism the way he does, is Dalrymple practicing what he is condemning? Is he making such a blanket statement about political correctness and associating it with communism in an attempt to 'humiliate' those who align themselves with either political correctness or communism? Whatever the reasons for his statements, he and westerners who agree with him are practicing the same kind of tribalism which he would condemn if it was practiced by any communists. In addition, isn't censoring opinions a way of silencing dissent?

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

To Linda Kimball's comment quoting Solzhenitsyyn on Communism and Marx and Lenin's view of God. This was part of the Heidelblog's post on political correctness.

We need to distinguish between the Soviet Union and Marxism. Marx himself was apathetic toward religion. While discussing it with Bruno Bauer, it was Bauer, not Marx, who advocated the eradication of religion. Marx was fine with it existing, he just wanted to see the abolition of the state from religion's control. You can read Marx's view in the link below:

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/jewish-question/

BTW, this isn't the only point of departure between Marx and the Soviet Union. See the following video links:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_jRd59qy0A

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsC0q3CO6lM

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

Feb 24


To Elise Hilton and her blogpost on how we need both economic freedom and other abilities and values to help a society flourish. This appeared on the Acton blog.

Let's remember what economic freedom has become. It has become code for freeing businesses from what society deems as their social responsibilities. Thus, when there is a problem regarding economic freedom, it could be on society's side of demanding too much or demanding the wrong thing. But the problem could also be on the business side of not meeting its legitimate social responsibilities. And when the problem is the latter, then economic freedom translates into privileged status for business elites as they are either harming society by their practices or they are getting a free lunch at society's expense.


A concrete example of such privileged status for some businesses can be found in how some companies use government assistance programs to subsidize their payrolls. Some banks do this as well as some big retail chains. And what happens is that these businesses pay poverty wages that require employees to apply for government programs for help with food assistance, medical care, and so on. Here, we should also check if these same companies are doing what they can to pay the least amount in federal taxes. All of this is being done to maximize profits for the business owners whether the owners are families or shareholders.

The stress which some place on economic freedom is really an argument against democracy and society's right to determine how its members will live with each other. Of course there is the other side of the coin. Societies can make such great demands on businesses that businesses can't survive. But considering that it is those who can afford enough lobbyists who currently have the ear of our government, any overreach from government is not coming from society as a whole, but from those with the most lobbyists.

So here, we might want to review whether the same culture that puts so much stress on economic freedom will also result in volunteerism and generosity, positive creativity, and values or does the current stress on economic freedom work against these other would be cultural assets. For here, if business does not fulfill its legitimate social responsibilities, then these other assets are part of the free lunch business is enjoying at society's expense.