Conservataive Nearsightedness

In his blog The Resurgent, Erick Erickson (click here for a bio) condemns Millennials for preferring mammon to God. What told Erickson that this was the case? It was because many Millennials are no longer opposing what the world supports. Yes, Erickson admits that Millennials express concern for some valid causes such as human trafficking. But such a cause, on which Erickson joins them, means little to him. It means little because most of the world opposes human trafficking. For Erickson, there are only two issues that could test the spiritual mettle of these people. And if they give in to the world on those issues, then they show themselves to be compromising with the world and preferring mammon. What are those two issues? They are abortion and same-sex marriage (SSM) (click here for the article).

First, let's take a look at those two specific issues. Abortion involves the collision of the rights of the mother and of the unborn child. When abortion is an elective procedure, Erickson has a valid claim that Millennials are compromising with the world. That is because elective abortions could rightfully be called murder. In elective abortions, the unborn child is recognized as having no intrinsic human value. On a practical level, the humanity of the child depends solely on whether the expectant mother wants the child. And one of the reasons for this reasoning is because of what women went through prior to the Roe v. Wade case. Yes, the case was decided wrongly. At the same time, women do have legitimate concerns that need to be heard when it comes to elective abortions.  And yet, I haven't seen any of those concerns, or all of them put together, that outweighs the intrinsic value of the human child who is unborn.

But SSM is a different issue. Whereas Christians could rightly be concerned with the rights of the unborn in the abortion issue, whose rights are being violated in legalizing SSM? Certainly SSM threatens no Christian marriages; it's Christian marriage partners who usually perform that task. Why does Erickson's list allowing  SSM with allowing elective abortions?

Here the issue is confused because many conservatives like Erickson fail to distinguish between supporting SSM in the Church from supporting it in society. And because of this failed distinction, many religiously conservative Christian leaders like Erickson have implicitly given all Christians this ultimatum: oppose the legalization of SSM in society or admit that practicing homosexuality and is not a sin. But Millennials have seen things differently. What they often hear from religiously conservative Christian leaders like Erick Erickson is that they must choose between opposing bigotry or opposing homosexuality. And since Millennials tend to be more sensitive to issues of bigotry than their parents, this ultimatum has moved many Millennials to accepting homosexuality because they were more sure that bigotry is wrong. And we should note here that opposing bigotry isn't necessarily practiced by the world. Unlike how the world supports abortion, the world has a spotty record in opposing bigotry.

Had religiously conservative Christian leaders said to people that opposing homosexuality in the Church is different from opposing it in society, we might have seen a different response from many Millennials. But that didn't happen. As a result, these leaders give the impression that they want at least some partial control of society, as seen in Erickson's comments about liberty, by infringing on the religious liberties of those who believe that SSM is morally acceptable.

Now the curious thing about Erickson's blogpost here is that he called the Millennials' tolerance for elective abortions and SSM siding with mammon. We should note that mammon is wealth. So how is it that accepting elective abortions and SSM indicates that one loves mammon? This is especially a pertinent question considering the other concerns Millennials have. For example, what Millennials are concerned about include climate change and the environment, wars, poverty, lack of education, food and water security, and economic opportunities. And if those issues were addressed the way Millennials wanted them addressed, then taxes on big business could not be reduced. In fact, addressing those issues the way Millennials want them addressed may cause a reduction in tax loopholes so that the effective tax rate many big businesses pay would increase.

On the other hand many conservatives oppose letting our government spend taxpayer funds on researching climate change and writing regulations that would reduced our greenhouse emissions. They also oppose any reduction in military spending. However, they want less taxpayer funds to be used to alleviate problems like poverty, undrinkable water, inadequate schools, and the exploitation of workers (click here for reference). And we should note here that corporations and wealthy financial institutions spend much mammon on controlling public opinion and what laws and regulations our government make so that they could spend as little in taxes as possible while they try to get as much business and/or welfare from the same government.

At this point, the question for Mr. Erickson regards the identity of who is serving mammon. Is it the person who tolerates practices that do not affect how businesses are taxed, or is it the person who, for whatever reason, sides with business's efforts to either reduce what it pays in both taxes and  meeting its social responsibilities or to receive as much government spending as possible who is siding with mammon? And as wrong as Millennials can be on accepting elective abortion, aren't some conservatives the ones who are siding with mammon here?


 

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For December 17, 2014

Dec 16

To Erick Erickson and his disapproval of the release of the CIA Torture Report and his calling criticism of our use of torture moral equivalency. This appeared in the Red State blog

It seems that this article is really contesting moral equivalence which is simply equating similar or the same actions done by one's opponents with those done by one's own group. We should note that with waterboarding, we found the Japanese guilty of torture for using it though one of the reasons why they used it was to get 'useful information.' However, according to this article, suggesting that waterboarding is torture when we use it merits scorn according to this article. As Dick Cheney noted, the Japanese did far more than use waterboarding. But as the CIA report documented, so have we.

We should note that the more one rejects moral equivalencies, the more one is embracing moral relativity. And the starting point for this kind of moral relativity is the assumption of one's group's own innocence. And to further the claim that moral relevance is being embraced here, all one has to do is look at the grounds for which this article seems to smile on our use of waterboarding. According to the article, our use of waterboarding is ok because it has popular support. Of course, if we were to suggest that same-sex marriage is now ok because the majority of the people support it, then we would be accused of abandoning our morals or embracing moral relativity.

In the end, tribalism reigns here for what is right and wrong depends on who does what to whom.

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

To Elise Hilton and her blogpost on working conditions for some of the Chinese people. This appeared on the Acton Blog.

Certainly the descriptions of what some laborers must endure is simply horrible. But there is one characteristic of this labor that was not fully mentioned. What these laborers produce becomes part of the global economy.

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

To Elise Hilton and her blogpost on Entrepreneurs and the effect they have on the Globally economy. This appeared in the Acton blog

There is no doubt that individuals can produce positive results for others in today's economy.  But what we need to do is to gain an overall, multi-perspective view of the Global economy. And from what we know, the Global Economy is creating growing wealth disparity, employing sweatshop, trafficked, and slave labor, making smaller nations into Hunger Games like districts, weakening national sovereignty of many nations by transferring control of national economies into the hands of outside investors, and is hurting the environment.  With that in mind, we might want to ask if reports of benefits created by entrepreneurs are here to distract us.

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

To Joe Carter and his blogpost on the current decline of war in the world. This appeared in the Acton Blog.

Another way to look at this is to realize what we are comparing today's situation with. We are comparing conflicts today with 2 world wars among other conflicts. In addition, the "civilized" nations cannot engage in the same kind of warfare against other civilized nations because of the possible use of nuclear weapons.

But before we give thanks for our chickens before they hatch, we should note two things. First, what was done on the battlefields of yesteryear is now being done on economic fronts. We are still relying on conquest rather than cooperation to get our way. Second, with the proliferation of WMDs being inevitable and the use of force still a predominant method of how the some, especially the powerful, get their way with much weaker enemies, the use of such weapons in conflict is not a matter of if but of when.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For June 18, 2014

The comments below have been blocked from the blogs listed with them either on a comment by comment basis or because I have been blacklisted from the blog. Please read the accompanying links in order to fully understand the comments made.


June 5

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost defending tribalism. This appeared on the Heidelblog.


Shouldn't we define tribalism prior to attacking/defending it?

In addition, isn't a measure of following Jesus showing love to those outside the tribe since the heathen love their own?

And isn't the NT version of being separate from the world being different  in the way Jesus commands us to be different?

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

To Joe Carter and his blogpost criticizing NYC Council for requesting that Walmart not give to charities in NYC. THis appeared in the Acton blog


Perhaps we should also note the negative effects that businesses like Walmart and some fast food businesses have on both our society and economy. Rather than comment, the two links below allow the reader to read for themselves. Please note the source of these articles.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-13/how-mcdonald-s-and-wal-mart-became-welfare-queens.html

http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2014/04/15/report-walmart-workers-cost-taxpayers-6-2-billion-in-public-assistance/

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

June 14

To Jonathan Witt and his blogpost, the first in a series of 12, on the cultural case for Capitalism. This appeared in the Acton blog.


To say that the alternatives to Capitalism have been exhausted by the small list of examples here is disingenuous. Even to contrast Capitalism with highly organized economies is to say something about Capitalism that is not bearing true in real life.

But if Capitalism is to merit continued employment by our society and the world, we want to check to see if it is giving us what we want. Marx said the following about the bourgeoisie and this applies to the free market that depends on self-interest to both energize and correct itself:

[the bourgeoisie] has left no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, callous cash payment.

Seeing that the Scriptures talk about the "love of money" being the "root of all kinds of evil." And seeing how our world is being torn asunder by wars for resources, the destruction of the environment, and the exploitation of people, all in order to increase the ROI of the privileged. To the extent that what the Scriptures and Marx said as well the degree to which we are endangering our future and hurting others, wouldn't it be prudent to consider alternatives to Capitalism?

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

June 17

To Erick Erickson and his blogpost about the priority that principles should have over profits. This appeared on the redstate.com blog


It isn't just principle over profits. Such a slogan suggests that the principles don't reconsideration. I find some of the conservative principles to be too unbalanced to use in any slogan.