Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For October 12, 2022

 October 7

To Heidelblog and Mark David Hall for the portion of Hall's article that is quoted in a Heidelblog post. The blog title asks if Christian Nationalists are the same as Christians who invest in their country. The title of Hall's article asks if Christian Nationalism poses and existential threat to the nation. Hall's article is a review of a book by Paul D. Miller titled The Religion Of American Greatness.' Hall says that Miller fails to prove that Christian Nationalism poses an 'existential threat' to America. 

Mark David Hall's full article can be found at:

    https://lawliberty.org/book-review/christian-nationalism-an-existential-threat/

There are two problems with the religiously conservative Christian response to reports on Christian Nationalism. The first problem is that many religiously conservative Christians wish to minimize the existence of and threat posed by Christian Nationalism. They do that by denying  its existence, relativizing the efforts made by and goals held by Christian Nationalists, or equating Christian Nationalism with part of being Christian.

The second problem is that Christian Nationalism is merely one threat that many religiously conservative Christians pose to our nation and its democracy. That is because many, if not promoting Christian Nationalism, promote some level of a Christian Ethnocracy in America. The concept of Christian Ethnocracy is mentioned in the article cited though not by name. A religious ethnocracy is when, in a multi-religious society, one particular religion seizes a privileged place in government  where it has a significant degree of control over the government's making of laws and uses that control to secure its privileged place in society.

Regarding the first problem, Mark David Hall, the writer of the article quoted from above, tries to minimize the reports of Christian Nationalism by discrediting with a generalized accusation about motives of the sources that report on it. Never mind that many of those sources are Christian sources of which some are for Christian Nationalism and others are opposed. But with a wave of his hand, he simply tells us to pay no attention to the reporters of Christian Nationalism.

But Hall does not deny its existence. And so what he does with the rest of his article that reviews Miller's book is to minimize the influence that real Christian Nationalists have. But the problem here is that there is an increasing number of politicians who either identify themselves as Christian Nationalists or promote Christian Nationalists themes is a bit larger than Hall acknowledged. These politicians include Marjorie Taylor Greene, Lauren Boebert, Mary Miller, Kris Kobach, Ron DeSantis, and Doug Mastriano. Former Attorney General, William Barr, has been identified as a Christian Nationalist by some. Prominent theologian Albert Mohler has identified himself as a Christian Nationalist. If I read Franklin Graham correctly, we could classify him as a Christian Nationalists. And there are those who are following in the footsteps of  Rousas Rushdoony, such as Doug Wilson, who carry, in varying ways, the flag of Dominionism which promotes a kind of Christian Nationalism. There is David Barton and his organization, WallBuilders. And the above listing doesn't include past promoters of Christian Nationalism themes like D. James Kennedy, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, all of whom were mentioned in Hall's book. We should note that Liberty University and the ACLJ have survived their founders though we need to add that not every student attending Liberty University subscribes to the ideas promoted by Christian Nationalism.

But what has really sounded the alarm of Christian Nationalism's threat to America was January 6th. The significant presence of Christians with Christian symbols and their support for Donald Trump and Trump's political favoring of certain popular Evangelical people, popular in some Evangelical circles, provided additional evidence of the significance of the presence of Christian Nationalism. I would hasten to add here that Trump was not a supporter of Christian Nationalism as much as he was an exploiter of Christian Nationalists.

But even with the above list, there are many Christian Nationalists whom were not mentioned by either myself or Hall's article. But we should note that there is a battle in the Republican Party over whether that Party should should identify itself as a promoter of Christian Nationalism. And so do we need to urgently respond with drastic measures to mitigate the efforts of Christian Nationalists here? The answer is 'No.' But does Christian Nationalism pose significant presence in various sectors of our society? The answer has to be 'CERTAINLY.' That is despite the fact that Hall uses some issues promoted by Christian Nationalists to say that support for those issues does not imply that one is a Christian Nationalist. But implication is not the same as indication. Does support for those issues indicate that one could be a Christian Nationalist is a question not addressed by Hall.

Now outside of Christian Nationalism, which merges America's Identity with a Christian Identity and wants its government to pass laws that reflect that merging, there exists another Christian threat to our nation. That threat is posed by those who want America to become a Christian Ethnocracy. A religious ethnocracy is when, in a multireligous nation, one religion seizes a privileged place in government so that the laws reflect what values of that religious group as well as secure a privilege place in government for that religious group

Those favoring a religious ethnocracy would include all Christian Nationalists. But it would also include Christians who do not fit the definition of Christian Nationalists but want such a privileged position for Christianity in American government and society. An objection to that definition has been to say that don't all groups, including the Republicans and Democrats, want a privileged position that would allow them to determine the laws of our nation? The answer to that for Republicans and Democrats would be to say 'No.'

Here we should note that Republicans, with the exception of MAGA followers, and Democrats are not looking to legally establish a permanent privilege position. Rather, Republicans and Democrats rely on elections to establish their position and power in government. So that if either party has a dominant influence, that influence is subject to change at any election rather than be secured for a foreseeable future by laws.

Among those who are looking to establish a Christian Ethnocracy are those who want to base our laws on the Judeo-Christian Heritage. Others proponents of an American Christian Ethnocracy want to base our laws on  the 2nd Table of the Ten Commandments, which consists of Commandments from the Fifth Commandment to the Tenth Commandment according to how the Reformed Faith regards the Commandments.

Finally, to answer the  question posed by the title of this blogpost, the answer is 'No.' Why? Because Christians can be invested in America without the trappings of Christian Nationalism or other forms of Christian Ethnocracy. And what determines whether we Christians are invested in our nation without promoting any kind of Christian Ethnocracy includes supporting democracy including the egalitarianism that is so much a part of democracy. Martin Luther King Jr and the SCLC provide a wonderful example of how to use Christianity to promote equality rather than some religious privilege.

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

Oct 11

To José Maria J. Yulo and his article that uses a book by Eva Brann about how the quest for equality has led to the committing of atrocities. The example of the uprising by the democrats in Corcyra was used as an example. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

Some who comment on revolutions that are meant to be liberating sometimes attribute the abuses committed in that struggle on the quest for liberation. That was done with the French Revolution when the atrocities committed during that revolution were attributed to the quest for liberty, equality, and fraternity. 

It was done with the October 1917 Revolution in Russia. Those who opposed the socialism blamed the tyranny that followed on the quest for socialism. We should note that not even socialism was pursued after that revolution.

And so the same goes with the example cited from the book referred to. What is hardly ever considered in this matter are the effects that the previous oppression had on the the people rebelling.  There is no consideration of the possibility that the oppression by tyrants and the suffering of those who rebelled led to atrocities committed in the struggle for liberation.

On an individual basis, it is often acknowledged that abuse leads to abuse. That the abuse suffered by an individual, especially when they were young, contributed to  them abusing others. So why didn't the author of the book referred to consider that what led to the atrocities by the democrats of Corcyra against the cities oligarchs was in large part a response to the abuse that the oligarchs had been visiting on those democrats. In fact, not only was the abuse by the oligarchs not considered to be a reason for the atrocities committed by the democrats there, the old status quo is hardly ever considered to be unjust. The same goes for the conditions that preceded the French and Russian Revolutions. The conditions of the old status quos are normalized when they are not commented on and/or not considered to be a major factor in atrocities committed during rebellions. 

Such shows a bias in those reporting on those atrocities. 

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For August 29, 2018

August 27

To Joe Carter and his blogpost praising Adam Smith’s theories. This appeared in the Acton blog.

One more thing about Adam Smith that should be mentioned: he is often misunderstood by many conservatives who promote his views. The invisible hand idea is one such area where Smith was misunderstood. The invisible existed in a context of national interests. And what Smith taught about the invisible hand has been blown away by today's global neoliberalism.

And under-understood is Smith's teachings on self-interest because Smith, if I have correctly read his interpreters, reduced all motivation to self-interest. But such goes against the Scriptures as well as the examples we have seen in the lives of individuals we have known (see  http://www.theimaginativeconservative.org/2018/08/capitalism-gospel-of-love-george-stanciu.html  ).

Something else that conservative promoters of Smith seem to have missed is that from almost the very beginning of our nation up until FDR, our nation's economy didn't abide by Smith's free trade. Our government employed protectionism in order to give our infant industries time to grow in order to become competitive and beyond. Such a success story does not imply a carte-blanche support for protectionism. It does show that a carte-blanche support for free trade is not merited.

There are other misperceptions as well but the above will suffice.

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

August 28

To Eva Brann and her blogpost review of Martha Nussbaum’s book that speaks against the for-profit view of education. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative Blog.

What seems to be missing from the review on the book about the de-emphasis on humanities in education is what seems to be an inverse relationship between emphasis on the humanities in education and materialism. The more the humanities are removed from education, the more educational success is measured in terms materialistic criteria for its graduates: income, purchasing power, accumulated wealth, technological advances, etc. It isn't that such criteria have no place in society; It is that being human means more than just what wealth we have accumulated and what things we own. Thus, the more society restricts measuring itself to just materialistic measurements, the more our relationships between individuals and between groups are relegated to oblivion.

Why does materialism reign when teaching the humanities is minimized or eliminated? It is because the more we use the obtaining of material goods for the measurements of success, the more we succumb to the maximizing of profits ethic. And we should note that that ethic is a cannibalizing one that devours all other ethics and values that get in its way. For example, breaking the law is not longer unethical if doing so helps one get largest ROI. In fact, then breaking the law becomes an ethical requirement so that one can maximize one's own profits. And those profits are  material goods only and show no regard for how maximizing one's own profits may hurt others.

We should note that in a Capitalistic economic system, there is already a an overemphasis on materialism and thus on the maximization of profits ethic. Removing the non-material aspects of what it means to be human from education, such as what we see with the removal of the humanities, removes part of our humanity from education. And this filtering out of the humanities is being done in both not-for-profit and for-profit educational institutions. Such is the result of reducing education so that it fits entirely in the business model.

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

To Joe Carter and his blogpost on why economic transactions do not have to be based on a zero-sum game. This appeared in the Acton blog

There are several problems with Carter's approach here. First, wealth creation depends more on the supply of resources than on the number of wants. And that makes moot the idea that humans have an 'unlimited number of wants.' What should be focused on is the number of resources we have vs the number of wants we can meet.

Another problem is that denying the existence of the zero-sum game in economics seems to be a return to the reason why people attempted to build the tower of Babel: It was to reach heaven or God. It was an attempt to create a utopia. And God prohibited it lest people's pride, based on what they have accomplished, led them to believe that they did not need to depend on God.

But perhaps the biggest concern of the writer is that of rationalizing extreme self-interest. For maximizing personal profits becomes morally acceptable when there is no significant cost to be borne by others. But neither the facts on the ground nor reason support the existence of extreme self-interest. Here, we will define extreme self-interest as the interest one has for themselves alone. Extreme self-interest ignores the growing wealth disparity in the world. Extreme self-interest ignores the exploitation of workers and other people whose labor created the wealth in the first place but were not rewarded based on the wealth they created. Extreme self-interest ignores the environmental costs of maximizing personal profits.
The conservative utopian dream is that one can exercise extreme self-interest without being morally responsible to share with others what they have harvested..But something else should be said. That the kind of system that Carter, the author of the article advocates has a very llimited view of economics. Carter defines economics as:

as the science of purposeful individual action in an attempt to satisfy an unlimited number of wants with a limited set of means.

But Chilean economist, Manfred Max-Kneef, has noted that the Greek root for the word 'economics implies a holistic approach to the study. A holistic approach would encorporate more than just what the individual is free to produce, but also how a given system causes people to relate to each other. Without including how people relate to each other in the study of economics, we develop a view of economics that is as dangerously materialistic, though in a different way, as Marxism's  materialism is. And when we add to that the idea that economics revolves around the individual, we develop a view of economics that is modeled after Cain's famous rhetorical question to God after God inquired about Able's disappearance:

Am I my brother's keeper?

One must ask if Carter's view of economics show that his loyalties side with a particular form of materialism rather than with God's Word. For the NT Scriptures are clear from Lazarus and the Rich Man to James as he rebukes the wealthy for exploiting workers, one cannot work and live as just an individual whose moral obligations to help the poor are solely determined by one's own good will. And we should note how in Church history, that sometimes when the Church sided with wealth and power, it suffered attacks and persecution for having ignored those in need.