Jeffrey Salkin (click here and read the first biography) wrote about Fidel Castro's death in a blogpost for Religion News Service (click here for the article). There are two distinct features about his article. With the first attribute, what Salkin took away with one hand he gave back with another. With the second one, Salkin shows that any criticism that significantly relies on decontextualization only serves those who lack self-awareness. And we should note that the lack of self-awareness can produce the kind of pharisaicallism demonstrated in Jesus's parable of the two men praying (click here for the parable). It also allows us to prance around like the emperor who had no clothes.
What does Slakin take away that he gives back? It is his rejoicing over Castro's death. For while Salkin says that rejoicing over the death of one's enemy is against his religion, he gives multiple reasons why he should celebrate Castro's death. The first reason is that Castro introduced Salkin to the fear of death via the Cuban missile crisis. Another reason the significant number of Jewish victims of Castro's revolution. They became victims when they lost their businesses to Castro's nationalization of business. Here, these Jewish victims share some similarities with those Russians who lost their businesses during Lenin's hijacking of the Russian Revolution of October, 1917. Also Jews from Israel have suffered from Castro's support of Palestinian terrorism. However, Salkin is quick to note that Castro also treated Jews with some favorability as demonstrated by his embracing of Jews in Cuba, his allowing for Jewish emigration, and the memorial to the Holocaust located in Havana.
In addition, Salkin condemns the Communism that Castro adhered to. He has attributed, as have several conservatives I have run across, as many as 100 million deaths to Communism. And he unequivocally says 'Communism is a moral and spiritual failure.'
While Salkin gives all of the reasons in the world for why he should rejoice over Castro's death, he says he is prohibited from doing so. Thus, one has to wonder why Salkin lists all of the reasons why he should celebrate Castro's death while saying he doesn't do so. Here we might ask if Salkin himself is as much the focus of this article as Castro is.
As for the second characteristic of this article, we need to look at all of the reasons why Salkin should want to dance on Castro's grave. For example, when Salkin mentions the fear Castro induced via the Cuban Missile Crisis, what he misses is the fact that it was the Soviet Union that put those missiles there because it believed that there was a dangerous, dangerous to them that is, imbalance of power. For not only did the US have far more nuclear weapons than the Soviet Union did, the US had already placed nuclear armed missiles on the USSR's border in Turkey before the USSR even though of placing missiles in Cuba. The American missiles in Turkey posed as much threat to the Soviet Union as the Soviet Union's missiles in Cuba did to the US. This is the first area in which Salkin demonstrates a lack of self-awareness.
Salkin's criticisms of both Communism and Castro's support of terrorism also exhibits a lack of self-awareness. For example, what Salkin calls Communism is really Bolshevism. Here we should note that the Bolsheviks were opposed by the Mensheviks. Both groups claimed to follow Marx. And this is an important point because to be this specific allows us to see that Communism and Socialism are not monoliths. We should also note the criticisms that both Lenin and Stalin received from fellow Marxists. The most telling criticism comes from Rosa Luxemburg when she called Lenin's rule a bourgeoisie dictatorship because the structure of his government imitated the structure practiced by the bourgeoisie in their private sector ventures and businesses (click here). In other words, according to Luxemburg, what Lenin set up in the then new Soviet Union was not a Marxist kind of Socialism. Rather, what he set up was the same kind of rule used by the Tsars. The Tsars practiced totalitarian rule and they were strongly supported by Russia's Capitalists and business owners. Here we should note that what preceded Castro's revolution, a revolution that displaced so many Jewish business owners, was the brutal and corrupt rule of Batista. And we should note that until Castro came onto the scene, the US supported Batista's government.
And while Salkin's criticism of Castro's support of the PLO as a support for terrorism, why can we not make the same claim about any world leader who supports Israel's IDF with military aid? For doesn't the IDF terrorize and kill Palestinian civilians? Here, we should also note that following Castro's
revolution but prior to the placing of missiles in Cuba, was not just
the Bay of Pigs incident, there were numerous American attacks on Cuban
civilian targets. In other words, America practiced terrorism against Castro's Cuba.
It isn't that Castro doesn't deserve to be severely criticized or that Salkin's criticisms of Castro lack merit; it is that before criticizing others, we need to be aware of our own faults and sins. For without that self-awareness, our criticisms can be unduly harsh. In addition, without self-awareness, our criticisms will lack credibility because we are denying the faults and sins that others can clearly see. We saw examples of this during our last presidential election. Both the Republican and Democratic establishments could not derail Donald Trump's candidacy because while correctly noting his faults, they failed to admit their own failures and thus people rejected their messages because that denial of faults meant that there would be no change in the future. And people wanted change.
This denial of faults that stems from a lack of self-awareness that starts with the decontextualization of what Salking was reacting to.
Showing posts with label Fidel Castro. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Fidel Castro. Show all posts
Friday, December 2, 2016
Wednesday, November 30, 2016
Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For November 30, 2016
Just a reminder that the comments below are not edited as much as the regular blogposts. Therefore, they will contain more gramatical and spelling errors than the regular blogposts do.
Nov 15
To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost quote from Simon Capiobianco about Social Justice Warriors. This appeared in the Heidelblog
I see two problems here. First, Social Justice Warriors (SJWs) do not make up a monolith. Second, with all of the fault finding of SJWs without noting their legitimate work and concerns, it seems that the person giving the assessment is vying for the position of pharisee from the parable of the two men praying. And that would make this particular critic of SJWs guilty of most of the faults this critic saw in SJWs.
Why would Capiobianco paint such a heterogeneous group as a monolith? The flawed logic from above is obvious: If all SJWs are as described above, then they have no valid points to make--something stated rather explicitly. Thus, Capiobianco could be trying to discredit them so others don't listen to them at all. It is a a kind of censorship or book burning if you would. Of course, Capiobianco's assessments are arrived at through deduction, not though an inductive approach that would examine each of the issues or concerns that SJWs have.
Yes, some SJWs are guilty of some of the faults listed above. But not all are. And so what are the faults of conservatives?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nov 16
To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost on how the Church should note let its pulpit be used during worship services by politicians. Clark went on to explain the Church’s role in society. This appeared in Heidelblog.
I fully agree that no candidate should be speaking from any church pulpit during worship service. And I oppose the idea of the Church becoming an agent of the state like the Church did in the 4th century.
But let's face it regarding the last point, the Church is regarded by those in power to be one of several 'institutions of indoctrination' telling its members how to fit into society and obey those with authority. What those with power do not want is for the Church to speak prophetically about and to those with power. When part of the Church did that during the 1960s, the liberal side of those with power called the movement in which the Church was participating in by speaking prophetically about and to those with power an 'excess of democracy.' To be sure, those in the Church who were speaking prophetically about and to those in power contained very few, if any, conservative elements. And it seems that regarding issues of militarism, economic classism and exploitation, and destruction of the environment the same applies today. Very few from the conservative churches are speaking prophetically about and to those with power. Many conservatives rightfully speak out against abortion and some have now decided to speak against racism. But the vast majority of the conservative Church refuses to speak out against the about those issues, previously mentioned, that are used to fill the coffers of those with power. Militarism, economic classism and exploitation, and destruction of the environment are issues where some who are wealthy are benefiting at the expense of many who are vulnerable.
We need to consider whether in the Church's charge to preach the Gospel purely, should it preach against corporate sins as practiced by the state and society as it currently preaches against individual sins. We need to wonder if when the Church as an organization speaks only against personal sins, that such is by design to protect the status of those with wealth and power. For wouldn't preaching against personal sins only make today's Church similar to the Church during the 4th century when it became an agent of the state?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nov 26
To Joe Carter and his blogpost on 9 things we should know about Fidel Castro. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website
There are many legitimate criticisms one can make of Castro. Some are listed here. At the same time, the context for his faults, some of which were provided by the US, are often overlooked so that some could talk of Castro as the Pharisee did of the publican from the parable of the two men praying. For example, the person Castro overthrew was a dictator who was know for corruption and brutality (see http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/cuban-dictator-batista-falls-from-power ). In addition, in order to overthrow Castro, the US militarily attacked civilian targets and that preceded the Bay of Pigs fiasco. Finally, the reason that the USSR placed missiles so near the US in Cuba was to gain some degree of parity with the US, which already had a decisive advantage in terms of nuclear weapons, and its nuclear missiles placed in Turkey which bordered the USSR.
Castro brought some good to Cuba but that good could never compare with the violence and the oppression that came with his rule. And while some would wantonly blame the Left for his tyranny, we should note that results of revolution often significantly mirror the regimes that were replaced. Please note that the key words 'often' and 'significantly.' Examples of that statement could be found in how well Lenin's regime imitated the Tsars and in how well Castro's regime imitated the regime of his predecessor Batista. Even the American Revolution brought a significant mirroring of British rule only without an aristocracy. We should note that the writing of The Constitution came in response to widespread dissent and Shays Rebellion. Thus, The Constitution was written in an effort to maintain the place of American elites in society.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nov 28
To Bruce Frohnen and his blogpost criticizing both those conservatives who opposed Trump’s candidacy and to all political nonconservatives. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.
If were summarize Frohnen's political views, I would use a madlib approach to some of the sayings of Jesus. For example, when Jesus said that he was the way, truth, and the life, Frohnen appears to be saying that real political conservatism is the way, the truth, and the life and that no country flourishes without completely embracing it. Such a summary shows Frohnen's political exclusivism. For not only is the left counted by Frohnen as ravenous wolves looking to attack the sheep, so are are the wrong kind of conservatives. And such a view does not foster a sharing of power demanded by real democracy.
Frohnen's reference to the words of the cast of Hamilton to Pence as crybullying is pitiful. For the words spoken by the cast member representing the rest were nothing more than a listing of concerns which was sparked by the racism, sexism, and xenophobia associated with Trump's campaign. And if listing concerns is called crybullying, then it appears that, in Frohnen's America, not only conservative concerns are worth listening to but that he reacting ironically.
Frohnen's antagonistic attitude to all viewpoints that lie outside of what he considers to be true political conservatism makes his support for Trump troublesome. For if he is supporting Trump because Trump shares his antagonism, then we headed for a far more authoritarian politics than we would have had under a Clinton Presidency. And we would have had a somewhat authoritarian politics under her if she followed in Obama's footsteps.
Frohnen's antagonism toward all other views has been seen before. It has been seen in people from all political views from conservatism to liberalism to those from the Left. And it resembles the Pharisee from the parable of the two men praying. And we know what happened to the Pharisee. And we know from history what happens to nations whose leaders adopt the attitude of the Pharisee. But to those Pharisees who believe they have a monopoly on the truth, the destruction they brings comes as a complete surprise.
Nov 15
To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost quote from Simon Capiobianco about Social Justice Warriors. This appeared in the Heidelblog
I see two problems here. First, Social Justice Warriors (SJWs) do not make up a monolith. Second, with all of the fault finding of SJWs without noting their legitimate work and concerns, it seems that the person giving the assessment is vying for the position of pharisee from the parable of the two men praying. And that would make this particular critic of SJWs guilty of most of the faults this critic saw in SJWs.
Why would Capiobianco paint such a heterogeneous group as a monolith? The flawed logic from above is obvious: If all SJWs are as described above, then they have no valid points to make--something stated rather explicitly. Thus, Capiobianco could be trying to discredit them so others don't listen to them at all. It is a a kind of censorship or book burning if you would. Of course, Capiobianco's assessments are arrived at through deduction, not though an inductive approach that would examine each of the issues or concerns that SJWs have.
Yes, some SJWs are guilty of some of the faults listed above. But not all are. And so what are the faults of conservatives?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nov 16
To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost on how the Church should note let its pulpit be used during worship services by politicians. Clark went on to explain the Church’s role in society. This appeared in Heidelblog.
I fully agree that no candidate should be speaking from any church pulpit during worship service. And I oppose the idea of the Church becoming an agent of the state like the Church did in the 4th century.
But let's face it regarding the last point, the Church is regarded by those in power to be one of several 'institutions of indoctrination' telling its members how to fit into society and obey those with authority. What those with power do not want is for the Church to speak prophetically about and to those with power. When part of the Church did that during the 1960s, the liberal side of those with power called the movement in which the Church was participating in by speaking prophetically about and to those with power an 'excess of democracy.' To be sure, those in the Church who were speaking prophetically about and to those in power contained very few, if any, conservative elements. And it seems that regarding issues of militarism, economic classism and exploitation, and destruction of the environment the same applies today. Very few from the conservative churches are speaking prophetically about and to those with power. Many conservatives rightfully speak out against abortion and some have now decided to speak against racism. But the vast majority of the conservative Church refuses to speak out against the about those issues, previously mentioned, that are used to fill the coffers of those with power. Militarism, economic classism and exploitation, and destruction of the environment are issues where some who are wealthy are benefiting at the expense of many who are vulnerable.
We need to consider whether in the Church's charge to preach the Gospel purely, should it preach against corporate sins as practiced by the state and society as it currently preaches against individual sins. We need to wonder if when the Church as an organization speaks only against personal sins, that such is by design to protect the status of those with wealth and power. For wouldn't preaching against personal sins only make today's Church similar to the Church during the 4th century when it became an agent of the state?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nov 26
To Joe Carter and his blogpost on 9 things we should know about Fidel Castro. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website
There are many legitimate criticisms one can make of Castro. Some are listed here. At the same time, the context for his faults, some of which were provided by the US, are often overlooked so that some could talk of Castro as the Pharisee did of the publican from the parable of the two men praying. For example, the person Castro overthrew was a dictator who was know for corruption and brutality (see http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/cuban-dictator-batista-falls-from-power ). In addition, in order to overthrow Castro, the US militarily attacked civilian targets and that preceded the Bay of Pigs fiasco. Finally, the reason that the USSR placed missiles so near the US in Cuba was to gain some degree of parity with the US, which already had a decisive advantage in terms of nuclear weapons, and its nuclear missiles placed in Turkey which bordered the USSR.
Castro brought some good to Cuba but that good could never compare with the violence and the oppression that came with his rule. And while some would wantonly blame the Left for his tyranny, we should note that results of revolution often significantly mirror the regimes that were replaced. Please note that the key words 'often' and 'significantly.' Examples of that statement could be found in how well Lenin's regime imitated the Tsars and in how well Castro's regime imitated the regime of his predecessor Batista. Even the American Revolution brought a significant mirroring of British rule only without an aristocracy. We should note that the writing of The Constitution came in response to widespread dissent and Shays Rebellion. Thus, The Constitution was written in an effort to maintain the place of American elites in society.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nov 28
To Bruce Frohnen and his blogpost criticizing both those conservatives who opposed Trump’s candidacy and to all political nonconservatives. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.
If were summarize Frohnen's political views, I would use a madlib approach to some of the sayings of Jesus. For example, when Jesus said that he was the way, truth, and the life, Frohnen appears to be saying that real political conservatism is the way, the truth, and the life and that no country flourishes without completely embracing it. Such a summary shows Frohnen's political exclusivism. For not only is the left counted by Frohnen as ravenous wolves looking to attack the sheep, so are are the wrong kind of conservatives. And such a view does not foster a sharing of power demanded by real democracy.
Frohnen's reference to the words of the cast of Hamilton to Pence as crybullying is pitiful. For the words spoken by the cast member representing the rest were nothing more than a listing of concerns which was sparked by the racism, sexism, and xenophobia associated with Trump's campaign. And if listing concerns is called crybullying, then it appears that, in Frohnen's America, not only conservative concerns are worth listening to but that he reacting ironically.
Frohnen's antagonistic attitude to all viewpoints that lie outside of what he considers to be true political conservatism makes his support for Trump troublesome. For if he is supporting Trump because Trump shares his antagonism, then we headed for a far more authoritarian politics than we would have had under a Clinton Presidency. And we would have had a somewhat authoritarian politics under her if she followed in Obama's footsteps.
Frohnen's antagonism toward all other views has been seen before. It has been seen in people from all political views from conservatism to liberalism to those from the Left. And it resembles the Pharisee from the parable of the two men praying. And we know what happened to the Pharisee. And we know from history what happens to nations whose leaders adopt the attitude of the Pharisee. But to those Pharisees who believe they have a monopoly on the truth, the destruction they brings comes as a complete surprise.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)