Another Things Ain't What They Use To Be Lament

Ever since the Obergefell decision, many conservative leaders and writers have been singing the blues over the loss of days gone by that really never existed. But those days existed in their minds because of the image they have of their faith. Such is not the case of Joseph Bottum (click here for info). In 2008 Bottum had already seen the writing on the wall. In fact, he traces the loss of Christianity's position of influence back to the mid 1970s. However, in 2008 he wrote an article for the Catholic website First Things that talked about the death of an America from the past.

Mildly surprising because Bottum is a Catholic, he wrote about America being a Protestant America--a Protestant nation rather than a Christian nation. Or to be more precise, he wrote about an America that was formerly a Protestant America, but is no longer. And in his lament, is a picture of a Protestant America that at least in part never existed (click here for the article).

Though he correctly wrote America as being a Protestant America rather than a Christian nation, some of the good points he attributed to America never existed. For example, Bottum stated that there is reason to think of Protestantism as the most 'accommodating religion' ever. But was it really accommodating? When we think about the early days of settlers arriving here, we saw conflicts between some of the different denominations. For example, the Puritans persecuted and even martyred some Quakers. 

But even when necessity forced the different Protestant denominations to tolerate each other for a greater gain for all, many from these denominations certainly didn't accommodate Native Americans or Blacks. Consider the following paragraph:

The great fight to abolish slavery, or women’s suffrage, or the temperance struggle against the Demon Rum, or the civil-rights movement: Every so often, there would explode from the churches a moral and prophetic demand on the nation. But, looking back, we can now see that these showy campaigns were mostly a secondary effect of religion’s influence on America. Each was a check written on a bank account filled by the ordinary practice and belief of the Protestant denominations.

What is missing from those reminisces about the past is that the Protestant Church  was on both sides of many of those struggles. And even when it was on the right side of a conflict, its position was tainted by motive. 

We need to remember that many white abolitionists also believed in white supremacy and treated their black counterparts as being inferior. After the abolition of slavery, another institution or era was well supported by Protestants: Jim Crow. And though the North didn't have Jim Crow, it had its own resistance to equality. And none of that mentions the plight of Native Americans. 

Yes, women worked for the right to vote. But women remained 2nd class citizens and were viewed and treated as such until the Sexual Revolution.

As for the Civil Rights Movement, we saw Protestants on both side of the movement. Yes, some Protestants worked and sacrificed for equality for Blacks. But in the recent past, we have resolutions from 2 major denominations apologizing for their resistance to the movement: the PCA and the SBC. Even now, with many conservative Protestants voting for Republican candidates, they are voting for elected officials who oppose the kind of equality that Martin Luther King Jr. gave his life for. In addition, here we are forgetting the contributions of non-Protestants to the Civil Rights Movement. These non-Protestants included atheists, Jews, Catholics, and people from non-Christian religions. 

While describing Protestantism as being accommodating, Bottum mentions how intolerant it could be as he mentioned the conflict between the liberal mainline denominations and the more conservative, fundamentalist branch. He states that liberal Protestantism felt under attack by conservative Protestantism because the latter hated key beliefs of the former. How does that make Protestantism accommodating? Was it formerly accommodating but not longer?

Bottum saw the passing of America as being a Protestant nation around 30 years before his article. The passing of the Mainline Protestantism was the clue for him. In speaking about that passing, he makes a strange comparison. For he talks about how different movements have been replacing Protestantism such as Feminism,  homosexuals, and the environmentalists. He complains about how environmentalists react to those who disagree. He then goes on to say that just as a religion that acted political movements damaged themselves, he was referring to conservative Protestants there, so to will political movements do to themselves when they act like religions by looking for followers, not supporters.

With the departure of Protestantism as having the dominant influence over the nation, Bottum asks what will unify our nation? Inferred by Bottum's concern is the need for a nation to be based on religion. For in describing America earlier on he said:

Think of the American experiment as a three-legged stool, its stability found in each leg’s relation to the other legs. Democracy grants some participation in national identity, an outlet for the anxious desire of citizens to take part in history, but it always leans toward vulgarity and short-sightedness. Capitalism gives us other freedoms and outlets for ambition, but it, too, always threatens to topple over, eroding the virtues it needed for its own flourishing. Meanwhile, religion provides meaning and narrative, a channel for the hunger of human beings to reach beyond the vanities of the world, but it tilts, in turn, toward hegemony and conformity.

Through most of American history, these three legs of democracy, capitalism, and religion accommodated one another and, at the same time, pushed hard against one another.

It is at that point that Bottum called Protestantism the most accommodating religion ever. But think about those 3 legs. Democracy not only wants people to take part in things, democracy as a state of being vies for people of all groups to share the nation as equals. But how can that happen when a particular religion rules the roost? Wasn't conservative Christianity always a political movement along with being a religion? And with Capitalism vying for a privileged place for those in business in society, Democracy and Capitalism are constantly at odds. So while Bottum is right in stating that these 3 vital parts of America battled each other in the past, there was never any real accommodation without one acting as a superior. And that superior part was not Democracy.

Bottum is at least partially correct in calling America from the past a Protestant nation rather than a Christian one. His article describes some interesting stages between the past and the present. At the same time, somehow the rough parts of our nation and its history, and there are many of those, and the roles that Protestantism has played in contributing to those rough parts is underrepresented. Part of that is due to Bottum's conservative political views. At the same time, Bottum saw America as it was in relation to religion significantly before many current Christian leaders.

A Conservative Christian View Of Police And Protests Shows Shortsightedness

R.R. Reno (click here for personal info) just wrote an article for the First Things blog that seemed to criticize the police for not being confrontational enough with protesters some of whom were destroying property. In his article, he makes the following claim:

Since George Floyd’s death, civil authorities have done everything possible to avoid deadly encounters.

 Reno calls much of their current approach 'containment' in contrast to 'confrontation.' In Reno's view, it isn't that containment is always wrong, but it has been overused here. As a result, not only has there been preventable property destruction, too much containment has led to vigilantism (click here for the article).

Perhaps the most revealing line about Reno's perspective precedes the above quote:

News of street violence makes my heart sink.

    When we combine those two statements together, we see that              Reno shows more concern over the reaction to the shootings than       the shootings themselves. Such is a view of a privileged person.

    Here we should note the human tendency to judge the actions of       others as if they are reacting from the same context, with generally    the life experiences as one's own context with life experiences. To      give an example, I remember corresponding with a member of          BLM  and telling my friend about how the police gently escorted        those who were engaging in civil disobedience at a protest in             suburban area. My friend, because of their own life experiences,         had difficulty in believing what I wrote. At the same time, one of       friends who lives around me could not believe the accounts of          police brutality that I relayed to them when I was discussing     misconduct by the police. Why? That was because he had neither      experienced, nor witnessed,  nor knew anyone who had been abused   by the police.

 Other factors can be involved in how we receive news about police violence as well. Those who are conservative authoritarians, which is a distinct possibility for Reno, naturally side with recognized authority figures such as the police. Those who are more anti-authoritarian might tend to assume that the police always are abusive when dealing with people.

Then there is the race issue. Whites have generally treated with less suspicion and more favortism by many police officers than Blacks have. So Whites might tend to be more open to favorable stories about the police than Blacks are. And that is especially true for those Blacks who have either be abused by the police or know someone who has been. But race is not the only contributing factor here, economic class is as well in determining what people tend to believe about the police.

Having said all of that, we need to get back to the quotes from Reno. The first quote points to an assumption of innocence for the police. It also separates the conditions of the protests from the protests. If police have done everything to 'avoid deadly encounters,' then why do we have two more examples of police abuse? Those two examples are the shootings of Rayshard Brooks and Jacob Blake. If the police to do not want to risk deadly encounters during protests, then why continue to conduct unjustified attempts on life which has been a cause for the protests?

But we should also point out clear police misconduct when determining whether police have done everything to avoid deadly confrontations. That misconduct ranges from the pushing down and then ignoring their victim as he was down injured of a 75-year protester in Buffalo. And to the attitude of the police regarding that matter, when two police officers involved in the assault were disciplined, 57 officers from that unit resigned in protest. Or we could go documented police attacks against protesters, medics, journalists and legal observers (click here and there). We should note that just because actions did not result in death, does not imply that such actions did not risk the death of the targets.

Also, if police were so concerned with avoiding deadly confrontations, why did they let a 17-year-old, untrained kid with an assault rifle walk toward a protest? Did they not know that that could easily lead to a deadly confrontation? Such would be unlikely.

Thus it seems that Reno's claim that the police have done what they could to 'avoid deadly encounters' seems flawed.

The second quote is even problematic. Where is Reno's expressed concern for the 3 men who have been either killed or seriously wound by unnecessary police violence? Why is the destruction of property some that saddens Reno but the flagrant use of force against Blacks does not produce a sorrow worthy of mention?

Later on, Reno writes the following;

Protecting property from theft and destruction is one of the fundamental functions of government.

And yet where is Reno's statement about protecting lives as also being one of the functions of government? As a religious leader, why does he more strongly express a concern for property than for lives?

The title of Reno's article is: The Rule Of Law Imperiled. But is the rule of law only imperiled when, in anger and anguish, protesters flaunt the law in the destruction of property? Or should Reno consider that when when officers of the court and state act unlawfully, then the rule of law is under attack too?

Finally we should realize that it is a sign of privilege to think that the current unrest began with the protests. For many, but not all, Blacks, the unrest today is simply a continuation of the conflict that started here in 1619. But because Whites like me don't have many of the life experiences that many Blacks have had, we are at risk for being at least partially blind to the whole picture of what is going on today.

 

The Only Alternative Is To

Will be reviewing an article written by Carl Trueman (click here for info on Trueman) on his reaction to the Bostock Supreme Court decision regarding discrimination at the workplace. This article was posted in the First Things website which is a conservative Catholic website that posts writings from Conservative Catholic thinkers and even from some non Catholics (click here for the article).

Now usually I respond to Trueman's articles in the comments section which is provided--or I should say was provided. Unfortunately, First Things has gone the way of many conservative blogs by removing its comments section for blog articles. This is an unfortunate trend since it reinforces the perception that conservatives are often authoritarian and cannot tolerate dissent.

Anyway, the Bostock decision ruled that an employee could not be dismissed from one's job because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. This has upset Trueman who has written quite a few articles on sexual issues in society and its culture.

One would think that it is only fair that employees could not be discriminated against because of sexual orientation or gender identity. But Trueman doesn't see it that way because it means that things aren't what they use to be. That our society and its culture have finally rejected what the Scriptures say about sexual orientation and gender identity. For if society accepted what the Scriptures said, then the laws for society would reflect it. Remember that Trueman is reacting to a SCOTUS decision here, not just a cultural trend.

But his objections go on past what is stated above. For what Trueman does not like about the Bostock decision is that it reinforces the belief in the 'autonomous self.' Then he quotes a line from a book by Catholic Theologian Douglas Farrow:

The autonomous will really has no choice but to attack the body as well as the mind. For the body is the most obvious locus of the given, the most stubborn impediment to the power claimed by the will.

Trueman follows that by saying: 'Transgenderism is the logical outcome of all this.'

The trouble is that Trueman's claim is made from a philosophically deductive approach. Not that there is anything wrong with making philosophical deductions, nothing wrong at all. The problem is that when philosophical deductions are not met by the facts on the ground, they prove themselves to be meaningless.

What do we know about the causes for gender dysphoria that we could automatically assume that responding to that dysphoria with a change in gender is one attacking one's self?

But there are other issues here besides LGBT issues and the results of the Sexual Revolution--another favorite target of Trueman. Those issues include a concern over the 1st Amendment with its affirmation of religious freedom. Those issues include a concern with how we Christians should share society with unbelievers. Those issues include a concern with how much our laws for society should be guided by the Scriptures. And last, but not least, those issues include a concern with what do we want to associate with the Gospel.

When we oppose a SCOTUS ruling that protects people from discrimination, what do we Christians think we are associating with the Gospel? Can't we both preach against what the Scriptures call sexual immorality and the modern view of gender identity and still oppose discrimination against people based on sexual orientation and gender identity at the workplace?

Unfortunately, Trueman writes an inordinate number of articles on sexual issues that often focus on LGBT issues and what he thinks is a toxic effect that the LGBT community and the Sexual Revolution have on society. And this is most unfortunate. For while Trueman seems to be writing in order to promote conformity in society, he has demonstrated the ability to be an independent thinker. He has offered some brilliant Biblical insights when interpreting the Scriptures. He has the kind of talent that we need in the Church to address societal issues. But unfortunately, what appears to drive his writings about some issues is a desire to establish a significant degree of Christian control over society and its laws.

The only alternative to the SCOTUS decision that Trueman opposes is the imposition of Christian views and rules on society. And the biggest objection to that is not when that imposition will stop. The biggest objection is whether we have the right to impose our Christian views on unbelievers in society regarding individual moral issues. For while we can preach against the autonomous self, do we have the right to legislate against it?

Comments Which Conservataives Block From Their Blogs For Dec 11, 2019

Nov 13

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost on the culture war and the Gospel. In that article, he rightly criticizes fellow believers who look to win a culture war in America to take America back. This appeared in Heidelblog.

Every Christian needs to worry about how we marginalize other groups more than about how we might be marginalized now and in the future. And that is just as true for Calvinists as it is for those evangelicals who do not recognize Calvin's teaching on the 2 kingdoms. And regarding that teaching, we need to look at history to see how well Calvin's practice matched his theory. That history should tell us what we can realistically expect from his modern day adherents.

The culture war talk is for those, religiously conservative Christian or not, who look to achieve some degree of supremacy and control over society. Such people look at democracy as a means to their desired ends rather than an end. Those who look to natural law to settle issues raised by the sexual revolution and other social uprisings regarding sex will surely be disappointed. For not only does nature provide more than an ample number of examples of the existence of homosexuality which bring benefits to a given species, other societies that are more in-tune with nature, such as Native American tribes, have often recognized more than two genders. Thus one cannot use the natural law argument without pushing at least some of one's religious beliefs on others and thus violating the distinction between the 2 kingdoms as recognized but not practiced by Calvin.

In the end, what sabotages our sharing of the Gospel is that we, religiously conservative Christians that is, have never learned the difference between showing proper respect to legitimate authority figures and structures from embracing authoritarianism. Evidence of that is seen in whom Clark says we religiously conservative Christians can align ourselves with politically.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dec 6

To Bradford Littlejohn and his article on whether Nationalism can unite us. This appeared in First Things.

Sanitized definitions of the word 'nationalism' can never be adequate. For history shows us that regardless of how we scrub away at the definition, nationalism's true gang mentality and group authoritarianism emerge as permanent stains.

Part of the history I am referring to is what is written above about the Native Americans who resisted the ethnic cleansing being pursued by the European settlers. For Littlejohn cites Lowry in writing the following:

Lowry has no compunction about speaking the language of Manifest Destiny: “It is understandable that the Indians fought us. . . . But theirs was a losing battle, militarily and culturally. . . . Their way of life was not going to survive competition with the dynamic, churning engine of wealth and power next to them.” As a matter of hardheaded historical reality, he argues that it “wasn’t realistic” for thinly-spread Indian tribes to control most of the continent while multiplying whites remained confined to the Atlantic coast.

In the end Lowry was not trying to justify Native American resistance, he was simply rationalizing the carrying out of race-based Manifest Destiny. For he declared that the white settlers were entitled to the land because their way of life was superior to that of the Native Americans and because the white settlers needed breathing or living space. And white settlers took that land using a combination of force and unbroken treaties.

History tells us that white American settlers were not the only ones who believed that they were entitled to the land of others because they were superior to those others and they needed breathing or living space. And it isn't only history also teaches us that it is far easier to condemn others for doing what we do than to condemn ourselves. All we need to do is to reflect on our reactions to the immigrants crossing our southern border to see our selective use of standards.

The Search For Maintaining A True Conservatism

Russell Ronald "R.R." Reno (click here for a bio) has just written an article for the conservative Cathlolic website, First Things (click here for the website) that is both a warning and a plea regarding the need for Conservatives to update the way they see the world (click here for the article). Why is such an update needed? It is because, according to Reno, there has been a disturbance in the liberal force. Liberalism has changed and thus poses a new threat. It poses a new threat because unlike the liberalism of the past, it is now using big government to compel us to accept 'plenary liberation and economic growth.'

It's not that liberals have never used big government before. After all, Reno complains about how big government was used to address racism, sexism, and poverty when he was younger. But now big government consists of the expanded use of the judicial system to change the world. In addition, unlike past liberalism that seemed to have unintentionally followed some of Pope Leo XIII's directives on keeping what is necessary to maintain an healthy society, today's liberalism is looking to move society to accept beliefs and practices that totally lie outside of Pope Leo XIII's instructions. What did Pope Leo XIII say that was necessary for a healthy society? He wrote about how the family and domestic part of life, the religious part of life, and Civic life for our political needs were all essential  for a good society. And when these three areas of life are in balance, the political life open as to how to be constructed so that the common good is advanced. And, of course, Reno believes that the Church, that is the Roman Church, has the answers to what best advances the common good.

However now, both family part of life and the religious part of life are under attack by big government forcing some to accept, what is for them, the unacceptable while others seem to be willing to swallow the new values of the 21st Century hook, line, and sinker. Thus because of the Sexual Revolution, the family part of life seems to be slowly dying from the American scene. And because of that, fewer Americans see getting married and having children as being important or even necessary. What follows then is that fewer Americans consider the consequences in the future when it comes to values and beliefs. And that is another part of the disturbance in the liberal force for this represents a change in liberalism and its causes. In addition, the religious part of our nation's life is faltering.

Certainly there is more to the current disturbance in the liberal force than what is being mentioned here. Reno also mentions identity politics along with the over emphasis on the economics through economic globalism. In addition, there is the blaming of government for the corruption of Capitalism.

One of Reno's primary concerns in the article is the survival of the West. And thus he finds what students learn about the West in school to be disconcerting. For too many students have come to associate homophobia, racism, and imperialism with the West. This has, in Reno's view caused a kind of guilt that might make people think that the West is not worth preserving. This guilt, according to Reno, is due to Secularism's overreach that collective guilt now exists for past and present failures.

Now Reno talks about other things such as his pragmatic based support for Trump,  but what has been described above is enough to chew on. We should note that being a religiously conservative Christian, Reno is prone to embracing authoritarianism. That is because conservative Christianity relies heavily on authority structures in teaching people how to relate to others. And his view of the centrality of the Church in society is evidence that he clings to it. For he writes:

I was finishing graduate school when Richard John Neuhaus launched First Things. His outlook seemed right. Again, I wasn’t thinking in Leo XIII’s terms in those days. But I can now see that Neuhaus recognized that our society needed the renewal of the moral authority of traditional institutions, especially marriage and Church, in order to restore the Leonine balance.

We should note that Neuhaus was responding to the exclusion of religious thought in public discussions. However, the mention of the 'moral authority' of the Church implies more than just having a seat at the table of issues.

We should also include what he writes about Secularism:

Secularism takes things out of God’s hands—and puts them in ours.
 

Or we could add Reno's claim that only the Church can help one to adequately respond to guilt. Secularism might heap guilt on to people, but that it often does that falsely and it offers no remedy for that guilt. This makes society utterly dependent on the Church and independent of Secularism. Of course, this claim is made without reciting the many historical failures of the Church in justly ruling over people in society.

But what most indicates Reno's embracing of authoritarianism is the essential part to a healthy society he believes the Church plays. For such a belief concludes that there has never been a healthy society without the Church playing a key role. And the problem such a view presents is in the area where Christians ask themselves how they will share society with others. Will they share society as equals? Or will we share society feeling entitled to enjoying a privileged position where we can at least partially control society through, of all things, government? 

Those who feel entitled to enjoying to such a privileged position often act as the proverbial bull in a china shop when it comes to recognizing their own faults. Evidence for this kind of acting can be seen in Reno's analysis of the French Revolution. For before the Revolution, the Church sided with wealth and power as the state transferred more and more burdens on the peasant class while enriching and empowering the nobles and the clergy. But Reno doesn't mention any of that. Reno's calloused reactions to the protests of the 60s as well as his defensive reactions to the accusations that the racism, homophobia, and imperialism were key parts of the West provides another example of this bull in a china shop attitude.

What Reno fails to mention is that the 21st Century's challenges to conservatism are due to the legitimate concerns found in Post Modernism. Though while Post Modernism falsely conclude that the metanarratives of Pre Modernism or Modernism are not true, that it made that judgment is largely the fault of institutions like the conservative Church in the West for it failures to acknowledge the injustices it visited or caused others to visit on those from different races, religions, nations, and sexual orientation. For all of the injustices were, and sometimes still are, real and could be quite severe. But feeling entitled to have a privileged place over others somehow robs one of self-awareness and makes one resist feeling guilty for how their use of privilege has hurt others because they are so focused on the 'good' they have done.

Finally, quite often the interest in preserving the West, which is a concern of Reno, indicates, not implies, some racial overtones. Why? That's because the West that was predominant and branched out into empires all over the world, including America, was a White European West. And since many who see the low birthrate in Europe as a sign of doom, what they are saying is that not enough White people are being born. In addition, there are a sufficient number of prominent Christian leaders who have spoken  at meetings of organizations that seem to promote White Supremacy. Sometimes, the appearance of a Christian leader at such a group's event is unrelated to the group's racism. But that other such leaders do have some leanings into White Supremacy is unmistakable. And though I've seen no indication in the Reno writings with which I am familiar that say that Reno leans that way, the concern for the preservation of the West or Western Civilization raise red flags that there could be some racist leanings by the person with such a concern.

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 July 1, 2015

 Since access to the comments on this particular post seems not to be working, there is a possibility that the comment below was not blocked.

June 23

To Christopher Yuan and his blogpost on how to discuss gay marriage. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.

If there is no room for civil disagreement on homosexuality, could part of that be because of religiously conservative Christians who have sought legislation to either prohibit same-sex marriage or allow for Jim Crow type discrimination against those in the LGBT community? Perhaps some from that community should be interviewed here to see the varying reasons for why there is less room for civil disagreement.

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

June 24

To R. Scott Clark and his short blogpost quote talking about the rights of those individuals and businesses that wish to practice business according to  their own views of marriage? This occurred in Heidelblog.

But are the people who are "standing up" for marriage infringing on the rights of others? In particular, are they infringing on the rights of those who wish to engage in same-sex marriage?

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

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost quote claiming that Francis does not understand the Gospel by how he speaks about the poor. This appeared in Heidelblog.

If the love of money is sin and preaching repentance from sin is part of preaching the Gospel, then perhaps those who exclude talking about poverty are the ones who do not understand the Gospel. For what does Jesus say at the beginning of his ministry? He read from Isaiah 61.

Though Francis is not correct in everything he says, he is addressing points which Protestants who fail to preach to those with wealth and power should be addressing. So perhaps Conservative Protestants who claim that Francis does not understand the Gospel should consider whether they are playing the role of the pharisee in the parable of the two men praying.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

June 26

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost quote about how our nation's founders believed in the principles of the Magna Carta. This appeared in Heidelblog.

But the liberties that the colonists lavished on themselves were shared with neither America's Indigenous people nor slaves. In fact, what liberties one enjoyed depended on economic class, race, and religion. At this point we need to realize that liberties - equality = privilege. And that is what most of our founders believed in: privilege.

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

To Dominic Bouck and his blogpost on the end of democracy. This appeared in First Things.

Just as propaganda is defined by who is saying what, the presence of judialocracy is determined by one's disagreement with Court decisions. If we want to know what is destroying democracy, we will soon discover that it is the money spent on the executive and legislative branches that provides the biggest threat to our democracy.

Of course, another threat to our democracy is wearing rose-colored glasses to view our past. In reality, The Constitution was written in response to dissent and rebellion against the practices and policies of America's own elites--this stands in contrast to the Declaration of Independence which was written in response to the practices and policies of British elites. And the jest of The Constitution, when one reads about the historical context in which it was written and documents of that time, is easily understood as a protection of the status quo against which people were protesting. Here we should note that the Bill of Rights was not included in the original version of The Constitution. In fact, because of The Constitution, only 5% of the people were eligible to vote immediately after it became law. If we include the contents of The Constitutional debates with our understanding of The Constitution, we will discover that some key founding fathers opposed democracy and even the voting rights of all people.

When we finally add to the above the fact that The Constitution did not show kindness to people of color, we find that the founding of our nation well less based on law than we would care to admit.

It's the Supreme Court's job to analyze our legislation to determine if it violates The Constitution. That is a part of the structure of our gov't. And it poorly reflects on us when our opposition to the role played by the Supreme Court depends solely on our disagreement with its decisions.

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

June 28

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost quoting Justice Thomas on religious liberty in the light of the Supreme Court's decision on same-sex marriage. This appeared in Heidelblog.

What is it that is being protested here? The right of those who disagree with the Biblical definition of marriage so that they can engage in same-sex marriage. So when will we discuss the religious liberties of those who disagree with us on same-sex marriage? Or are we the only ones with religious freedom?

BTW, where was Justice Thomas' reference to due process and the Magna Carta when Obama signed the 2012 NDAA. In that law, American citizens can be arrested without due process at the discretion of the President. This provision of that law was written as part of the war on terror.

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

June 30

To Bruce Edward Walker and his blogpost about Biblical principles of environmental stewardship. This appeared in the Acton blog.


There are problems here. As in many Conservative Christian approaches to subjects, we've sometimes defined reality before facing it. And thus the facts on the ground challenge our definitions. As a result, sometimes the unbeliever is quicker at recognizing the discrepancies between what exists and our definitions.

For example, has, in Acton's Environmental Stewardship study explicitly stated specific problems that human activities have had on the environment. Has this study talked about the increasing number of dead zones in the ocean due to the ocean's absorption of CO and chemical runoffs from the fertilization and other treatment of farmlands? Has Acton's study included the environmental destruction and increased health risks seen in the Appalachians from the Mountaintop removal of coal? Has Acton's study  included the environmental hazards faced by local residents from the extraction of fossil fuels in Nigeria or the environmental problems that have come with fracking in the U.S.?

What have Acton's studies say about the consumption of fossil fuels and the growing environmental problems caused by such for both the present and the future?

By accusing the Constitution of vying for limited government power, is Acton aware of the context and purpose of The Constitution in that it was written to strengthen the federal government so that it could better respond to dissent and rebellions such what took place in Shays Rebellion? Is the Acton Institute aware of the following statement by Madison about the purpose of government?

They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority.

We should note that part of what preceded this statement was an expressed fear of Madison about the possibility of voting being opened to all classes of people in England. Following Madison's convictions here means that only certain elites should have the right to vote.

And, btw, how much of Israel's OT government should we use as a model for our government here when Israel's government was a theocracy constructed for what was for the most part a homogeneous population? And was the gov't of OT Israel as limited as the Acton Institute stated?

And what about democracy and the rule of the people? Such a structure seems to be out of sync with either Israel's OT government--even in the Deuteronomy passages cited and were falsely claimed to support the electing of rulers-- or what was described in the NT?

And what if certain sectors of the private sector keep growing, shouldn't government also grow so that it could keep all from the private sector accountable?

It seems that here, the references to the Scriptures, The Constitution, and limited government are there for appearances and are to be self-congratulatory. This is especially true when we are facing serious problems with the environment and the consolidation of wealth and power seen in the private sector.
 

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For June 24, 2015

May 27

The first entry here is not a comment blocked on a blog but an unpublished letter to the editor of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church's monthly publication New Horizons

Regarding Carl Trueman's article on the Church in Exile because of society's changing moral values in June, 2015 edition of New Horizons

To The Editor,

Carl Trueman goes 1 for 2 in his article The Church In Exile. For while he scores points with suggestions about how we Christians could build our own identity, he seems to lack the curiosity to examine why opposing same-sex marriage would bring society's scorn.

My personal experience is that while some from the LGBT community will detest any opposition to same-sex marriage, most have not. Almost all of my friends who are gay respect my holding to Biblical convictions regarding same-sex orientation even after I have shared my beliefs with them. Yes, they disagree, but they respect me because we treat each other as equals. 

What we can conclude by comparing my personal experiences with how many Conservative Christians have reacted to same-sex marriage is that there are two ways to oppose same-sex marriage and equality for the LGBT community. Either we can oppose this 'identity' by sharing what the Scriptures teach but tolerate it in society or we can add to our words efforts to either legally prohibit same-sex marriage in society and deny its participants equal rights.

If we choose the latter option, note that people could be reacting to our attempts to at least partially do to the LGBT community what Dr. Trueman is warning that society might do to us for opposing same-sex marriage. And regardless of the model of thought we use to belabor the Christian view of marriage, promoting a dog-eat-dog relationship with others can only hurt our Christian witness.

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

June 17

To Denny Burk and his blogpost mentioning the Southern Baptist Church's resolution on same-sex marriage. This appeared in Denny Burk's blog.

It seems to me that the Southern Baptist use of the notion of the 'public good' has a similar role to the Reformed use of 'natural law' with regard to this issue: it is a backdoor approach to Christian control of society.

At the same time, the Southern Baptists wish to defend the 'religious liberty' of those who agree with the Biblical definition of marriage. So here, the Southern Baptists seem unwilling to admit that it is not defending the religious liberties of others when it calls on the Supreme Court to uphold the traditional view of marriage.This practice of defending one's own liberty while denying that of others has an unfortunately sufficient history in the American Church. The same can be said of promoting Christian control over society. This exceeds the NT principles, such as what can be implied from Paul's comments in I Cor 5 or Jesus' comments about Church discipline, of the Church's role in society. 

And what is more injurious to our public witness to Christ is that while we do what we can to prohibit the liberties sought by some who disagree with us, we are silent on the economic exploitation that is part and parcel to America's capitalism, we show little regard for the destruction to the environment our way of life is causing, and we are afraid to speak out against nation's wars and militarism. In other words, we enthusiastically pile on the sins of the individual while we build fences to protect the societal and system sins from which we see an immediate benefit. And our self-righteousness prevents us from seeing the truth and thus the rub that is apparent to so many others.

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

To George Weigel and his blogpost criticizing the Ireland's democracy for legalizing same-sex marriage. This appeared in First Things.

It is certainly true that democracy consists of more than just majority rule. Such can easily result in a tyranny of the majority as in an ethnic tyranny, religious tyranny, or an economic class tyranny. However, the missing ingredients to democracy need to be reconsidered. One reason why is because economic freedom can easily result in the last tyranny mentioned--economic class tyranny--even when a particular economic class is not the majority. And such is what we are witnessing today as economic interests have established undue influences on both how our elected officials behave as well as who is elected. We might also add that what is called a 'vibrant moral culture' must be better defined for moral claims to legislation can become backdoor approaches to establishing a religious tyranny. We should remember how our nation started when 9 of the 13 colonies had state churches or when some used religious beliefs to justify practices such as slavery and Jim Crow. Behind the calls unqualified calls to economic freedom and vibrant moral cultures can lurk the shadow of authoritarianism.

Perhaps what should complete a democracy is a public ethic that determines how we will share society. And that public ethic would state that all groups would seek to share society as equals rather than being determined by the survival of the politically fittest. For when how society is shared is determined by the latter principle, we only show that the values that run our society are more determined by the principles of our competitive, do-or-die economic system. Here, commitment to equality is discarded as a worship and embracement of superiority is welcomed. And we should note that it isn't ironic that the Weimar Republic elected a candidate who promised to rid the country of democracy and diversity in order to let the superior lead the country into glory. After all, didn't Germany see itself as being superior to other nations even before WW II. In addition, the party to which this candidate belonged campaigned on a return to traditional values. And we should note that the Roman Church agreed to a noninterference pact with this party in the name of anti-Communism.

Yes, democracy cannot be reduced to majority rule. But what needs to be added to majority rule to make a society democratic is much more and perhaps even different from what was added here.

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

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost quote of Stella Morabito who claims that logic is being killed resulting in the death of freedom. This blogpost quote appeared in the Heidelblog.

Reading the article linked to, one quickly realizes that the writer is practicing what he condemns: the use of propaganda to influence people. For unless he can build a case as to why same-sex marriage is a propagandized idea, not only does he beg the question he encourages an ideological tribalism that requires the use of propaganda. 

Such brings us back to a de facto definition of propaganda: Propaganda is what our opponents say. Of course there is logic in that statement, but here it is the motivation that is the problem, not the presence or absence of logic.

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

June 22

To Russell Moore and his blogpost stating how the Bible and the Confederate flag are to antagonistic to each other to be paired together. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition Website.

I am thankful for the denunciation of the confederate flag. But those who would object to the U.S. flag can voice more objections than just slavery. In fact, racism still is a problem and it is partially supported by institutions though in a different way than supported before. Take a look at our current incarceration practices for example.

Or has America repented of its imperialism? Remember that it was George Washington who referred to our nation as an infant empire. That empire's expansion was first at the expense of America's indigenous people. Did our nation repent of that? And then we move across the seas to further expand our empire and made declarations such as the Monroe doctrine. Of course, we could ask if America has repented from supporting tyrants who either favor our business interests or have become proxy rulers?

Of course there are the military and other interventions in which our nation has participated. Sometimes the targets of these interventions are democratically elected leaders and democratic processes. We could mention the business-motivated pre-WW II interventions cited by former Marine Corp Major General Smedley Butler or the 50+interventions after WW II. Has our nation repented of its militarism?

And then there is our global capitalism. For that capitalism has quickly and dramatically increased the supply of low-skilled labor both globally and locally driving wages and working conditions down. And please read that the vast majority of the recovery from the 2008 crisis has gone to those who caused the problem in the first place.

And then there is the combination of our economy with our way of life and their effects on the environment. Have we repented there?

Other sins/problems could be cited and the question is where's the repentance? So perhaps those pointing the U.S. flag have a valid point when they equate it with the confederate flag. And just perhaps, like those past defenders of slavery and Jim Crow, we too have wed what the Scriptures teach with the sinful and harmful practices just listed.