Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For August 5, 2015

July 29

To Denny Burk and his blogpost on abortion and one woman's brief account. This appeared in Denny Burk's blog.

Denny,

Your blogpost here is good, but the title is a little misleading. Itisn’t the sex life that is at fault for the abortion itself, it is the failure to recognize the intrinsic value of each human life that is the problem.

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

July 30

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost quote stating that even pagans understand that same-sex marriage is wrong. this appeared in Heidelblog.

Of course, this 'even pagans understood' cuts both ways and this should be important for those who would be interested in not becoming the pharisee from the parable of the two men prayed.

Even pagans understand the injustices from an economic system that uses a flag of freedom as a cloak for greed. Even though his solutions were left wanting, Marx understood this. So did my brothers and sisters at Occupy Wall Street. And because of those injustices, even pagans understand the need to speak out even if those who cry out look less appealing than Balaam's donkey. 

Even pagans understand that our modern way of life is destroying the parts of the environment that makes life possible. Even pagans understand that it would be wise to seriously consider what the vast majority of scientists have to say on this subject. And even pagans understand that to halt the destruction of the environment while helping those who are impoverished, we must learn to share more with others while perhaps making due with less for ourselves.

And even pagans understand that, if we continue to rely on war and militarism, WMDs will eventually be used  and then be used on a more frequent basis endangering the lives of those who follow us. And even pagans understand that patriotism can be a gateway association that promotes a moral relativity that defines right and wrong by asking who does what to whom.


We so focus on the sexual behaviors of others that horrible sins of both others and ourselves are easily flying in under the radar, that is if there is any radar left which is not devoted to detecting sexual sins. Yes, we need to speak out against sexual sins. But does that mean that we should marginalize those whose sexual sins we find intolerable?

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

July 31

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost on a Biblical view of human authority in particular as it applies in the home. This appeared in Heidelblog.

First, you have a spelling error at the end of the following line:

"This is an area where Christians have an opportunity to be distinct from the prevailing culture both both by respecting the creation order and by showing hey"


Second, there are things we can learn from the current limited egalitarianism that is a part of our culture. But before we discuss that, we need to discuss when to push a  Biblical complementarian perspective. Certainly we need to push that in the Church and fellowship groups. And when we need to push that when we teach the Bible to others. Pushing it at home depends on whether we have married a believing wife and if so, would our current church support that. But what about expecting society to adopt such an approach?

Some would argue that we should insist that society follow the Biblical model. But to be consistent, we would have to repeal the First Amendment that talks about the freedom of religion. Should we fear egalitarianism in society? I would have a bigger fear of society pushing an unbiblical form of hierarchy regardless of who is granted superiority.

If the government is to recognize each person as being equal in society, then what is wrong with the current egalitarian approach outside of possible restroom confusion? And what if we, in our roles of heads of the house, treat our wives as being equals while still making the final decision on certain matters? See, that treating our spouses as equals can be an expression of love and respect. In addition, recognizing where our spouses are superior to us outside of gender stereotypes can be a further expression of love and respect. Even Adam Smith knew that too strict a division of labor has a dumbing down effect. Is that what we want our spouses to experience?

Again, I think we should welcome the egalitarianism promoted in society. We can certainly live around that at home and in our churches. And we need to distinguish what we should allow for society to follow from what we would preach people to follow as private individuals.

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

Aug 2

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost quote about abortion and choice. This appeared in Heidelblog

The real issue with abortion is not choice. The real issue is what, if any, intrinsic value does human life have. For if the only value is conferred, then we are all at the mercy of those who have the power to grant or take away our value as people.


At the same time we must realize that the practice of abortion is not our society's only institution that acts as if human life has no intrinsic value. The Free Market, our Neoliberal Capitalism, and our penchant for militarism and war all act as if human life has no intrinsic value.

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

August 3

To Victoria Sweatman and her comment of around July 24 stating that neither history nor the Constitution support same-sex marriage. This was part of the discussion on the blogpost about the Obergefeel v. hodges decision. This appeared on the First things blog.

Victoria,
Actually history is replete with same-sex couples and has more examples of such marriages than we care to admit. So your point doesn't make the comparison specious. Think about the opposition to racial equality that has remained entrenched for centuries in our own nation.

And what does the Constitution say about this matter? First, we have a freedom of religion such that the religious views of some cannot be forced on all. Second you have the 14th amendment that says you cannot discriminate in the administration of laws. And that is what we had in terms of marriage. Heterosexual couples were allowed to enjoy a one-to-one union that same-sex couples could not. That the one-to-one partnership was a complete union prevents the slippery slope which some fear. That union, which cannot be replicated in any kind of partnership, joins one consenting adult and all that they have to another. Those who argue otherwise are fixated on the sexual union part of the relationship.

Also, if you are going to say that my reasoning is weak, you have to present more grounds than to say some people disagree.
Finally, to draw conclusions about the high prevalence of open relationships and other motivations in the LGBT community without considering the context would be an unacceptable way of drawing conclusions in any kind of research endeavor. What most of us are out of touch with is the degree of marginalization those from the LGBT community have experienced on a personal level for most of their lives. To not consider context when drawing conclusions about behavior would not be acceptable in any kind of scientific endeavor to study any subject.

And if you to question my view about the comparisons between same-sex marriage and heterosexual marriage with same-sex marriage vs any other arrangement, you will have to be more specific in order to make your point.

The real issue is that some of us religiously conservative Christians who hold to traditional marriage in the Church have a personal antagonism against same-sex marriage in society which is not shared by the rest of us religiously conservative Christians who agree with God's Word about traditional marriage but who believe that same-sex marriage should be allowed in society. I think it is time that those Christians who have such an antagonism need to more honest and up front about it. 


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

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost on submitting to those in authority. This appeared in Heidelblog

Something should also be noted about these verses that tell us to submit. That is that they were written before the Gospel had been spread around the world, before Christianity had been associated with particular governments, and before democracy. There are times to resist, but we must note that even then our resistance should reflect our faith in Christ.

When Martin Luther King Jr contemplated how to respond to unjust laws, he had to balance 2 issues: injustice and submission to authorities. Following Augustine, King asserted that an unjust law is not a valid law. At the same time, King was against what is popularly called anarchy and wanted to recognize those who were put in authority. So when he and those who followed him broke the law to show the injustice of the laws back then, he and his followers submitted to arrests and jail time and he advocated that they do so without bitterness and without verbal violence.

Was King wrong to break the law to illustrate injustice? I don't think so  And when we consider the association between the Gospel and the unjust laws he was responding to as well as the association between the Gospel and passivity to the harsh injustices back then, to take King's approach honored the Gospel more than mere submission to the laws because instead of being merely concerned with one's own personal righteousness in following the law, by addressing injustice, he was reaching out in love to those who were 
oppressed. And that is an important point missing in the discussion of how we should honor and submit to authorities. And considering that our democracy puts more tools and privileges into our hands to address injustice, then we see that today's situation involves a different stewardship call in how we relate to those in authority from back in the first century when there was no democracy.

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

August 4

To Joe Carter and his blogpost Criticizing Dan Price, the CEO who is starting a multi-year program that will eventually raise minimum salaries for his employees to $70k. This appeared in the Acton blog.

It seems like the biggest problems Price is facing for his plan to raise salaries to a minimum of $70k are not market problems but personal problems on the part of those who object. From his brother who is suing him to disgruntled employees who are envious to unsure customers, breaking with convention by paying people more shows why we need to look in the mirror and examine ourselves. It also shows that the free market isn't as free as we are led to believe. For look at the backlash Price is receiving before his experiment has a chance to be tested by the "Free Market."

What will be most interesting, but also predictable because of past precedent, is the lawsuit by Price's brother. After all, who are the employees that they should be recognized as having "earned" more of the company's profits than what some owners want to grant? After all, without the employees, there is no production of products that produce profits. None. But such shows the ownership mentality of some and their views of their employees. 

In the meantime, here is Joe Carter telling Price that if he read the parable about the vineyard owner (see parable of the vineyard owner ) before deciding to raise wages, he could have saved himself time and trouble. After all, it is the hired hands from that parable who tell us what happens when envy has its way and obviously Joe Carter's Free Market is based on envy. Of course, in cheering on the hired hands from Price's company (a.k.a., the disgruntled employees who are objecting to the raises others are receiving), Carter seems to be showing greater affection for today's hired hands and his free market than he does for the vineyard owner from parable and the lesson He was teaching. Does Carter even know who that vineyard owner is? Does he know the lesson that comes from the parable?

So the last will be first, and the first will be last.


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

To Joe Carter and his blogpost containing a short animated film and explanation on, from one example, since there is cooperation between two major department stores that cooperation is the rule in Capitalism and thus no central authority needs to oversee it. This appeared on the Acton blog.

So much is implied from such a little example and using little examples as an apologetic seems to be the habit of those who defend capitalism. One only needs to look at the history of news media and the number of corporations who have owned news media or the number of big banks today vs yesteryear to realize that this idea of cooperation is not necessarily germane to today's Capitalism. And one only needs to look at the causes of the 2008 economic collapse to realize what can happen when there is a lack of federal oversight when big money is involved.

When many Americans look at Capitalism, they only see what happens to them and those they have contact with. They are unable to see the bigger picture because either they refuse or neglect to notice all of the stakeholders involved in the system. Human trafficking is a significant problem in our agriculture sector. And even when that is not involved, trade agreements and foreign policies involving military interventions with the subsequent installment of proxy leaders has been part of our economic system. The current consolidation of wealth and the growth of poverty is also a part of our economic system. But primarily, the objectification of workers and relegating them to a state of being disposable is a fundamental part of our Capitalist system. And seeing how those in the lower economic classes suffer the most during times of collapse while those in the higher economic classes benefit the most from recoveries shows the direction of our economy. In fact, perhaps those defenders of Capitalism would like to explain why there are so many more empty homes than there are homeless families.

.

To Be Or Not To Be In Exile

More than just exile, Carl Trueman's  First Things blogpost (click here) on the current state of exile for Christians is about how the Church should relate to society. As I wrote before in another review of Trueman, I like him for his independence and he seems to have a certain impulsiveness to which I can relate. Trueman approaches the Church's relationship with society from a Two-Kingdom (2K) theological approach (see his perspective of 2K theology here). For those who are not familiar with the terminology, 2K theology states that just as Israel lived in exile in Babylon, so should the Church live in the world. That is that Christians should recognize that they live in 2 disjoint kingdoms. The one kingdom is to rule the life we share with nonChristians while the other is to rule how we live in the Church with God.

To further this line of thinking, 2K theology states that neither the Church nor individual Christians should speak to the worldly kingdom about its rules from a Christian position except in rare, extraordinary cases. Thus, in civil matters, we should work side by side with nonChristians in furthering and prospering our societies based on natural law. And we should live in the secular kingdom as our nonChristian fellow citizens live except for when doing so would call us to sin.

In contrast to 2K theology stands Transformationist theology. Those advocating that kind of theology, whom will be called Transformers for the sake of typing shorter words, see as part of the Church's mission to, at least partially, redeem society by how it interacts with it and calls it to change. Here the Church is more free to speak as the Church when challenging society and the world to change.

Both perspectives have strengths and weaknesses that this post might eventually address. And what we will see here is why Trueman has determined that we NOW live in a state of exile, a position that is made somewhat inconsistent with Trueman's 2K theology roots by the word 'NOW.' This is because according to 2K theology, we unconditionally live in exile. But this is not how Trueman starts his article. Rather, the advancements and direction of science and the changes in society's sexual mores shows Christianity has lost its privileged position in guiding society and is now being moved to the margins. It is this marginalization of Christianity in society that, according to Trueman, is sending us into exile.

After making this point, Trueman states which Christian group will fall then farthest and which group will be best suited to survive. According to Trueman, American Evangelicalism and Roman Catholicism have the most to lose with Christianity's fall from American grace and yet, only Evangelicalism seems to suffer. Evangelicalism has made itself vulnerable because of how it has branded itself as America's religion, especially with regard to the past. Roman Catholicism suffers a different fate. Why? It is, and this might seem difficult to believe, because of  Roman Catholicism's ties to and impact on society are too big and diverse to totally fail. This might have to do with its contributions to society other than building mega-sanctuaries.  But according to Trueman, all of this could change if the Roman Catholic Church lost its tax exempt status. 

Trueman goes on to say that not only do the Reformed Churches stand the greatest chance at surviving the coming marginalization, it provides the best hope for Christians and Christianity. The reasons for this are multiple. First, Trueman cites the Reformed Faith's intellectual resources. These resources include its intellectual rigor and its articulation of the faith provided by a list who's who in the Christian faith. Then there are its historical experiences in having been marginalized in the past, and its position of having nothing to lose in Christianity's lost privileged status because, with the exception of a couple people,  it did not own part of the public square. According to Trueman, the Reformed Church's social status is due to its singular focus on its main pillars: the Word, the sacraments, prayer, and worship. And in teaching the Word, there is an emphasis expository preaching and the family use of the catechisms as well as liturgy that supply a supportive context for the preaching of the Word.

But in all of this, what Trueman cites as the strengths of the Reformed Faith is in turning inward and circling of the wagons to fend off attacks. Here, we can note two things. First, such an approach is what we should expect from 2K theology with its model containing disjoint kingdoms. And second, we should note that such is not the approach being taken by the Roman Catholic Church which Trueman expects to fair better than the Evangelical Church. And it is at this point that we need to examine how much merit Trueman's approach has. 

But before we look closer at Trueman's approach, we should note that the Transformers' approach to is interact with and change culture so that the preaching of the Gospel does not sound like someone is speaking in tongues. Trueman doesn't put much stock into what the Transformers are doing because, with the coming marginalization, its fruit doesn't seem to be standing the test of time. We might also look at that but a little bit later.

What we need to do now is take a closer look at 2K theology in general. It is based on its seeing a high degree of continuity between Church and Israel when it was in exile. And as long as one emphasizes the continuity between the two, 2K theology can seem very sound. After all, it has some strong points. It does recognize that what is required to be a member in good standing in a church is not what it takes to be a righteous member of society. Also, 2K theologians do not, for the most part, seek Christian privilege in society. By Christian privilege I mean that Christians have a greater voice in determining the standards and laws everybody must follow. There are a few exceptions to this not seeking Christian privilege as the same-sex marriage issue showed. But for the most part, 2K theology wants Christians to have an equal place in society with nonChristians. 

But the problem with 2K theology, and thus in Trueman's circling of the wagons, is failure to recognize the discontinuities between the Babylonian Captivity and the Church's current alien status in the world. Whereas Israel was kicked out of the Promised Land and sent to exile in Babylon as a punishment for sin, the Church has yet to enter the Promised Land and so, in some ways, it resembles the wandering Hebrews in the wilderness as well as the Israelites in captivity. From this, we should understand that though Israel's exile in Babylon does provide a helpful imagery and some useful examples, it cannot possibly fully illustrate the Church's status here. Thus, while we must include lessons from Israel's Babylonian captivity, we should look beyond it as well.

There is also discontinuity in the kind of community Israel was and the Church is today. For the most part, Israel was a closed community. They did not go to Babylon in order to grow by enlisting new members. They went there to learn and be faithful while serving time. In contrast to that, the Church has been given the Great Commission. And with the Great Commission comes an outer-orientation that Israel never had. Thus, the Church, while employing a self-exile from sins of the flesh, is there to reach out to the unchurched so that they might believe. At this point, we should point out that there are no Old Testament examples of evangelism, with perhaps the exception of Jonah preaching to Nineveh, to provide illustrations for how we should relate to our Babylon. So we must look for general principles to add to the Old Testament imagery of the exile in Babylon version 1.0.

Certainly 2Kers would argue that they do follow the Great Commission by evangelizing. But it might be that their efforts are incomplete. Why? Because 2Kers are content to call people to repentance for personal sins only. They are, however, more reluctant to preach about repenting from corporate sins, which are sins performed by groups whether those groups include individual businesses, economic systems, political systems, governments, militaries, or societies. Note that the use of the word corporate here does not have to involve business corporations. In fact, such goes against 2Kers application of the Israel's exile in Babylon where one was to join society and work for its prosperity. From my internet conversations with 2Kers, most seem to have trouble acknowledging the existence of corporate or group sins. This might be due our cultural's emphasis on the individual.

At this point, we should note that Transformers have fewer problems and thus less reluctance with acknowledging and pointing out corporate sin. Their hope is to be able to influence culture by regaining Christianity's privileged status. Developing Christian leaders for a secular world is their hope. After all, for a long time Christianity did have a privileged status in this country, but we should note who was either pushed to was never lifted from the margins during that time period. 

The problem here is that neither the 2Kers nor Transformers can think of Christianity influencing culture without first gaining some kind of upper hand in society. Thus, the former doesn't try while the latter does and is waiting until it has control to make any moves. It is this seeking of privilege and advantages, just as much as if not more than, the advances made in science and changes in sexual mores that is marginalizing the Church in society. 

Listening to the Emergent Church can support what was just said about what is causing the Church's marginalization. For while both 2Kers and the Transformers want to tell everybody how to behave sexually, both fail to challenge unjust economic systems or illegal wars. So while the Church tries to force Dick to marry Jane rather than John, it says little to nothing when the Free Market consolidates wealth or funds the polluting of the earth or when one country invades another. Here, we could say the 2Kers and the Transformers prefer just to be snipers targeting the sins of the individual while acting as the Cowardly Lion when it comes to confronting corporate sins.

It's not that the Church will never suffer marginalization due to perceived differences with science or changing sexual mores. We should note that the Church had already started feeling the these negative effects of Modernism when reason supplanted faith. And what seems to be the issue regarding changing sexual mores is not necessarily that we are against the changes; but that we try to legislate in order to prevent the changes. 

There is possibly an additional solution to our new state of exile to what Trueman suggested. After all, even on a good day, our battle with our own demons and personal sins require many of the same spiritual resources Trueman listed. That additional solution would be to develop a hybrid between 2K and Transformationist theologies. We could combine the 2K approach of not seeking Christian privilege with the Transformationist approach of trying to redeem society. That is when we try to improve society by seeking an equal voice with nonChristians. Here, we would speak as Christians to the corporate sins and problems of the day, but we would do so as collaborators with nonChristians rather than as leaders. Just perhaps by coming alongside to work as equals with nonChristians while presenting a Christian view of things, we will avoid the exclusive inner-oriented 2K approach while eliminating unnecessarily offending nonChristians by trying to prove that we have the right stuff and they don't.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For May 21, 2014

May 17

To R. Scott Clark and his heidelblog podcast on political correctness. This appeared on the Heidelblog


The Left has been aware of how political correctness has been around for decades and started during Wilson's administration as soon as the  controlling public opinion became a priority. During WWI, everything German was the target. After WWI, Bolshevism was targeted. There was the Hollywood blacklist of the 1940s and 1950s along with McCarthyism. There was firing of at least one professor from a tenured position for participating in and supporting students who were standing up against segregation. And then there was the FBI harassment of Civil Rights and antiwar activists. Then there was the harassment of antiwar activists during the Bush years along with the Obama Administrations possible ties to dismantling the Occupy encampments.

The test of our commitment to civil and religious rights is whether we will defend the rights of those with whom we disagree. So the ACLU defense of the speech and assembly rights of neo-Nazis, with whom they vehemently disagree, shows a true commitment to civil rights. Likewise, we would be showing a commitment to civil and religious rights by defending the rights of homosexuals to marry while disagreeing with homosexuality because of what the Scriptures say.

On the other hand, we have to consider that any political correctness pressure to condone accepting  homosexuality could be partially be due to our past intolerance and legislative persecution of gays. In other words, we have no problems when we can control them but we cry coercion if the favor is returned. Such shows a commitment to partisanship, not to principle, and those seeds of partisanship have found their place in other gardens.

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

May 18

To Joe Carter and his blogpost on globalization and the reduction of world poverty. This appeared in the Acton blog.


There is a problem with linking globalization with the reduction in world poverty. The problem is that globalization means different things not just to different parts of the world, but to different countries as well. To show this, all we need to do is compare two neighboring countries and what globalization meant to each. To India, as to the West, globalization means neoliberal capitalism--note that India has been starting to introduce some new controls. To China, globalization a liberalizing of the economy but that is relative to what the economy was. It is still pretty much controlled.

But problems loom for both countries. For example, not all sectors of India's economy have profited from globalization. The number of its farmers who went deep into debt as the result of the free market has resulted in the number of suicides to measured in the tens of thousands. In addition, air pollution in India, which was already a problem prior to globalization, has increased due to industrialization. In China, air pollution is a very serious problem.

But other problems have arisen with the increase of globalization is income disparity. That income disparity has significantly increased in the West is beyond dispute. Part of that is that income many Americans, for example, has stagnated or dropped. Part of that is due to the technological unemployment and the outsourcing of jobs to other countries.  In Europe, we also have austerity cuts. The combination of these two factors could suggest that  what we are seeing with the reduction of poverty is a shifting wealth from American middle and even lower classes to other countries.

Part of the global alleviation of poverty is the result of the increased labor supply which has lowered pay in the West while allowing for the existence of sweatshop labor conditions in countries like China. Here, sweatshop labor is defined not by pay but by working conditions and violations of labor law. So those working in sweatshop factories might be lifted out of poverty by their jobs but the working conditions are abusive if not dangerous or deadly.

Another problem with globalization is the multiple use of the term "comparative advantage." This has referred to a country using protectionism to build up an industry and then forcing free trade on other countries for products made by the newly established industry. This drives foreign companies involved in manufacturing the same kinds of products as the protected industry out of business in their own countries as they are forced to compete with the once or still protected foreign industry. We should note that comparative advantage is sometimes currently used to assign specific contributions a country can make to the global economy. These assignments are not made by the country itself but by the leaders of the global economy. Here we can see certain sectors of a country's economy disappear making that country dependent on the world to even feed itself. Haiti  found itself in that situation when in around 2008 when fuel prices rose, Haiti suffered a food crisis because its farmers had already been put out of business.

In addition, part of what was just said leads into the next problem with our current form of globalization. That problem is that foreign investors begin to accumulate power in foreign countries. Thus, the citizens of a given country lose democratic control over their economy and are thus ruled by foreign investors.

We could go on with other concerns but the point is when people try to present overlysimplistic cause and effect relationships between desired results and single variables, we should remember the saying:

Beware of Geeks bearing gifts

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

May 19


To Greg Forster and his article on separating marriage from the state because of society's new view of marriage. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition's website.


To me, it seems that the first front in the battle over marriage is status of our own marriages and those of our friends. But something has to be added when talking about the battle over marriage in the state. What needs to be added is that we live in a kind of democracy. Democracies can be  measured by the effectiveness that democratic procedures have in controlling the gov't and they can be measured by the degree to which the country belongs to all of the law biding citizens. So once we start using legislation to prohibit same-sex marriage and that is done for religious reasons, we are telling those outside our group that the country belongs more to us than to others.

But if we defend the equality of homosexuals while preaching the Gospel, won't we be fighting the battle over marriage while preserving/enhancing our democracy?

I hate commenting on this so much but it seems that we conservative Christians are obsessed with the subject and what others are doing behind closed doors.

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

May 20


To R.R. Reno and his blogpost on the Nationalism. This appeared in the First Things blog.


Are we forgetting American nationalism and how we call it patriotism? True, our nationalism does not revolve around ethnicity and there is a dispute as to whether it is to revolve around religion. We should note that nationalism is merely an instance of something more abstract. What is more abstract is that people tend to congregate in groups for obtaining significance and security. And that is a human trend. Where it becomes a problem is when loyalty to that group whether it be national identity, ethnicity, religion, race, or whatever, trumps commitment to principle. That is one kind of nationalism.

Another kind of nationalism involves group ownership of nationally located,  jointly needed resources. Here, we are talking more about self-sovereignty than compromise of principle. And this is where we should favor nationalism over the control of resources by financial elites. And we should note that the apartheid congregation of elites is based on the same principles of group identity that nationalism is based on. That is it is based on a search for significance and security, as stated above.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For May 14, 2014

May 7

To Greg Forster and his blogpost on hating the Bourgeoisie. This appeared on the First Things blog.


What is the point of creating a buffer class? Is it so that one class can continue to live in an economic apartheid of his/her own choosing while the other is forced to sing, "Que sera, sera"? This only transfers to the wealthy and the poor what has been true about the powerful and the weak: That one does as they wish while the other endures what they must.

If we know that human nature, which includes all people, has a problem with greed, then should we have adopted an economic system that encourages greed because it claims to have the tools to make the necessary corrections for its abuse? For this is how the free market is sold. Since the market is self-correcting, then one can indulge in self-interest without any worry or pangs of conscience. And what becomes true of the market is what Marx observed about the Bourgeoisie, that all human connections become based in "naked self-interest." And when all 3 classes become infected with this ethic, then instead of 2 classes at war with each other, we have 3.

We should also note the psychological problem that comes with reducing all interest to self-interest. The problem is that we end up with a reduced thinking capacity because we can only exercise 2-dimensional,  all-or-nothing thinking. In contrast, the more we have to consider the interests and welfare of others, the more complex, and thus expanded, our thinking becomes.

So again, if greed is a problem, is it logical to cleave to a system that tells its participants to embrace greed because it has the capacity to make the necessary corrections? Or will such a system only increase the greed in all existing classes?

One other point, doesn't our current system place a higher value on wealth than work? That is that work is the price of admission to gaining wealth but once one has paid the price, one can live off the work of others and thus we have the rich shareholders. And one of the perks of being that rich is that one can be represented by purchased lawmakers whose legislation creates an economic apartheid.

I don't see how the existence of the middle class can mediate between the classes with the above mentioned values. Rather, the solution is to have an economic rights movement much like we saw in the  Civil Rights movement. Such a movement would constantly invite those who oppress to join the oppressed but until that time comes, controls from our Democracy could be used to prevent the spirit of gradualism from preventing any change at all. And one of the tasks of this economic rights movement would be to usher in a different economic system that does not sell us a bill of goods regarding greed.

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

May 8


To Dale Coulter and his blogpost on the bourgeois which followed up on Forster's blogpost. This appeared in the First Things blog.


First, like Socialism, Capitalism cannot be spoken of as a monolith. From after WWII to the mid seventies, we saw the Bretton-Woods system which allowed countries to control currency and flow of capital. After that time, we saw neoliberal Capitalism gradually come into play where businesses sought freedom from the chains of social responsibilities and more latitude with less gov't oversight over how they conducted their affairs. In addition, neoliberal capitalism saw the end of countries having control over their currency and the flow of capital. In both periods, you saw certain players from the private sector benefit from State Capitalism--that is where businesses were either kept alive or thrived due to gov't contracts or the results of gov't research such as in the hi-tech industry.

We should note that in the current state-capitalism arrangement, many corporations are using gov't assistance programs to subsidize their payrolls while trying to avoid paying taxes. In addition, state-capitalism as seen in the military industrial complex but also in pharmaceutical companies and gov't health programs to ensure an adequate customer base with profitable prices and are facilitating a transfer of wealth from the public sector to the private sector. This was also seen in the bailout programs for financial institutions  that fraudulently sold defective financial products and then got very low interest loans to recover from the failure of their activities. BTW, the private sector made sure that the gov't didn't significantly change the rules of the game that would enable another collapse.

And so what should we make of the sentence, "Capitalism, at its best, unleashes the creative impulse commensurate with human freedom" when the private sector elites are so dependent on the gov't for their success in the first place? In addition, the freedom spoken of here is individual freedom, the kind of freedom that allows the individual to excel but sometimes at the expense of one or more communities. We should note that not only do we have individual liberty to maintain, we have corporate (nonbusiness) liberty, which is demonstrated in a democratic society, to maintain. The latter allows society to determine how we will live with each other. Understanding that there is an inverse relationship betweenindividual liberty and   corporate (nonbusiness) liberty, we should seek a balance between the two but that is precisely what is being prohibited by today's neoliberal Capitalism. For its adherents cry tyranny and ask where is individual liberty should Society use democracy to place limits what the individual business, corporation, or financial institution can do.

So where is the middle class person who mediates between the upper class bourgeoisie and the poor? Is he/she there to make life endurable for the poor while the rich find their own Galt's Gulch? What the middle class is being told is to support the rich in their attempts to free themselves from whatever social responsibilities they have left because their battle is also the battle of the Middle Class. At the same time, the  Middle Class is suffering because of this increased individual liberty for the rich. First, the Middle Class jobs are disappearing either because the jobs vanish or the pay does. Second, the tax burden is being shifted from corporations and the rich to the Middle Class--please remember the French Revolution here. This results in less public services for the Middle Class as well as a crumbling infrastructure. It also causes some in the Middle Class to treat the poor the way that the rich have treated them. Third, demands by the rich limit how some in the Middle Class do their jobs. For example, some franchise owners are being squeezed by the demands that corporate shareholders place on them through their representatives.

Finally, what is meant by the term "free markets?" What is meant is that big businesses have more latitude and less social responsibilities in how they conduct business. And sometimes, free markets are forced on nations by those who have developed their own comparative advantage.

I don't believe in denouncing anyone because we all have faults. But we need to take an honest look at the system in which we live and hail as being free and the producer of wealth. And if the above does not make us question our current system, our growing wealth disparity and the immunity to criminal charges enjoyed by private sector elites should.

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

May 10

To Frank's comment on a blogpost commemorating Churchill's announcement about the end of the war in Europe. His comment asked where certain qualities like patriotism, leadership, civilization, and resolve were. This appeared on the Heidelblog.



Frank,
    Sometimes leadership is nothing more than authoritarianism, patriotism becomes tribalism, and civilization glorifies privilege while hiding exploitation. So what does resolve become when any of those three are true?

    To give an example, after we fought so hard and lost so much to free Europe, we helped the French as they tried to recolonize Vietnam.

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

To Sarah Stanley and her blogpost against government expansion. This appeared on the Acton blog.


What the Conservatives often miss about State power is this, it is not the only issue. What is another just as important issue is the degree of citizen participation in the state. For as long as I lived, what Americans want is a laissez-faire relationship with the government. They want to elect officials every x number of years and then be able to go on with their lives without having to think about or have to petition their government for anything. If the government demanded citizen attention outside of the elections, then it was because it had misbehaved. I should note that such a view shows that I grew up in the midst of Middle Class privilege.

But the tradeoff we experience on such a laissez-faire relationship with government is that government is viewed more as alien entity. Such is not a government of the people but a government of a necessary evil.

The trouble with such a view of government is that is ignorant of others, particularly those with or who are seeking wealth, who know what a valuable resource government can be in helping them gain wealth and power. The conservative response to this is to limit the size of government so as to control the damage it can cause. But those with wealth know that they can also gain power in the face of an impotent government, which can be characteristic of small government, as much as they can when government is big enough to be a resource. And this is what the conservative approach to limiting government in the name of freedom never addresses.

In any form of democracy, we have two kinds of liberties: individual and corporate or societal. The former concerns what we can do as individuals and the latter is concerned with how we as a society wish to live with each other. Since there is an inverse relationship between these two kinds of liberty, we need to hold them in balance. What Conservatives fail to realize is that the more we take an all-or-nothing approach to individual liberty, the more we court tyranny. The more we stress individual liberty, the more we limit corporate liberty which democracy enables. The more we limit democracy, the more we empower elites whose concern is to either maintain or improve their current status. Thus, without a proper balance between individual and corporate liberty, we court tyranny--and there goes your liberty.

What enables corporate liberty is citizen participation in the government. Such participation prevents government from becoming an alien power. And without that participation, the more those who financially excel in society will have opportunity to limit our freedom if the government doesn't. So it isn't government expansion that is the only issue.

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


May 13

To Jonathan Witt and his blogpost on Tolkien and war. This appeared on the Acton blog.


What we should note here is that according to the Just War Theory, we might not have gotten involved in some of the post WW II intervention that we did. Why? The civilian casualty rate. That Cuban civilians were targeted by the US right after the revolution and up to the Bay of Pigs.  That civilian casualties soared during Vietnam and why not with how we conducted bombings. Civilians again became targets by the people we sponsored in Central America during the 80s as was the case in Afghanistan. And what about the civilian casualties from our two wars with Iraq. The first was caused by the combination of the aftermath of attacks on the infrastructure along with sanctions, and the second because that is where the fight was. And before closing the book on Iraq, we should remember that we supported and armed the leader we eventually fought.  If we went by the Just War Theory, would we have done much of what we did since WWII especially with the motivations we acted on?

We might also want to note how the Just War Theory was written before the development of WMDs. And even before proliferation became a foreseeable inevitability, the Russell-Einstein Manifesto told us that, without a doubt, we had to choose between war and existence. And now that proliferation is an inevitability, how much more true is that choice today?

Most wars are fought for avarice and ambition, something patriotism blinds from seeing when looking in the mirror. So perhaps that song War, What Is It Good For  has a message we need to hear more than reading Tolkien.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For April 30, 2014

April 26

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost on Homosexuality in the New Testament. This appeared in the heidelblog


I wish we realize that one of the driving forces behind the questioning of whether homosexuality is biblically supported is the attempt to deny them an equal place in society. For as long as we so tightly bind the Biblical view of homosexuality with the denial of an equal place in society, we create dissonance for those who believe in equality and thus we push them to find ways to make the Bible either be silent on the subject or to condone it. As a result we see elite gymnastics level exegesis, or perhaps we should eisogesis, to support homosexuality. In addition, we are creating an unnecessary stumbling block to those who would hear the Gospel because we are associating the Gospel with intolerance.

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


April 27

To Mark Movsesian's blogpost on 'Christian Nations'. This appeared in the First Things blog.


There are 3 problems with calling America a Christian country. First, there will be the view that Christianity is the civic religion of the United States. But when study what civic religions tell the citizens, most of the time the messages of such religions are based on flattery for it is flattery that helps maintain the unity of the people by giving them something in common to celebrate. When we study Christianity, the most flattering thing said about people is that they are sinners saved by grace, not by merit. So in this sense, Christianity risks compromise by being America's civic religion.

Another problem with calling America a Christian nation is that by merit or unprecedented suffering, Christianity, and thus Christians themselves, will be granted a privileged status in a democracy. These two concepts don't mix. For if any group acquires privilege, then, to whatever degree, that group becomes the ruling group over against all of the people. This is what American-Israeli activist Jeff Halper calls an 'ethnocracy.' It is the rule of an ethnic group, which is a group defined by either nationality or religion, over all other groups. Halper goes on to say that there might be some democratic mechanisms but that such a rule in contrast to democracy.

Early in American History, the Puritans assumed certain rights based on both merit and past suffering. After all, our nation is said to be found on religious freedom--that is freedom only for those coming over from England who were escaping religious persecution there. That liberty was not freely extended by those who came here seeking relief to all who were different. This will be touched on next. This article tried to support the definition of America as a Christian nation because of the merits of Christianity, which still continue according to the above post. So we see that behind an ethnocracy lies a meritocracy. Neither of these can be confused with democracy.

Finally, there is America's past to reconcile if America was a Christian nation. From the religious intolerance shown toward people of their own race to the racism found in the ethnic cleansing of the land of its indigenous people and the enslavement of Blacks, we must either ask how could America be called a Christian nation when such injustice was commonplace or what is Christianity in the first place? And we should note that the horrid living conditions left to the American Indian as well as the oppression or persecution of Blacks still continues today only in different forms from yesteryear.

I think that both America and Christianity are better off by not calling America a Christian country.

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

To Joseph Sunde and his blogpost that states the purpose of laws is the glory of God. This was posted on the Acton blog


What is proposed above is appropriate for a theocracy, but not a democracy. In a democracy, people, for better or worse, rule because the country belongs to all of them, including those who don't believe in God and would propose or support laws that have no interest in the glory of God. And unless we want to claim that Christians should have a privileged place in society, because of some perceived merit(s), in terms of passing laws, then we have to return laws to being about fairness and justice only.

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

April 29

To Bruce Edward Walker's blogpost against the "religious crusade" to hold energy companies accountable for their environmental impact. This appeared on the Acton Blog


Richer countries are greener countries? Does that include the U.S. and China, countries that have the 2 leading economies in the world? Aren't they the two leaders in CO2 emissions? 

Second, we should assume that allowing business to proceed will enable business to get to the point where they will begin to lessen the production of greenhouse gasses? Should we look at the environmental problems that result from the extraction of energy resources as a predictor of whether business will find ways to lessen their impact on the economy? For example, what has the BP oil rig accident, mountaintop removal of coal, and the most recent pipeline leakage disasters taught us about the sense of responsibility for the environment possessed by corporations today? Or what about the Chevron well accident in Pennsylvania and how Chevron addressed the public concern?

The article makes a valid point that there is a divide between those whose focus is on the environmental impact vs those whose focus is on the economic impact. And it seems that the assumption made by the latter is that business, when enabled by finances will cut greenhouse emissions. And yet, today's problems with the extraction of energy resources does not support that assumption. Rather, there must be pressure and strict accountability to control the leakage mentioned above and not just during the extraction process, controls must be put in place and maintained after wells are no longer being used. To not insist on that could indicate that we are only concerned with the immediate profitability while ignoring environmental accountability.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For Feb 26, 2014

This post consists of comments which were blocked from a number of different conservative blogs. Please note that because there is less editing in the writing of comments, there can be more errors made than in the regular blogposts



Feb 19

To Collin Hansen's blogpost on the debate between Science and Religion as seen in the Ham-Nye debate on creation. This appeared on the Gospel Coalition Blog.

Why do we insist on portraying the interaction between Science and Religion as a tribal rivalry? We, on the Christian side, seem to speak and act as if we have everything to teach those on the side of Science and nothing to learn from them. However, history shows that such a position is not only wrong, it brings discredit to the Gospel.
And why is it that we have described the debate with Ham and Nye in such a way that both those who side with religion and those who side with science are monoliths. Ham represents only 1 exegetical approach to interpreting Genesis. There are other Christians who believe in inerrancy who would have had a significantly different debate with science than Ham did.

On the other side, there are scholars who could have thrown penalty flags on Nye for some of his comments. For example, Nye seemed to have said that those societies that rely on oral traditions have the same whisper down the lane issues with the oral transmission of information that societies relying on written traditions have. That is not the case.

And both sides proved inductively that scientists coming from either side of that debate can make positive contributions to research.

So again, why do we portray the interaction between religion and science as a tribal rivalry?

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

Feb 21
To Russell Moore's blogpost on Christian Businesspeople denying public services to a same sex wedding ceremony. This appeared on the Gospel Coalition blog

I would like to offer a different perspective here. First, we should note that us Christians have been taught to emphasize personal holiness and morality while deemphasizing the significance of social morality--the latter concerns sins committed by groups. As a result, a greater quest for personal holiness can lead us to a more spiritually vigilant state and the more vigilant we are about ourselves, the less aware we are of how what we do impacts others. That being said, there are other issues here besides the personal accountability of the person doing photography.
Second, a businessperson who offers some public service must now realize that that public competes/conflicts with personal liberty. One cannot deny public services to groups without being in danger of practicing discrimination.

Third, if one businessperson can refuse to provide public services to a specific group, then there is no reason why other businesspeople can't refuse to provide public services to the same group. And the more who refuse to provide public services to the same group, the more inaccessible those public services are to the people in that group. In other words, the refusal of one businessperson to provide public services can set a precedent for others. And if such a precedent is established, what happens to the individuals in the group who need the public services being denied?

Now, if Christian businesspeople refuse public services to participants in a same sex wedding ceremony, how much more can they refuse services to a couple in a same sex marriage. After all, what is ceremonially celebrated in a wedding is actually practiced in the marriage. In the ceremony, we say words. In the marriage, we perform actions. Thus, there should be a stronger reaction to the marriage than the ceremony. And if that is the case, then why shouldn't Christian businesspeople feel free to refuse provide lodging, provide housing, or provide food service to a couple in a same sex marriage?

Is the above a realistic possibility? Consider that both Kansas and Arizona are considering bills that allow people to refuse to provide public services to same sex couples if those providing the services have religious reservations.

Now suppose that Arizona and/or Kansas passed the above legislation. How similar would what would be practiced in those states be to what was practiced during Jim Crow?

Now, certainly the person's conscience must rule the day here. But realize that the state has a valid interest in protecting any legal group's access to public services. Thus the state has a valid interest in identifying and combatting discrimination and thus eliminating group privileges in favor of promoting equality. On the political Left, we have had people go to jail, voluntarily in some cases, because they followed their conscience. Now for the person in this dilemma, would they like to rethink?

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

Feb 25

To Andrew. Walker and his blogpost on the consciences of Christians who are asked to provide public services to same-sex weddings. This was posted on the First Things blog

Speaking as a Christian Fundamentalist, the typical view expressed here by fellow Conservative Christians shows a strong tendency in many of my fellow Fundamentalists that they can only see what is happening to them. And the problem here is that it prevents them from doing something very Christian: loving one's neighbor.
We have been taught to focus so strongly on personal holiness that we have become hyper-vigilant as to our own spiritual state. So personal holiness becomes like a mirror that keeps growing and growing as we notice something else about ourselves that needs fixing. And we allow this to happen oblivious to the fact that our mirror can become so big that we can't see our neighbor.

The point being that one's scruples over whether one is supporting a sinful wedding is not the only issue. And, in fact, if Christians are truly concerned about not participating in sinful weddings by providing goods or services, then there would be other weddings to boycott too. Those weddings would include a Christian marrying a nonChristian or a wedding where at least one of the partners was divorced for unbiblical reasons. 

What my fellow Christians want here is legal protection of their religious liberties. But the corollary to that is that others could deny public services to gays as well so that such public services become impossible to obtain for some or even all homosexuals. This is where Christian businesspeople who want to refuse gays public services are starting to emulate the Jim Crow laws of the past and even present.  And that a number of states are considering legislation to expand the right to refuse public services to gays for all businesses provided they can demonstrate their religious scruples as being the cause for their decision proves the corollary. 

One other thing has to be added here. The reason why Christians do not have these scruples over other unBiblical weddings is because of the exaggerated gulf between heterosexual and homosexual sins Conservative Christian leaders have created in the minds and hearts of their flocks. It isn't that homosexuality, and thus same-sex marriage, is not strongly condemned in the Bible. It is whether the degree of difference between heterosexual sexual sins and homosexual sins has been unBiblically inflated so that the decision to participate in sinful heterosexual weddings is tolerable but participating in same-sex weddings is equated with attending idol worship at a temple. Is there a difference between the two? Yes. Does it justify saying yes to one and no to the other?

Consider that our society has experienced a growing tolerance to homosexuality. Back in the day, homosexual practices were criminalized. Then homosexuality could be an adequate reason to terminate employment--their means of making a living and possibly supporting a family. Then, it was just that homosexuals were not allow to marry the person of their choice. Now that that barrier is falling, some are calling for the institution of Jim Crow laws against homosexuals. Regardless of the legal form of discrimination practiced, those in heterosexual relations have advantages over those in same-sex relations. And perhaps, keeping that hierarchy and heterosexual privilege, if not domination, is the reason for conservative ministers to associate the right to refuse public services solely with religious liberties and to promote the new Jim Crow laws.

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

To Joe Carter's 4th blogpost on what liberal evangelicals should know about the economic views of conservative evangelicals found in the Acton Blog.

This installment of telling liberal evangelicals about the economic views of Conservative evangelicals is simply more of the same. We can't afford to find fault with the system nor are we allowed to challenge those with wealth and power to change. Rather, the impetus for change is mostly placed on the poor. And yet Conservatives insist that they are not blaming the poor. 
Looking at point #9, the assumption seems to be that wealth inequality is not related to social mobility. And this is an odd assumption considering that we live in a world of finite resources. In addition, it is an assumption considering social mobility here is harmed by the outsourcing of jobs overseas. And the motive for the outsourcing of jobs overseas is to increase the wealth of those with wealth and power which increases wealth disparity or income inequality.

In addition, while the first factor for increasing income mobility was, at least, just partially covered. Let's look at the rest. The correlation of income mobility with both the percentage of 2 parent households and better schools is a correlation. They have effects on each other such that the lack of income mobility can lower the percentage of 2 parent households as well as the quality of schools just as the converse is true. There is a symmetric relation here. And one of the factors for the lower percentage of 2 parent households has to do with the criminal justice system and the inequitable waging of the War On Drugs. That is because this war is waged mostly in poor, minority neighborhoods. Michelle Alexander documents this in her book, The New Jim Crow and video presentations can be found at

http://newjimcrow.com/media/speeches

But Jim Crow II, as it is sometimes called, is never mentioned by conservatives.

In addition, where there is little to no hope of economic mobility, not only is the percentage of 2 parent households harmed, so is the quality of the schools because much of student education occurs outside of the class and school building. It occurs at home and if the household environment is tumultuous, student performance is harmed along with the student behavior and thus the quality of the schools.

But don't blame the Maximize Profits system that reduces all people into objects of profit. Instead, we will opt for voluntary help, factor #4, rather than mandate that those who are succeeding have a degree of responsibility here. And that brings to #10 and a moral economy. 

A moral economy is not one that reduces all human value to an extrinsic value. Rather, there is a sometimes fluctuating balance between recognizing the intrinsic and extrinsic value of each person. Our current economy only recognizes people as having an extrinsic value. And that is illustrated in our wage labor in a world job insecurity and maximizing profits. Note that a wage laborer, or worker, is paid a certain amount per unit of time. This makes his/her labor power a commodity much like the cost of a unit of raw material. And note that when a manufacturer can buy raw material at a cheaper cost, then  the manufacturer does business elsewhere; so the same goes for the labor power. When an employer goes elsewhere because they can cut costs by employing cheaper labor, the worker becomes disposable. And the only way that the worker can keep his/her job is to underbid the competition even if that underbidding leads to poverty wages. And we should note that poverty wages often involves gov't subsidies for employer payrolls. Of course, the problem with this description is that in the US, minimum wage provides a floor for a worker's poverty wages. That the moral economy of which conservatives boast.

One more point, that Krugman says something different in 2013 than he did in 1990 does not imply that he changed his mind. The change could be explained by a change in the conditions.

What we have to recognize is that the free market is not free. It is controlled and manipulated and is there to serve the interests of those with wealth and power. And as Carter praises the likes of Milton Friedman who believed that those driven by greed to the extent that they hoard wealth others need just to live should be free from gov't constraint to run the free market. And that the introduction of Friedman's economic views often required military coups and violence to install and maintain. Chile in '73, Argentina a few years later, and Russia in the 90s are prime examples.