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 April 2, 2014

Around March 21

To Dylan Pahman's blogpost on Christian Orthodoxy and partisan politics. This was posted on the Acton blog.


I fully agree with the following statement:

He only highlights that in applying the teachings of the Church to our present, political context, we ought not to expect any concrete embodiment of our ideals, and we should be wary of any person or group that makes such a claim.

However, that statement does not imply that we should be shy in noting the discrepancies between the teachings of the Scriptures and the concrete policies and actions of the parties and ideologies that are out there. And there is a difference there. As a religiously conservative Christian, it wouldn't be right of me to declare any party and ideology as being the party the truly represents the Gospel. However, I should be able to use the Gospel to find the flaws of every political party and ideology. And the rejection of any party or ideology can be seen as an endorsement of another party or ideology when I am placed in the position of having to choose one of only two options where which party or ideology I end up supporting depends on which policies or positions I am focusing on. For example, too many Conservative Christians have aligned themselves with the Republican party because they have focussed so much on the abortion issue that they have neglected other issues.

What helps us avoid aligning the Church and Gospel with any particular political party or ideology is to use the Scriptures to criticize all political parties and ideologies and to know enough to realize that there are more than 2 options to choose from.

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

March 22

To Joe Carter's blogpost on if companies can be African American, why can't they be religious. This appeared on the Acton blog.


First, there are Christian companies. Many of them publish materials and sell books and other things while there might be a few hospitals.

But there seems to be a potential comparison of apples and oranges here. For in the example above, what is being questioned is whether a business was denied the opportunity to provide services. What is being asked for with Christian businesses is what rights can they deny others either in employee benefits or in refusing services. I have great understanding in not wanting to pay for healthcare that includes abortion. I have some understanding in Christian businesses not wanting offer services to same-sex weddings. But we have to understand that these are not the issues Black businesses are dealing with.

So if we want to compare apples to apples, we would be discussing discrimination against Christian companies that are being denied the opportunity to provide services, not the right to deny them. 

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

March 23

To R. Scott Clark's blogpost on Science and the audio broadcast linked to in the blogpost. The audio calls the current climate scientists who warn about environmental problems because of our greenhouse emissions a cult. This appeared in the Heidelblog.

Remember Luther's and Calvin's geocentricity. Machen's view of how the Scriptures talked about what appeared to be the case meant nothing to the Christians in the days of Calvin and Luther. That scientists back then had it right while our most esteemed theologians had it wrong should cause us to approach all other discrepancies between scientists and our spiritual leaders with an open mind. And calling the large body of climate scientists who can easily point to indisputable physical changes in our environment a cult because of both their agreement and that their methodology was different from other scientific studies is irresponsible.

Climate scientist are considering multiple models for the future so what this says is that that they don't know the ramifications of our path. But, again, they can easily point to current changes and denying those current changes would indicate that one is submitting to a cult more than whatever faults you can find in the climate scientists.

So with regard to the climate scientists, perhaps the lack of tolerance of has to do with the available evidence as well as what is being risked. To do nothing, in light of the observable evidence  and not the conclusions or interpretations, is to at least flirt with disaster. And why studies contains a blind or double blind models depends on the studies themselves. One cannot enforce a single model on all studies.

Finally, if you want to say that the hiding or blocking of data indicates shenanigans, then we must question this blog because of the comments challenging what has been claimed about socialism and climate science which have been blocked from appearing here. And that has occurred multiple times. 

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

March 24



To Elise Hilton and her blogpost on the Koch brothers and the good they have done. This appeared on the Acton blog.

Such posts as the one above one is meant to silence criticism. For its says that if you don't like how they make their wealth, then forfeit what they do that is good. The problem is that they are in the position to contribute possibly because of wrongs they have committed and if we accept that tradeoff, we have given up basic morality for utilitarianism. In addition, to not hold them accountable is to sacrifice democracy for paternalism. And remember that paternalism thrives on power and praise.



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

March 25

To Joe Carter's Blogpost on providing a Common Grace apologetic for Disgust. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition blog.

What people find to be disgusting varies so that just because someone is ok with what I find to be disgusting doesn't imply that they believe in a world where everything goes. The burning of the bodies of aborted babies is probably disgusting to more people than abortion is itself. And that brings up an interesting inconsistency that we should explore. And generalizing from that specific application, it is easy to find how the above post can equip us in challenging culture but that wasn't the only point of this post. 

Another point was to challenge Christians who sabotage the emotion of disgust by criticizing fellow Christians for "implying any sinful behavior can be disgusting." 

Whether what someone does is disgusting to us is related to several factors. And one of those factors is practicality while another is identification. What are the effects of being disgusted by every sin practiced by others? Can one really function in society while being that sensitive? Will such an emotion cause us to be intolerantly intolerant of others? 

Or perhaps our disgust is because we indulge in or want to practice the same sins that disgusts us and our expressed emotion distracts attention from us? And are we afraid that we will slide down the slippery slope of sin if we fail to react? And there are many other questions we can ask. 

Now if the effects of rampant individualism is another significant concern here, then we should look for accepted cultural practices and sacred cows that might be promoting such individualism. And, based on what Karl Marx and Martin Luther King Jr. wrote, one such culturally embraced practice that affects our moral values is the free market. For in the free market, our strength and our conscience is self-interest. We are told that in the free market, self-interest is what both drives and guides us. That concern for others is not necessary and may even frowned on frowned on at times when working in or determining the rules for the free market.

We certainly cannot reduce all of the current radical individualism that is causing our society to self-destruct to the free market. But we have to admit that with the rewards to be found there, the free market possibly encourages more individualism than is healthy for a society.

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

March 26

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost on a new dark age where a video of some interviews showed that many people are very ignorant of what is going on. This appeared on the Heidelblog

Looks like another version of Jay-Walking where Jay Leno would ask people on the street very basic questions that most of the people asked could not answer. And I think Geoff Willour's note summed up much of what is wrong. But many points being made here have also been made by those on the Left and in particular by Noam Chomsky and Chris Hedges. And this is an important point because though they often have different solutions, those on the Right and Left sometimes share concerns and even if we hold to our positions, talking about those concerns can be beneficial.   I encountered this my self as I spoke to fellow Christians who were protesting the last May Day event in NYC in which I participated.

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

To Chris Castaldo's blogpost on the importance of Church unity. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition blog. 

Individualism is not the only cause for a fractured Church unity, compromising to cultural values and syncretism is also another cause. The latter is a hammering in of a square peg into a round hole with the square peg being acceptable cultural values like nationalism or materialism while the round hole is Christianity. Certainly the square peg can be hammered in if it is hit hard and often enough, but such does violence to the round hole.

It isn't just individualism that separates us. During and before the Civil War, the slavery issue divided the Church. After the Civil War, Jim Crow segregation vs Civil Rights divided the Church. There are cultural compromises that divide us today. So how should we react today's compromises? That might be best determined on an individual  cultural value basis.

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

To Joe Carter's blogpost on Crony Capitalisms favorite trick of hiding behind the writing of regulations. This appeared in the Acton blog

Just as some apologists for American Capitalism have declared that socialist movements are always hijacked by would be and actual tyrants, we can make the same statement about crony capitalism. At what point in American history has Capitalism not sunk its claws into the government for favorable treatment? After all, businesses are structured to be tyrannical and thus what keeps that cultural mindset from trying to control the government for the sake of profit? Certainly there have been times of gov't pushback but isn't battling cronyism an ever constant battle. 

There is no doubt that today's neoliberal capitalism is rife with cronyism but what about the whole 20th century and business's used of the American military? Former Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler wrote about how he and other troops were really fighting battles for corporations and banks and that was prior to WWII (see here, and there ). Or we could go to our state capitalism and our 50+ wars and interventions that occurred after WWII. Many of these wars and interventions revolved around business interests and benefits such as Iran in '53, Guatemala in '54, Chile in '73 Haiti in the late 80s and early 90s (see here). Even the latest wars in Iraq and Afganistan had business overtones. We could also look to the red missile scare in the 50s and/or 60s where we were told that we had to build up our nuclear arsenal to match a Russian threat that wasn't there. Who was the beneficiary and about whom did Eisenhower warn the country?

Many of today's examples of crony capitalism can be found in comparisons. Compare the criminal prosecution practices against lower class minorities vs those against those who commit white-colar crime such as bank executives when their institution has been fined for illegal activities. And besides war, consider the purchase and use of military type equipment for local police forces and compare that with the crime in the community (see here). Or compare the interest rates that our gov't gives our financial institutions when they are in a fix with the interest rates they charge customers.

When has Capitalism not corrupted by cronyism ever existed in this country and how long did it last? Perhaps Capitalism doesn't exist without it either in terms of determining the rules and laws or in terms of providing life sustaining business for many of our corporations. 

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

March 28

To Bruce Edward Walker's blogpost on Trillium's wrongful alliance with Bill McKibbon. This appeared in the Acton blog.

Actually, Mckibbon isn't the first person who said that Americans put too much priority on their possessions. In fact, a person who said decades before him may not have been the first either. That person was Martin Luther King. Consider the following two quotes:

When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism and militarism are incapable of being conquered 

A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual doom. 

Even Karl Marx foresaw how an economy based on self-interest would change our values sot that in all of our relationships, we are first asking, what am I getting out of this?

Thus, the self-flattering claims that the National Review makes about the source of meaning for Americans being from faith can be challenged by observation, according to what King preached.

Finally, we should note that much of this article pushes only reality, the costs of switching from fossil fuel to renewable energies. Other realities ignored here are the environmental destruction and devastation to residents that is occurring by some of our resource extracting methods as well as what could become irreversible and severe damage to our environment if we continue with our current use of fossil fuels. 

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

March 30

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost on Rauschenbush and the Social Gospel and social sins. This was posted in Heidelblog

Let's look at social sins from another perspective. When allied troops liberated the people in one of the Nazi camps, they were ordered by General Eisenhower to make the citizens of a nearby town tour the camp to see what they were responsible for. Yes, they were responsible. This is something Tim Keller talked about when he was talking about corporate sin (forward ahead to around the 26:13 mark of this link). He eventually talks about the different degrees of guilt German citizens were accountable for, even those Germans who did not participate but did not make any effort to find out what was happening. See, it isn't just liberal protestants who are recognizing social sins.

There are two errors we can make when interacting with the Social Gospel. The liberal error is to reduce the Gospel to social justice and helping those in need. The conservative error is to filter out our responsibility to work for social justice. 

All too often, the conservative Christian response to social injustice is to equip the victims to persevere through their trials by teaching them how to become spiritual spartans. Too often we feel that we only need to teach people to hold on to their faith so they can persevere through their trials. And as important as that is, we are missing another important responsibility.

That responsibility is preaching repentance and the gospel to the perpetrators and complicit supporters of social sins. Social sins are sins started by those with wealth and/or power by how they mold society and use social peer pressure to gain the obedience of others so that society is practicing the sins as a whole. Especially since Western societies have a Christian tradition, it is the Gospel that becomes associated with social sins. So now we have at least two reasons to preach against Social sins in Western civilization. It is to call those with wealth and power to repent and to protect the reputation of the Gospel.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For March 12, 2014

March 9

To Dr Jay Richards and his video posted by Justin Taylor on the Gospel Coalition's blog



1.   Was the old Soviet Union a socialist state? The assumption is that, starting with Lenin, the Soviet Union was following Marxism and Socialism. 

Before determining whether the Soviet Union was a socialist state, consider what was said in the following two links

    i.    http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1918/russian-revolution/ch08.htm
         Reading just the first paragraph would suffice

    ii.   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xpbgfkF9yk
          Here, Noam Chomsky challenges the popular perception that Lenin and the Soviet Union direction that followed was Socialist at all. In addition, he describes why both the Soviet Union and the West called what was practiced in the Soviet Union, Socialism

2.   By establishing the Soviet Union as the opposite of American Capitalism and be stating that the only alternative to the Soviet Union was what was practiced in the Soviet Union, he has established a false dichotomy. There are a number of different anti-capitalist models such as anarchism, socialism, and communism. We'll note that fascism and capitalism  stand in contrast to those models. And each model has various flavors. So fleeing to American Capitalism simply because the Soviet Union model failed is living in a false dichotomy. 

3.   Richards stresses the importance of freedom for vibrant economy. But freedom for whom? If the workers are not in control of production, are they free? If the community doesn't have a say in how businesses that reside in the community, is the community free? And what about protection? Do consumers, workers, and communities lose protection when businesses are given more freedom.

    We have to ask if what Richards is really promoting is privileges, not freedom. That is because freedom for a select few cannot be freedom because it is not for all. Liberty - equality = privilege.

4.   Giving the businesses privileges over the rest of us puts those owning businesses in an at best paternalistic relationship with the rest. The relationship is paternalistic if the privileged side takes care of those who are underprivileged. But the privileged have advantages and call the shots and the underprivileged are to tolerate their inferior status for the  sake of keeping their benefits. Now where is the freedom in that?

5.   Yes, gov'ts break laws. But they don't do so without businesses--remember that Hitler was put in power with the help of leaders of big business. And there are a number of ways those with wealth and the gov't interact. Regardless of these ways, both are competing to win the loyalty of the rest by claiming they best represent the rest of us.

6.   What Richards misrepresented about our founders is that they opted for a strong federal gov't that would protect the minority with wealth from the rest. One can verify this by reading the Constitutional debates. This means that the founders, since they were opting for strong gov't, may not have been committed to limited gov't. BTW, Richards substituted anarchy for anarchism. In anarchism, there is great cooperation and can be a high degree of organization, there is just no centralized authority that has coercive abilities.

7.   BTW, if one wants to examine the reasons why Asian countries have benefitted better from globalization than many Latin American countries is because many Asian countries have well-regulated economies while many Latin American countries have allowed the free-flow of capital. In addition, there are two kinds of private property: personal and capital or business. So we should note that different laws should be set up for each kind of private property. The attempt to overlook this distinction at the end of point #5.

8.   The win-win game Richards talks about does not exist. Every great economic power in today's world has gained economic wealth partially through colonization, theft, and exploitation. Remember that America started with ethnically cleansing the land of its indigenous population and slavery. Then it moved to empire and controlling who was leading certain countries with resources. Other European countries had their own empires too.

9.   His point on the church is not historically supported. Rather, the Church, especially conservative churches, have generally supported those with wealth and power. That is true of America for the past couple centuries and it was true of France. It was also true of pre-revolutionary Russia. And it was true of Germany.

10.  BTW, we should note that comparative advantage address is not good for every kind of product. During the last 15 to 20 years, Hairian farmers were forced to compete with American Agribusiness and were forced out of business. This left Haiti without the ability to provide its own food and this results in Haiti having food shortages when the price of either foreign food itself or transporting imported food rises. But this also puts many Haitians out of work. The same is true for other countries that have succumbed to comparative advantage or the specialization of labor by country.

11.  Finally, and this is a Reformed theology criticism, Richards needs to better distinguish God's creativity from human creativity. It isn't that God didn't keep all of the creativity and left some for us as Richards said. Rather, God is the source of all creativity while our creativity is derived from him. This is part of the creator-creature distinction.

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


March 10

To Derek Richmawy's blogpost on ideological moralism. This was posted on the Gospel Coalition's blog


There are two sides to this. There is certainly the temptation for all, Christian or not, who are involved with moral causes to become like the pharisee in Jesus' parable of the two men praying. The pharisee spent his time blowing his own horn while externalizing evil. The other side is that we Christians relegate to mere ideological moralism those nonChristians who, as mentioned in Romans 2:14-15, don't have God or His Word but from their conscience do what is right, though neither perfectly nor all of the time. And we minimize what they say and do for the same reasons the previously mentioned pharisee did.

It seems to me that if we really believe that we are sinners and are saved by grace and are not caught up in the externalization of evil trap, we would feel convicted when we see nonChristians love our neighbor more than we do. And there are plenty of times that happens especially when we confuse the  parts of our culture which we enjoy with Christianity.

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


To Joseph Pearce's blogpost on giving atheism credit for the guillotine and the gas chamber. This post appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.


Certainly atheism is not innocent, but if we look at all of history, we find that perhaps we should use the kind of scoring they use in the NHL. That is because not only does the goal scorer get credit, so does the person(s) who passes the puck. The latter get an assist.
The guillotine just didn't result from spontaneous generation. Rather, it was used as a humanitarian alternative to previous methods of execution used when the clergy played a prominent role (the 1st estate) in French society. Before the revolution, methods by which people were executed included burning at the stake (also see Calvin's Geneva), hanging, being pulled apart by 4 horses, and being beheaded by a sword or axe. The guillotine was seen as humanitarian because of its efficiency and quickness. And the desire for a more humanitarian way of performing executions came from the enlightenment.

But if we want to look at the ant-Christian reaction by those in the revolution, we must first see the role that the Church played in subjecting much of the 3rd estate to poverty. So we have consider how much of the French Revolution's rejection of the Church was due to a rejection of theism and how much was due to a rejection of how the 1st estate controlled society. Sometimes, context is important.

Likewise in Germany, we could say that the Church earned another assist in the development and use of the gas chambers mostly on Jews but also on others. Remember that for centuries, Germany held a Church inspired "eliminationist" anti-Semitic attitude. This was significantly inspired by Martin Luther's pamphlet called, "The Jews And Their Lies" (in particular see the end of page 39-47 of http://www.resist.com/Instauration/OtherPubs-20120723/TheJewsAndTheirLies-Luther.pdf). While Luther called for the elimination of the Jews in Germany, Hitler added the means and drew inspiration from Hitler. And even without Hitler, for centuries the Church practiced a harsh anti-Semitism such that by the 1800s, Jews started to organize the current Modern Zionist enterprise.

And don't forget that the Church gave us the inquisition, the burning of witches and heretics at the stake (Geneva), and even the persecution of fellow believers (see the Puritans' persecution, including the killing, of Quakers). Then we have the Church's support for the ethnic cleansing of America's indigenous people from America and a partial support for slavery. We can count that if we don't wish to include European wars over religion or claiming that the Christian God was on the side of their country (see WWI).

One more point, if socialism is defined by proletariat rule, then the totalitarian rule of both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union are disqualified from being called socialist. The kind of state that Marxists envisioned as being in control was partially democratic. It was democratic in the way the representatives were selected. But it was not a fully democracy because only the workers and soldiers were qualified to be representatives. But to the opportunistically simple-minded, state control equals socialism even when the state that is  in control is not socialist. 

What this blogpost serves as an example of by its externalization of evil and whitewashing of faults is that of a cult. According to this post, only those outside the movement can be evil and have faults. Those true conservatives who are believers could never abuse others or push for war.

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

March 11


To Joe Carter's blogpost featuring Milton Friedman's comments on how business can be the enemy of free markets. This appeared on the Acton blog.


The good thing about what was said is that a Free Market economist stated a role for government. That government needs to keep others from having excessive power. That requires gov't to have an adequate size to do so. Those who worry about the size of gov't, if they are consistent, will worry about the size of all other entities including those in business.

The bad thing is the assumption that the free market is always good. It seems that the free market is like the Pope; it speaks infallibly. Unfortunately, comparative advantage and free markets can rob people of being self-suffienct--Haiti is an example here in terms of food. For doesn't history teach us that one way a country can build its productive resources is through protection?

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.

Comments Which Conservatives Block from Their Blogs For Jan 1, 2014

This is a new category of posts. It is dedicated to those conservative blogs that have blocked my comments for various reasons. IMO, they have blocked my comments because they don't want their readers reading my criticisms of their conservatism. It is for those blogs that I am creating this new kind of post. This post will be posted on Wednesdays.

Finally, since comments are not edited as well as blogposts, please excuse the grammatical errors that will occur more often with the comments.

Dec 20

To Joe Carter and his blogpost on Duck Dynasty's star being fired for comments about homosexuality in the Gospel Coalition Blog

Part of the problem here is a pendulum swing, homosexuality use to be a crime, and part of it is that we don't know how to respectfully oppose homosexuality in a public forum. During an email discussion at work, a colleague called for either me to apologize for saying homosexuality was wrong or for the school to fire me. There was no threat to my job because I stated my views showing respect to homosexuals as equals and that is how the administration saw it as well as my colleagues who disagreed with me. 

I don't think we can respectfully oppose homosexuality while comparing it to bestiality or other gross sins. It is comparable to adultery and fornication, however. And in comparing it with adultery and fornication, we can speak to homosexuals as equals not because we have engaged in those sins, but because many of us have been tempted to engage in them.

In addition, we cannot respectfully oppose homosexuality by opposing same-sex marriage out of fear that its legalization will normalize homosexuality. Should we oppose freedom of religion because it normalizes other faiths besides Christianity? And how do we deal with that kind of normalization? See, we cannot respectfully oppose homosexuality if we insist that society stigmatizes gays. That is to have society treat gays as less than heterosexuals. 

If we want to publicly oppose homosexuality while minimizing society's scorn, we need to speak to gays respectfully and as equals realizing that past Christians have made gays victims of injustice. 

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

To Sarah Stanley's blogpost which showed an interview involving Stewart Varney, Judge Andrew Napolitano, and Father Sirico discussing Pope Francis's statements about 'unfettered capitalism.' This appeared on the Acton Blog

It seems that the interview was an attempt at damage control. In paragraph 56 of his Apostolic Exhortation, the Pope wrote the following:

This imbalance is the result of ideologies which defend the absolute autonomy of the marketplace and financial speculation. Consequently, they reject the right of states, charged with vigilance for the common good, to exercise any form of control.

There is no way to get around the meaning of what the Pope wrote. The problems which the Pope has observed are due to "the autonomy of the marketplace" and the rejection of the right states to hold the marketplace accountable. But the participants in this interview seem to deny both of these points as well assert that it only the marketplace that can correct the errors. Perhaps we could call this approach, "Marketplace Utopia"

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

Dec 31

To Marc Vander Maas's comment on Joe Carter's blogpost on minimum wage and family values

I should note here that Acton has just begun to publish my comments again. But the publishing of my comments has sometimes been delayed so what is written below might still appear but is so far blocked. I wanted the comment below to be published especially because of the 2nd to last paragraph. That paragraph is crucial in understanding the differences between some political-economic conservatives and myself.

Marc,
I read a number of conservative sources including this blog. And they are consistent in saying that the raising of the minimum wage results in the drop in employment rates. 

But I haven't read a conservative who publicly writes about this saying that raising the minimum wage will result in a drop in the employment rate under the current conditions. The conservatives I have read and heard universally declare that employment rates are inversely related to the minimum wage and thus if we raise the minimum wage, we will put more people out of work. It is from that that the connection which the conservatives I read and hear make between minimum wage and employment rates sounds like exploitation or blackmail. And perhaps those who belong to the working poor see that connection in the same way I do. I know that the ones with whom I marched with on Dec. 5th feel that way and their experiences, feelings, and views are often ignored in these discussions.

Also, the only conservative I know who favors raising the minimum wage believes that such a raise should depend on the living expenses of the region so that it should be regionally based--something I agree with. In fact, I believe I even mentioned this, or tried to, before. This conservative doesn't write on the blogs or uses a public podium to express his views. But he is both a business owner and a good personal friend and we debate economics all of the time. 

Now if there are conservatives who publicly support the raising of the minimum wage whom I don't know about, cite them. That would be a useful and appreciated correction.  For the observations I have made about conservatives here are based on exposure. The ones to whom I have had access warn against raising the minimum wage because of the consequences they foresee. Unfortunately, these same conservatives say little about the current drawbacks of keeping the minimum wage where it is.

Finally, I believe that the real crux of our disagreement has to do the belief held by many, but not all, conservatives, that individual liberty is the only liberty. Such a view sees democracy as being one of several threats to liberty. So when I write that we should listen to the facts on the ground, I am writing from a perspective that says that we should use democratic mechanisms and procedures to both listen and respond. This allows for more stakeholder participation in the governing of our economy. So I agree with you when you write that Hunter Baker approaches listening to the facts on the ground from a different perspective. And I strongly disagree with him on whether raising the minimum wage is a family value. 

And Marc, thank  you for responding.

.