Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blog For January 4, 2023

 Dec 15

To Heidelblog and Anthony Esolen regarding Esolen's article and the part of that article that was quoted in Heidelblog on the alleged effects of the Obergefell decision on the attitudes and behaviors of our young people regarding sexual orientation and transgenderism.

Anthony Esolen's full article can be found at:

    https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2022/11/26/the-trainwreck-of-white-collar-sympathy/

So according to the logic employed by Anthony Esolen, we should reverse the Establishment Clause from the First Amendment because that would normalize Islam, Hinduism, and other religions including Satanism. That is if we are to employ Esolen's logic.

At the same time, what isn't covered by his article is the abuse that the LGBT community has had to endure because being seen as unnatural or perverted has given the government and society permission to marginalize that community for centuries. But we who are normal or who are considered to be natural in our affection don't know anything aboutthe effects of that marginalization. And  because we haven't lived through and with the effects of marginalization, the experiences of those who have been marginalized are nothing more than abstract concepts and so  those effects are not meaningful for us.

And when in nature, around 1,500 species exhibit same-sex behavior (SSB), why are we so insistent on using the law to impose our religious views on unbelievers?

Finally, at the same time, Esolen does not account for the effects of being marginalized. Effects like being clinically depressed, becoming suicidal, or being persecuted, beaten, or murdered for being perceived as a threat to society because one is unnatural. And so he looks to scapegoat the Obergefell decision for a host of effects on kids. Yes, there are some reactions in transgenderism and the support for it that have gone too far. But such is natural when a long-standing social injustice is being addressed.

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

Dec 22

To Heidelblog and Todd Pruitt for the part of Pruitt's article that expressed agreement with the Nashville Statement on human sexuality.

Todd Pruitt's full article:

    https://cbmw.org/2022/11/16/why-i-changed-my-mind-on-the-nashville-statement/

The Nashville Statement:

    https://cbmw.org/nashville-statement

I struggle with a couple of articles that are in the Nashville Statement. I struggle with some of them because they are made as absolute statements regardless of context. 

For example, does Article 10 imply that Christians cannot support a person's legal right to engage in same-sex marriage or transgenderism in society? We certainly cannot support same-sex marriage or transgenderism in the Church. And our evangelism must call on those who would engage in homosexual immorality or transgenderism to repent. But if we support a person's legal right to practice religious faiths other than the Christian faith, why can't we support a person's legal right to be joined in a same-sex marriage or to seek a change in gender?

Likewise, the validity of Article 7 depends on the context in which it is used. When speaking about our new life in Christ, certainly identifying as a homosexual is at odds with that new life. However, if our new life in Christ becomes our only identity, then we can no longer identify with the tax collector from the parable of the two men praying. Can we only identify with that tax collector once, or can those who struggle with SSA identify as being homosexual as their own personal way of saying that they are like the tax collector from that parable who is in need of God's mercy in contrast with the Pharisee who not only sees no need to beg for mercy. And that Pharisee also thanks God that he is not a sinner like the tax collector. The same principle applies to Article 13 as it pertains to gender dysphoria.

We should note that in Article 12, our sinful desires must be put to death on a daily basis. Also we should note that, as James 2 says, we stumble in many ways. And we simply don't know enough about what causes SSA or gender dysphoria, in addition that many of us struggle with having sinful heterosexual desires, to say that for each Christian who is SSA that their battle in resisting  SSA is a past battle that they have won.

The Nashville State has good points to make, but it is not inerrant. And requiring too strict an adherence to it could cause some of us to hurt or even sabotage the efforts of fellow believers who are struggling with internal battles that we can't relate to even though we have our own battles to deal with.

Finally, when we reduce the new moral revolution to sexual issues, it reveals part of who we are to the world. The new moral revolution has several concerns, many of them involve social justice issues. The protests after the murder of George Floyd illustrated that. The concern about climate change and the ongoing battle to secure full equality for those in the LGBT community are concerns of the new moral revolution as well. Certainly, we as Christians should lament over the increased promiscuity and the other forms of sexual immorality that we see around us. But there are other moral issues that are just as important, if not more so, with which society is dealing. And while society has been making positive advances in working to resolve some moral issues, there are some losing battles with other moral issues.

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

Jan 3

To Heidelblog and Kaylee White for the part of White's article quoted by Heidelblog. Her article claims that current government is trying to hide its disdain for religious Americans.

Kaylee White's full article can be found at:

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/restoring-america/faith-freedom-self-reliance/303-creative-colorado-tries-to-hide-disdain-for-religious-americans

The reasoning in the question referred to in the excerpt above is neither radical nor new. It is the same reasoning applied to restore equality to previously marginalized groups. That because of past or current marginalization, some groups are protected while other groups are not. And who is objecting to such reasoning? Could it be those who wish to continue the old status quo? Could it be those who wish to move the LGBT community back to the margins of society?

Besides, it isn't speech that is being targeted here. Rather, it is access to the free market that is the issue. The issue here is about stopping  part of what was happened during Jim Crow from being exercised against LGBT community. To say the focus is free speech is misleading.

From the beginning, the legalization of same-sex marriage has been challenged by religiously conservative Christian leaders and influencers because these Christians claimed that such legalization would infringe on the freedoms of Christians. In reality, it has never been our freedoms that has been our concern. Instead, it was the fear that our ability to promote the marginalization of the LGBT community in society would be infringed on. And what we seem to struggle with recognizing is that the more we insist on marginalizing the LGBT community in society, the more we confirm what Critical Theory and Post Modernism make of religion in general and thus of Christianity in particular. And that unnecessarily harms the reputation of the Gospel.

In addition, the kind of complaint lodged in White's article forgets the historical context of designating the LGBT community as a group in need of protection. For none of what us Christians suffering from in the efforts to protect the LGBT community compares with the suffering that many of us or our ancestors have imposed on the LGBT community for centuries.

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

To Bradley Birzer and his article that attempts to define conservatism in a way that makes it the ultimate ism or approach to thinking and living. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

The above article is just another attempt to make conservatism all that its followers want it to be. And so Birzer is starting to make conservatism into a naturalistic religion by which its followers can claim to be exceptional to those who are not conservatives. According To Birzer, conservatism is the ultimate ideal. But because of that, conservatism deals with the immanence-transcendence that we also attribute to God. And that is part of what makes conservatism a religion.

Another part of what makes conservatism a naturalistic religion is that it has a monopoly on truth where truth can be found. And that, according to Birzer, distinguishes it from liberalism, socialism, and corporatism. According to Birzer, it seems that we have everything to learn from conservatism and nothing to learn from any other isms. Besides making its followers arrogant, that would make conservatism the sole proprietor of truth and that causes theological problems for those religious faiths that are based on revelation. That is because being the sole proprietor would make conservatism the judge of all revelation. 

But there is also a problem according to Birzer. That is t how can we conserve what we did not practice? Note how Birzer states that 'true conservatism' is rarely understood or practiced. And if one neither understands nor practices conservatism, how can one judge the other isms?

There is one other characteristic that makes conservatism into a naturalistic religion. That characteristic is the forever attempt to define conservatism in a way that makes it the be all and end all of how to live and think. That forever attempt to make conservatism omniscient also contributes to making conservatism a naturalistic religion.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For August 31, 2022

Around Aug 22

To Chris Gordon and his article about his Reformed Catechism on Human Sexuality and its claims that statistically, there are not enough babies born as being intersex to merit a 3rd category for biological sex. This article appeared in the Abounding Grace Radio Blog.

Regarding those who are born indeterminate. About 1 in 1,000 babies are born intersex each year (see  https://www.webmd.com/parenting/baby/news/20190503/study-about-1-in-1000-babies-born-intersex  ). [Editor's note: other sources found later state that it is up to 1 out of every 2,000 babies who are born intersex. But that change in number does change the point being made]

About 1 in 5,000 male babies are born with Hemophilia A (see  https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/hemophilia/data.html  ). 

There are approximately 5,000 new cases of ALS per year. That is more than the number of babies who are born intersex each year but the numbers are somewhat comparable.

By the logic expressed above, either we don't need to categorize the diseases mentioned above or we need to include intersex as a biological sex. It is not unbiblical to count a third biological sex because we know that nature has fallen as a result of Adam's sin. And thus we know that the presence of a 3rd biological sex does not challenge what God's Word says about  God's original design. 

But to those who are born intersex, not counting that as a classification can feel like a partial denial of their existence. Having talked with some who are intersex, to partially deny their existence because they are not statistically significant is an affront to decency.

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

August 24

To Bradley G. Green and the part of his article that is quoted in a blogpost posted on Heidelblog. His article was about Critical Theory and Christianity.

Bradley G. Green's full article can be found at

https://americanreformer.org/2022/07/critical-theory-and-the-gospel/

It is understandable why some religiously conservative Christian leaders are so opposed to Critical Theory. It is because Critical Theory has gored some of their oxen. In particular, Critical Theory has fallibly but effectively been criticizing some of the fruits of Christendom in the world.

But more than that, like they see social sciences, some religiously conservative Christian leaders see Critical Theory as trespassing on their turf of telling people how to understand the world. So much of the attacks on Critical Theory by these Christian leaders show that they feel threatened by the likes of Critical Theory. Their fear is that members of their flock might incorporate some of what Critical Theory says about the world into their beliefs. 

The basic problem with much of the Christian criticism of Critical Theory is that it is based on the assumption that Christian Theology and Critical Theory operates in all of the same spheres. And thus much of the religiously conservative Christian criticism of Critical Theory seeks to first spiritualize what Critical Theory is saying about society and the world in order to discredit it. Green, in his full article  gives an outline of part of his criticism of Critical Theory. That outline consists of the following subjects: creation, sin, salvation, and eschatology. But when religiously conservative critics use such categories as a framework for their critique of Critical Theory, they imply that society and the world must revolve around Christianity like it use to during Christendom. The problem is that society and the world consists of unbelievers and believers who live in democracies.  And to assume or believe that society and the world must revolve around Christianity is to imply that the Church must have at least a paternalistic relationship with society and the world. 

The religiously conservative Christian view that society must revolve around Christianity points to religiously conservative Christianity's penchant for authoritarianism. Ironically enough, Critical Theorists have addressed addressed that in their finding on the authoritarian personality types. 

Basically, the critique of Critical Theory in the article quoted from above follows the same approach that religiously conservative Christians use on all other disciplines, secular ideologies, and secular theories which they see as infringing on their turf to be the sole interpreters of the world around us. That critique says that the only valuable insights and points that these  disciplines, ideologies, and theories can provide have already been expressed in Christian Theology. And so why bother paying attention to them. Thus, what these religiously conservative Christians are saying to their audiences that they have everything to teach the world and nothing to learn from it. Ironically, such an approach to the world is counterproductive in our carrying out of the Great Commission. That is because the world will see our attempts to control it before it hears our sharing of the Gospel.

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

August 25

To Alexander Salter and his article that states that American Democracy should be defended. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

The question posed by the title of the article begs the question that America has or has had a democracy. If we look at what makes up a democracy, the answer may not be to the liking of those who live privileged  lives.

Certainly universal citizenship and voting are necessary ingredients to democracy. But a quote from Jefferson's 1801 inaugural address also adds an essential ingredient to that list see  https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/jefinau1.asp  ):

All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression. Let us, then, fellow-citizens, unite with one heart and one mind.

During what time period of American history have we had equality for all minorities in our nation? If we are honest, we have to answer by saying that there has never been a time period in which America has not had at least some in the minority who have not been oppressed. Even today,  we still have systemic racism. But it isn't just racism that plagues us.  Many of the wealthy have experienced privileged treatment from the government and that has often occurred at the expense to those in the lower economic classes.

Like Gandhi's response to the question of what he thought of Western Civilization,  when we are asked about what we think of American Democracy, our answer should be the same: 'I think it would be a good idea.'

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

August 27

To Heidelblog and its post that quoted George Orwell's comment about the suppression of unpopular opinions. 

Should all unpopular views have the right to be expressed or do we need to  determine which ones can be expressed on a case by case basis? What about those views that express falsehoods that cause people to unnecessarily put themselves in harm's way? Or what about those views that use falsehoods to promote the oppression of others? Or what about denying the Holocaust in countries like Germany?

BTW, there is a bit of irony in the above post since Clark does not post all legitimate responses to the blogposts on this blog. Notice how Clark explicitly states that comments that 'irritate the management' of this blog will be deleted. The management does have the right to block or delete any comments. But to do so while posting articles and quotes that complain about the silencing of what are unpopular views to society is inconsistent.

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

August 27

To Joseph Pearce and his article that tries to distinguish good nationalism from bad nationalism. This article appeared on the Imaginative Conservative website.

I approach the subject of nationalism in a different way with some similarities. There is a good nationalism: nationalism that means self-rule. When the British ruled India, Gandhi and other promoted that kind of nationalism. That those from India should be able to exercise self-rule.

There is also the kind of nationalism that can become an example of tribalism. A post Cold War definition of tribalism says that it consists of a high degree of loyalty. That loyal can be to an ideology, ethnicity (here, ethnicity can include race, descent, language, national origin, and religion), economic class, or whatever else groups can unite around. The trouble with tribalism is that the higher degree of loyalty one has to the group, and in this case to one's nation,  the more one embraces a kind of moral relativity that says what is right and wrong depends on who does what to whom. 

For an example, we should consider what George H. W. Bush said after an Iranian airliner was shot down by a U.S. naval warship (see https://www.tasnimnews.com/en/news/2018/12/01/1888454/george-hw-bush-after-shootdown-of-iranian-airliner-by-us-navy-i-never-apologize-for-us  ):

'I will never apologize for the United States — I don't care what the facts are... I'm not an apologize-for-America kind of guy”'

See, loyalty to a nation can be good but only if it is held in check. For the greater the loyalty one has to a group, the nation in this case, the more one is disabled from objectively looking at one's own group. The more loyal one is, the harder it is for one to see the wrong that one's group has done. 

Consider also what was called Obama's 'Apology Tour.' Obama, while overseas, denounced some of what America had done in the past. This enraged conservatives because they viewed any such admission of America wrongdoing was betrayal.

By seeing nationalism as a form of tribalism, not only do we see more of nationalism's true dangers, we can get a better idea of why nationalism can go wrong. It goes wrong when there is too much loyalty. And the more personal significance we gain from associating with a group, one's nation in this case, the more loyal one becomes to that group.

As for patriotism, I view it as a religion. I view patriotism as the opiate for nationalism.