www.flamingfundamentalist.blogspot.com
(Only one person pictured is a Christian Fundamentalist. And so which one pictured is not like the others)
Showing posts with label Imaginative Conservative. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Imaginative Conservative. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 3, 2020
Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For June 3, 2020
May 30
To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost on the ontology of Male-Female relations. In particular, this comment is concerned with his comments about Partriarchicalism and a side comment about how Dispensationalism refers to Reformed Theology’s eschatology and the Jewish people. This appeared in Heidelblog
First a side note. The pejorative use of the term 'Replacement Theology' shows a misunderstanding of both the Scriptures and Reformed Theology. The most descriptive term for Reformed theology as it applies to the two different peoples of God is 'Union Theology.' That is because under Christ, the true descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, that is the Jewish children of the promise and the Gentile believers in Christ become united in one body. What unites them into one body is their faith in Christ.
However, I find Clark's view of Patriarchalism to be overly simplistic and thus a projection of how he describes it. And unfortunately, one usually begs more than one question when one over simplifies an idea or movement. The historical definition of the term has to do with the amount of power a king assumes for himself. It is absolute power. In essence, the king becomes a civil pope for the nation.
And when we look at the history of male leadership of the nations, we find a dreadful account of arrogance and the abuse of power. And it is that arrogance and abuse of power, whether exercised by civil authorities men in other roles such as the heads of businesses or families which are the concerna of feminists when talking about male patriarchy. In essence, what is being protested is male authoritarianism. But sometimes what is obscured is men, especially white males, have no monopoly on authoritarianism.
Robert Jensen is a good source to read about what Clark calls patriarchalism--though I believe he uses different terms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 2
To Pat Buchanan and his article that states that instead of vilifying the police, we should recognize that they are essential for bring justice and peace. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.
Buchanan makes the claim that because law and order are necessary for establishing peace and justice, and the police are necessary for establishing law and order, then the police are necessary for establishing justice and peace. And thus we should not vilify the police because of the riots.
But one problem with Buchanan's argument is that law and order does not always bring justice and peace. Why? As Martin Luther King Jr. pointed out, unjust laws do not result in justice and can result in unrest instead of peace. In fact, it is the duty Americans to protest those unjust laws, though we should note that he insisted on peacefully protesting those laws.
Second, we should also consider the current case here. That how the police maintain law and order can result in the immediate loss of justice and the eventual loss of peace. Thus, we can assume that Buchanan is right in that without the police there can be no justice and peace. At the same time, depending on the laws and how the police enforce law and order.
Another problem with Buchanan's article is his scapegoating of liberals for the loss of law and order in Minnesota and elsewhere. But scapegoating is the result of over simplifying complex problems. It relies on reductionism and that reductionism moves us to practice all-or-nothing thinking. Here we should note that such thinking is a part of authoritarianism. And, just perhaps, authoritarianism can cause police officers who are its adherents to maintain law and order that are both unjust and eventually disruptive.
A mature look at the some of the riots we are witness is displayed by Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (see https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-05-30/dont-understand-the-protests-what-youre-seeing-is-people-pushed-to-the-edge ). Rather than opportunistically scapegoating a political party, part of Abdul-Jabbar's article discusses all of the different ways in which Blacks are discriminated against and marginalized. And that includes a racism in the justice system. After all, George Floyd is not the only Black person to be unjustly killed by the police.
We have a choice then between being overly simplistic, and perhaps opportunistic as well, in how we see the protests and riotBuchanan makes the claim that because law and order is necessary for establishing justice and peace, and the police are necessary for establishing law and order, then the police are necessary for establishing justice and peace. And thus we should not vilify the police because of the current unrest and claims made.
But one problem with Buchanan's argument is that law and order does not always bring justice and peace. Why? As Martin Luther King Jr. pointed out, unjust laws do not result in justice and can eventually result in unrest instead of peace. In fact, he believed that it is the duty Americans to protest those unjust laws, though we should note that he insisted on peacefully protesting those laws.
Second, we should also consider the current case here. That how the police maintain law and order can result in the immediate loss of justice and the eventual loss of peace. Thus, we can assume that Buchanan is right in that without the police there can be no justice and peace. At the same time, justice and peace also depend on the laws and on how the police enforce law and order.
Another problem with Buchanan's article is his scapegoating of liberals for the loss of law and order in Minnesota and elsewhere. We should note that scapegoating is the result of over simplifying complex problems. It relies on reductionism and that reductionism moves us to practice all-or-nothing thinking. Here we should note that such thinking is a part of authoritarianism. And, just perhaps, authoritarianism can cause police officers who are its adherents to maintain law and order that are both unjust and eventually disruptive. After all, authoritarianism is fear-driven.
A mature look at the some of the riots we are witness is displayed by Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (see https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-05-30/dont-understand-the-protests-what-youre-seeing-is-people-pushed-to-the-edge ). Rather than opportunistically scapegoating a political party, part of Abdul-Jabbar's article discusses all of the different ways in which Blacks are discriminated against and marginalized. And it is the discrimination and marginalization that has led to the protests and, in some cases, riots. And that includes a racism in the justice system. After all, George Floyd is not the only Black person to be unjustly killed by the police.
We have a choice then between being overly simplistic, and perhaps opportunistic as well, in how we see the protests and riots,, or taking a mature, well thought out view of the unrest in our nation.
Wednesday, April 22, 2020
Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For April 22, 2020
April 21
To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost that uses, almost exclusively, the Heidelberg Catechism and its author, Zacharias Ursinus, to talk about why we should be sanctified and do good works. This appeared in the Heidelblog.
The above is a sign that, like the Pharisees referred to in Mark 7, our traditions are replacing God's Word. For it is easy to note that the above article uses a confession to primarily inform us of what we need to know about sanctification and doing good works. And that the motivation has been reduced to just that of being thankful. But is there other reasons that should draw us to sanctification and doing good than gratefulness?
Here we should note I Cor 13:13 here:
We should note the word, and concept of, 'love' here because it only occurs once in the above article. It does not occur in the above article when discussing sanctification and doing good to others. And that despite the fact that being sanctified involves bearing the fruit of the spirit and love is the first fruit mentioned, it is mentioned only when discussing the law. And yet, Paul places love above faith and hope.
I understand why we should be sanctified and do good works because of thankfulness. After all, we are doing good acts without even thinking that we can use them to win God's favor. Thus, being thankful is very important. Everything we have is because of God's great mercy, in forgiving our sins and sparing us from His wrath, and grace, seen in how every blessing from Him is unmerited. The problem here isn't that being thankful is involved with why we submit to sanctification, the problem is that our response to God in how we treat Him and others is reduced to thankfulness.
With being told that we are new creatures in Christ, one would think that with love being placed higher than faith and hope, as stated in I Cor 13, and with love being the first fruit of the Spirit mentioned in Galatians, that another motivation we have for being sanctified and doing good to others is because we, in the midst of being changed, now have a love for God and for our neighbor, regardless of who imperfect that love is, which we did not have before. Thus, love becomes a motivation for why we do what we do.
We should note that while being thankful does speak to others, too much emphasis on being thankful does not necessarily challenge us to be less self-absorbed, love does. And in becoming less centered on ourselves and more concerned with God and with others, we naturally do more good works than if we are spiritually self-absorbed.
Now the absence of the idea that love becomes a reason for being sanctified could be because unlike guilt, grace, and gratitude, the word 'love' does not begin with the letter 'g.' In reality, the absence of that word despite its importance in the New Testament is because we have gone too much to a confession of faith, a tradition if you will, to learn about this essential part of our new lives rather than going first and foremost to the Scriptures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Chuck Chalberg and his article on C.K. Chesterton’s view of science and its experts. Chesterton felt that many earthly decisions should be decided on by some kind of ‘jury system’ rather than by scientific experts. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative website.
If you have successfully made it out of cancer surgery, one has more respect for science than Chesterton showed. It isn't that scientists don't have a lane to stay in, it is whether we will stay in our lane when we lack the proper respect for science. And his jury system analogy simply shows cutting off science in its lane in too many instances. But I sense a turf battle in Chesterton's reaction to science.
From climate change to coronavirus, there are some conservatives who have no respect for science and thus have not stayed in their own lane. Thus they automatically speak as fools. It isn't that what scientists say is infallible. It is that if you are going to contradict them, then you better know what you are talking about. Going back to my cancer treatment, there was some medical advice regarding post surgery diet that did not work. But I didn't leave it up to a jury as to what to do. Rather, I simply went to another scientific lane to change my diet for the better.
To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost that uses, almost exclusively, the Heidelberg Catechism and its author, Zacharias Ursinus, to talk about why we should be sanctified and do good works. This appeared in the Heidelblog.
The above is a sign that, like the Pharisees referred to in Mark 7, our traditions are replacing God's Word. For it is easy to note that the above article uses a confession to primarily inform us of what we need to know about sanctification and doing good works. And that the motivation has been reduced to just that of being thankful. But is there other reasons that should draw us to sanctification and doing good than gratefulness?
Here we should note I Cor 13:13 here:
But now faith, hope, love, abide these three; but the greatest of these is love.
We should note the word, and concept of, 'love' here because it only occurs once in the above article. It does not occur in the above article when discussing sanctification and doing good to others. And that despite the fact that being sanctified involves bearing the fruit of the spirit and love is the first fruit mentioned, it is mentioned only when discussing the law. And yet, Paul places love above faith and hope.
I understand why we should be sanctified and do good works because of thankfulness. After all, we are doing good acts without even thinking that we can use them to win God's favor. Thus, being thankful is very important. Everything we have is because of God's great mercy, in forgiving our sins and sparing us from His wrath, and grace, seen in how every blessing from Him is unmerited. The problem here isn't that being thankful is involved with why we submit to sanctification, the problem is that our response to God in how we treat Him and others is reduced to thankfulness.
With being told that we are new creatures in Christ, one would think that with love being placed higher than faith and hope, as stated in I Cor 13, and with love being the first fruit of the Spirit mentioned in Galatians, that another motivation we have for being sanctified and doing good to others is because we, in the midst of being changed, now have a love for God and for our neighbor, regardless of who imperfect that love is, which we did not have before. Thus, love becomes a motivation for why we do what we do.
We should note that while being thankful does speak to others, too much emphasis on being thankful does not necessarily challenge us to be less self-absorbed, love does. And in becoming less centered on ourselves and more concerned with God and with others, we naturally do more good works than if we are spiritually self-absorbed.
Now the absence of the idea that love becomes a reason for being sanctified could be because unlike guilt, grace, and gratitude, the word 'love' does not begin with the letter 'g.' In reality, the absence of that word despite its importance in the New Testament is because we have gone too much to a confession of faith, a tradition if you will, to learn about this essential part of our new lives rather than going first and foremost to the Scriptures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Chuck Chalberg and his article on C.K. Chesterton’s view of science and its experts. Chesterton felt that many earthly decisions should be decided on by some kind of ‘jury system’ rather than by scientific experts. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative website.
If you have successfully made it out of cancer surgery, one has more respect for science than Chesterton showed. It isn't that scientists don't have a lane to stay in, it is whether we will stay in our lane when we lack the proper respect for science. And his jury system analogy simply shows cutting off science in its lane in too many instances. But I sense a turf battle in Chesterton's reaction to science.
From climate change to coronavirus, there are some conservatives who have no respect for science and thus have not stayed in their own lane. Thus they automatically speak as fools. It isn't that what scientists say is infallible. It is that if you are going to contradict them, then you better know what you are talking about. Going back to my cancer treatment, there was some medical advice regarding post surgery diet that did not work. But I didn't leave it up to a jury as to what to do. Rather, I simply went to another scientific lane to change my diet for the better.
Wednesday, April 1, 2020
Comments Which Conservataives Block From Their Blogs For April 1, 2020
March 29
To Gleaves Whitney and his blogpost that tries to recognize the demands of the healthcare and economic implications of the current pandemic. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.
One positive feature of the article about the current crisis is that the writer, Gleaves Whitney, recognizes that there is more than one reality that must be addressed by the government's response. That is unlike the President's response to climate change which only recognizes some short-term financial realities.
With the current approach, it seems that the healthcare resources reality is trumping all other concerns. Why? Because even with the current measures, our heathcare system, as well as the realities faced by our public servants, are so massive that further measures in terms of trying to limit the spread of the virus are being demanded without concern for our economic realities.
There is an uncovered economic reality that we need to be vigilant about. That is whether the economic measures being taken to soften the economic impact are going to compromise the future of social safety nets like Medicare and Social Security. For it would be an easily sell to provide needed immediate relief to those without jobs without telling us that they are bankrupting Medicare and/or Social Security in order to do so
Finally, we should note that the bulk of the response to the economic fallout of the recession of 2007-2008 fell on Barack Obama's shoulders, not those of George Bush. Bush's presidency expired before most of economic fallout was felt by America.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 31
To R. Scott Clark and Carl Trueman for Clark’s blog and its partial quoting of an article written by Trueman for the First Things blog. In that quote, Trueman talks about how Christianity isn’t there to fight against the plagues as much as to fight against the comforts that numb us to our sinfulness and position before God. Clark’s post appears in Heidelblog.
Source of cited article: https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2020/03/deaths-delayed
So it isn't part of the Church's job to 'fight against physical plagues? It isn't our job to help those affected or contribute in whatever way we can to help and heal people? Is it also more important for us to preach fire and brimstone against enjoying comforts that God has provided for us?
When one reads the article, Trueman makes some good points about not assuming the reasons for the pandemic. However, this quote alone indicates an opportunism in using current events to preach about man's sinfulness and position before God. And in that sense, we are extracting out of the Gospel God's love and compassion for us in the preachers of the Gospel if not in the message itself. Religious opportunism gives way to manipulation. And reliance on manipulation to convert people is not the same as reliance on the Spirit to give new life at the hearing of the Gospel.
This one-sided approach to what Christianity battles against portrays God as being more punitive than He is compassionate. It isn't that God isn't punitive, it is that God uses both blessings and pestilence to get our attention. Both show our dependence on Him. And his blessings show His love for us and his plagues and other forms of trials are there to help us to change. If the balance in preaching about the the two is significantly in line with Trueman's statement about Christianity not being there that much to battle against the trials, then our treatment of unbelievers during times of great suffering might also cause us to misrepresent God and the Gospel since we too may not be fighting against what causes suffering of others .
It seems to me that, for many of us, God uses the comforts that come from His blessings as much, if not more, than the trials to show our dependence on Him for everything. And He has so blessed many of us with those comforts because He knows that we are weak. At the same time, we should be aware that for others, God has given them many more trials than He has given us. And part of that is so that instead making treasures on earth out of the comforts He sends our way, that we share share those comforts with others to teach about God's love.
To Gleaves Whitney and his blogpost that tries to recognize the demands of the healthcare and economic implications of the current pandemic. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.
One positive feature of the article about the current crisis is that the writer, Gleaves Whitney, recognizes that there is more than one reality that must be addressed by the government's response. That is unlike the President's response to climate change which only recognizes some short-term financial realities.
With the current approach, it seems that the healthcare resources reality is trumping all other concerns. Why? Because even with the current measures, our heathcare system, as well as the realities faced by our public servants, are so massive that further measures in terms of trying to limit the spread of the virus are being demanded without concern for our economic realities.
There is an uncovered economic reality that we need to be vigilant about. That is whether the economic measures being taken to soften the economic impact are going to compromise the future of social safety nets like Medicare and Social Security. For it would be an easily sell to provide needed immediate relief to those without jobs without telling us that they are bankrupting Medicare and/or Social Security in order to do so
Finally, we should note that the bulk of the response to the economic fallout of the recession of 2007-2008 fell on Barack Obama's shoulders, not those of George Bush. Bush's presidency expired before most of economic fallout was felt by America.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 31
To R. Scott Clark and Carl Trueman for Clark’s blog and its partial quoting of an article written by Trueman for the First Things blog. In that quote, Trueman talks about how Christianity isn’t there to fight against the plagues as much as to fight against the comforts that numb us to our sinfulness and position before God. Clark’s post appears in Heidelblog.
Source of cited article: https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2020/03/deaths-delayed
So it isn't part of the Church's job to 'fight against physical plagues? It isn't our job to help those affected or contribute in whatever way we can to help and heal people? Is it also more important for us to preach fire and brimstone against enjoying comforts that God has provided for us?
When one reads the article, Trueman makes some good points about not assuming the reasons for the pandemic. However, this quote alone indicates an opportunism in using current events to preach about man's sinfulness and position before God. And in that sense, we are extracting out of the Gospel God's love and compassion for us in the preachers of the Gospel if not in the message itself. Religious opportunism gives way to manipulation. And reliance on manipulation to convert people is not the same as reliance on the Spirit to give new life at the hearing of the Gospel.
This one-sided approach to what Christianity battles against portrays God as being more punitive than He is compassionate. It isn't that God isn't punitive, it is that God uses both blessings and pestilence to get our attention. Both show our dependence on Him. And his blessings show His love for us and his plagues and other forms of trials are there to help us to change. If the balance in preaching about the the two is significantly in line with Trueman's statement about Christianity not being there that much to battle against the trials, then our treatment of unbelievers during times of great suffering might also cause us to misrepresent God and the Gospel since we too may not be fighting against what causes suffering of others .
It seems to me that, for many of us, God uses the comforts that come from His blessings as much, if not more, than the trials to show our dependence on Him for everything. And He has so blessed many of us with those comforts because He knows that we are weak. At the same time, we should be aware that for others, God has given them many more trials than He has given us. And part of that is so that instead making treasures on earth out of the comforts He sends our way, that we share share those comforts with others to teach about God's love.
Wednesday, August 21, 2019
Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For August 21, 2019
Aug 17
To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost that quotes Calvin saying that using musical instruments in worship is a thing of the Old Testament past. This appeared in Heidelblog.
It is a tragic, theological irony that those who are so-called champions of salvation by faith can so dogmatically lay down such picayune laws that have no basis in the New Testament. Such is one of the results of the regulative principle.
What is even more tragically ironic is that such modern day champions not only claim that musical instruments not be used in worship because it is so Old Testament, but that publicly expressed support for social justice is legalistic and thus wrong.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Bradley Birzer and his blogpost warning against the influence of public opinion and how relying on it can lead to totalitarianism. That is because public opinion can easily be manipulated. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.
Perhaps the problem being identified by Birzer in the above article is that unless democracy is defined as a state of being, society and state is at risk of eventually embracing totalitarianism.
What is meant by defining democracy as a state of being? It means an enthusiastic sharing of society and the state with others as equals. Granted that such a defining of democracy comes out of cultural Marxism, its root comes from Jefferson's 1801 inaugural address when he warned against allowing the rule of the majority to oppress any group(s). Unfortunately, Jefferson was better at speaking against such oppression than avoiding it in practice.
Here we should note that we have two main secular sources of influence in the U.S. The first is the market place and the second is our democracy. We learn to compete and conquer from the market place while we learn egalitarianism from democracy. And which secular influence is given priority by society is displayed by whether we treat our democracy as a place to conquer opposing groups and ideas or we use the market place to share wealth in a manner that approaches, but does not reach, egalitarian sharing. In the former scenario, the market place is counted as being most important to the people and in the latter, democracy is counted as being most important to the people. Another way to put it is to say whether wealth is more important to a society than freedom or vice-versa. Martin Luther King Jr's way of saying this that we will either have a 'thing-oriented society,' or a 'person-oriented society.'
What Birzer describes as the manipulation of public opinion to control the outcome shows that the market place is the most important secular influence on society. To reverse that does not include choosing the "right" set of elites to be in control, but to embrace enough of Cultural Marxism especially as it pertains to democracy. Any other approach, especially those that are taken in the name of the common good, will only result in a state and society that is approaching totalitarianism.
Birzer's 3 ways by which public opinion can be influenced only recognizes selecting the "right" procedure to avoid totalitarianism and that leaves out defining democracy as a state of being. But without the proper direction, there is no set of procedures that can guard against totalitarianism. And that direction is to define democracy as a state of being, as is done in Cultural Marxism, and to choose democracy as being a more important influence than the market place.
To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost that quotes Calvin saying that using musical instruments in worship is a thing of the Old Testament past. This appeared in Heidelblog.
It is a tragic, theological irony that those who are so-called champions of salvation by faith can so dogmatically lay down such picayune laws that have no basis in the New Testament. Such is one of the results of the regulative principle.
What is even more tragically ironic is that such modern day champions not only claim that musical instruments not be used in worship because it is so Old Testament, but that publicly expressed support for social justice is legalistic and thus wrong.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Bradley Birzer and his blogpost warning against the influence of public opinion and how relying on it can lead to totalitarianism. That is because public opinion can easily be manipulated. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.
Perhaps the problem being identified by Birzer in the above article is that unless democracy is defined as a state of being, society and state is at risk of eventually embracing totalitarianism.
What is meant by defining democracy as a state of being? It means an enthusiastic sharing of society and the state with others as equals. Granted that such a defining of democracy comes out of cultural Marxism, its root comes from Jefferson's 1801 inaugural address when he warned against allowing the rule of the majority to oppress any group(s). Unfortunately, Jefferson was better at speaking against such oppression than avoiding it in practice.
Here we should note that we have two main secular sources of influence in the U.S. The first is the market place and the second is our democracy. We learn to compete and conquer from the market place while we learn egalitarianism from democracy. And which secular influence is given priority by society is displayed by whether we treat our democracy as a place to conquer opposing groups and ideas or we use the market place to share wealth in a manner that approaches, but does not reach, egalitarian sharing. In the former scenario, the market place is counted as being most important to the people and in the latter, democracy is counted as being most important to the people. Another way to put it is to say whether wealth is more important to a society than freedom or vice-versa. Martin Luther King Jr's way of saying this that we will either have a 'thing-oriented society,' or a 'person-oriented society.'
What Birzer describes as the manipulation of public opinion to control the outcome shows that the market place is the most important secular influence on society. To reverse that does not include choosing the "right" set of elites to be in control, but to embrace enough of Cultural Marxism especially as it pertains to democracy. Any other approach, especially those that are taken in the name of the common good, will only result in a state and society that is approaching totalitarianism.
Birzer's 3 ways by which public opinion can be influenced only recognizes selecting the "right" procedure to avoid totalitarianism and that leaves out defining democracy as a state of being. But without the proper direction, there is no set of procedures that can guard against totalitarianism. And that direction is to define democracy as a state of being, as is done in Cultural Marxism, and to choose democracy as being a more important influence than the market place.
Wednesday, May 8, 2019
Comments Which Conservatives Block from Their Blogs For May 8, 2019
May 4
To Joe Carter and his blogpost criticizing Millennials for preferring to live in a Socialist or Communist nation despite the history of certain nations. This appeared in the Acton blog.
2 points should be made here. Just as Millennials might prefer to live in a Socialist or even Communist nation because they don't know what one is from experience, neither do conservative critics of Marxism, Socialism, and Communism. That fact that the majority of Millennials prefer a kind a nation in which they have never lived to a Capitalist nation in which they live is very telling. That preference is, in and of itself, a huge indictment on Capitalism and a significant indicator that Capitalism has failed them. And the details of their disillusionment with Capitalism should be looked into.
But Conservative apologists would rather divert everyone's attention to their view of Marxism, Socialism, and Communism--which many, not all, Conservatives tend to blend together in the forms of the Soviet Union, Red China, Cuba, North Korea, and Venezuela. They opportunistically scapegoat Marx for the totalitarianism of those states. But what they don't mention are the conditions and type of leaders who were replaced by the "Communists." And they neglect the backgrounds and contexts of those Marxist states with good reason. In the cases of the Soviet Union and Cuba, the "Communist" overthrew the totalitarian and corrupt governments. The Batista government in Cuba was supported by the US. In the case of China and North Korea, both were emerging from Japanese totalitarian rule. China broke away from Japan both in the 1920s and the end of WW II while North Korea broke away at the end of WW II.
The history of Venezuela was different in that the Socialist leader was elected to power. However, 2 factors should be considered here. First, Chavez never followed Marx in terms of redistributing power to the proletariat. Instead, like Lenin did when he hijacked the Russian Revolution, Chavez consolidated power. Here Rosa Luxemburg's criticism of Lenin's Bourgeoisie dictatorship is more condemnatory of Chavez because Chavez didn't have a subsequent Civil War to fight. Though Chavez called himself a 'socialist,' by not empowering the proletariat, he broke away from the fundamental tenet of Marxism. In addition, though some of Venezuela's economic problems could possibly be due to US intervention, much of its economic problems stem from following the failed history of the past: basing the economy on oil. While prices rise, that seems like a good idea, but when prices drop, the economy collapses. That occurred during the late 1980s and into the 1990s before socialism, and that also occurred under Chavez.
What conservatives conveniently forget are those nations that through democracy started to lean left only to end up in dictatorships. Examples of those nations include Iran ('53), Guatemala ('54), Greece ('67), and Chilé ('73). Why these examples are conveniently forgotten is because in each of those cases, the US had a significant hand in overthrowing the governments of those nations and replacing them with dictatorships. Other examples could have also been mentioned.
We should note that history shows that no one political-economic system guarantees eternal success and prosperity. But what we can look at is the location of power in a given political system. And one criteria by which we should fairly apply to all governments and political systems is to measure the degree to which a government is under elite-centered control or democratic control. Here, we cannot judge any nation simply by the label given to its political system. For elite-centered control governments can exist in nations that actually have "fair" elections in that people are freely voting for the candidates of their choice. Why? Because even here in the US, our system has now been fairly recategorized by some as an oligarchy (see https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746 and https://theintercept.com/2015/07/30/jimmy-carter-u-s-oligarchy-unlimited-political-bribery/ ). And the reason why its status has changed is because power is not defined by the political office one holds, but by the degree of influence one has. And it has become measurably clear that those with the most wealth have the greatest political power in our nation. And that is despite, or perhaps because of, our Capitalist economic system.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 5
To Bradley Birzer and his blogpost on democracy. In that article he talked about the need to reduce, but not eliminate democracy in a given nation. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.
Why is it that the negative comments about democracy were not vetted here. Certainly the founding fathers opposed democracy. But why? Was it not because many of them replaced British leaders as the new elites of America? Was it not because the people were protesting and even tried a rebellion that threatened the place of these new elites and thus prompted the writing of The Constitution? And did not the founding fathers associate those populist ideas that challenged their position in society with democracy but did so in a derogatory fashion. And don't we see a significant arrogance by those who claimed that the general population did not want virtue and thus implying that the new elites had a monopoly on virtue?
Those above spoke against democracy not necessarily because they knew what it would become. They spoke against democracy our of self-interest and in opposition to popular ideas that could have alleviated some of the suffering of the people, ideas that would have cost the new elites some wealth and position.
Authoritarians don't like democracy. Neither do tribalists. Why? Perhaps it is because democracy is the rule of the people, it is the rule of all the people, not just the majority. Democracy, when looked at as being more than just the sum of certain political processes, can actually be a state of being. It is a state of being, as Jefferson envisioned it, where the nation belongs equally to all its citizens. Democracy is a state of being where society is shared equally by all. When, if ever, we reach democracy as a state of being, we will have greatly reduced, if not eliminated rule by either a few elites or by an ethnic group that assumes its own superiority.
We should note that like any other form of government, democracy does not produce some form of utopia. No political or economic system can do that. But what democracy as a state of being does do is that it prevents the centralization of power whether the centralization of that power be located either in the public or private sectors. And those who are concerned about the rise of tyranny should favor democracy over any other form of government.
To Joe Carter and his blogpost criticizing Millennials for preferring to live in a Socialist or Communist nation despite the history of certain nations. This appeared in the Acton blog.
2 points should be made here. Just as Millennials might prefer to live in a Socialist or even Communist nation because they don't know what one is from experience, neither do conservative critics of Marxism, Socialism, and Communism. That fact that the majority of Millennials prefer a kind a nation in which they have never lived to a Capitalist nation in which they live is very telling. That preference is, in and of itself, a huge indictment on Capitalism and a significant indicator that Capitalism has failed them. And the details of their disillusionment with Capitalism should be looked into.
But Conservative apologists would rather divert everyone's attention to their view of Marxism, Socialism, and Communism--which many, not all, Conservatives tend to blend together in the forms of the Soviet Union, Red China, Cuba, North Korea, and Venezuela. They opportunistically scapegoat Marx for the totalitarianism of those states. But what they don't mention are the conditions and type of leaders who were replaced by the "Communists." And they neglect the backgrounds and contexts of those Marxist states with good reason. In the cases of the Soviet Union and Cuba, the "Communist" overthrew the totalitarian and corrupt governments. The Batista government in Cuba was supported by the US. In the case of China and North Korea, both were emerging from Japanese totalitarian rule. China broke away from Japan both in the 1920s and the end of WW II while North Korea broke away at the end of WW II.
The history of Venezuela was different in that the Socialist leader was elected to power. However, 2 factors should be considered here. First, Chavez never followed Marx in terms of redistributing power to the proletariat. Instead, like Lenin did when he hijacked the Russian Revolution, Chavez consolidated power. Here Rosa Luxemburg's criticism of Lenin's Bourgeoisie dictatorship is more condemnatory of Chavez because Chavez didn't have a subsequent Civil War to fight. Though Chavez called himself a 'socialist,' by not empowering the proletariat, he broke away from the fundamental tenet of Marxism. In addition, though some of Venezuela's economic problems could possibly be due to US intervention, much of its economic problems stem from following the failed history of the past: basing the economy on oil. While prices rise, that seems like a good idea, but when prices drop, the economy collapses. That occurred during the late 1980s and into the 1990s before socialism, and that also occurred under Chavez.
What conservatives conveniently forget are those nations that through democracy started to lean left only to end up in dictatorships. Examples of those nations include Iran ('53), Guatemala ('54), Greece ('67), and Chilé ('73). Why these examples are conveniently forgotten is because in each of those cases, the US had a significant hand in overthrowing the governments of those nations and replacing them with dictatorships. Other examples could have also been mentioned.
We should note that history shows that no one political-economic system guarantees eternal success and prosperity. But what we can look at is the location of power in a given political system. And one criteria by which we should fairly apply to all governments and political systems is to measure the degree to which a government is under elite-centered control or democratic control. Here, we cannot judge any nation simply by the label given to its political system. For elite-centered control governments can exist in nations that actually have "fair" elections in that people are freely voting for the candidates of their choice. Why? Because even here in the US, our system has now been fairly recategorized by some as an oligarchy (see https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746 and https://theintercept.com/2015/07/30/jimmy-carter-u-s-oligarchy-unlimited-political-bribery/ ). And the reason why its status has changed is because power is not defined by the political office one holds, but by the degree of influence one has. And it has become measurably clear that those with the most wealth have the greatest political power in our nation. And that is despite, or perhaps because of, our Capitalist economic system.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 5
To Bradley Birzer and his blogpost on democracy. In that article he talked about the need to reduce, but not eliminate democracy in a given nation. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.
Why is it that the negative comments about democracy were not vetted here. Certainly the founding fathers opposed democracy. But why? Was it not because many of them replaced British leaders as the new elites of America? Was it not because the people were protesting and even tried a rebellion that threatened the place of these new elites and thus prompted the writing of The Constitution? And did not the founding fathers associate those populist ideas that challenged their position in society with democracy but did so in a derogatory fashion. And don't we see a significant arrogance by those who claimed that the general population did not want virtue and thus implying that the new elites had a monopoly on virtue?
Those above spoke against democracy not necessarily because they knew what it would become. They spoke against democracy our of self-interest and in opposition to popular ideas that could have alleviated some of the suffering of the people, ideas that would have cost the new elites some wealth and position.
Authoritarians don't like democracy. Neither do tribalists. Why? Perhaps it is because democracy is the rule of the people, it is the rule of all the people, not just the majority. Democracy, when looked at as being more than just the sum of certain political processes, can actually be a state of being. It is a state of being, as Jefferson envisioned it, where the nation belongs equally to all its citizens. Democracy is a state of being where society is shared equally by all. When, if ever, we reach democracy as a state of being, we will have greatly reduced, if not eliminated rule by either a few elites or by an ethnic group that assumes its own superiority.
We should note that like any other form of government, democracy does not produce some form of utopia. No political or economic system can do that. But what democracy as a state of being does do is that it prevents the centralization of power whether the centralization of that power be located either in the public or private sectors. And those who are concerned about the rise of tyranny should favor democracy over any other form of government.
Wednesday, February 6, 2019
Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For February 6, 2019
Jan 31
To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost quote from Kevin DeYoung trying to distance slavery from the spirituality of the Presbyterian Church. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.
The litmus test of whether slavery was referenced to by the Church implies nothing about the spirituality of the Church. For we need to ask whether the spirituality of the Church that preceded slavery contained elements that contributed to the promotion of slavery. After all, the Southern Presbyterian Church did support slavery. And no doubt that, though not supporting slavery, there were Northern Presbyterians who believed in white supremacy.
What is clear from DeYoung's article (see https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevin-deyoung/two-cheers-spirituality-church/ ) is that the spirituality of the Presbyterian Church came from Calvin and Beza. And though I am not familiar enough with Beza to comment on his influence, it is clear that if some of today's categories were applied to Calvin, he, like Luther, would be seen as possessing an Authoritarian Personality Type. Such a personality type says little to nothing regarding how we relate to God, but it does speak volumes to how one can overreact with hostility and aggression to challenges to preferred sources of human authority and traditions. And it is that kind of personality type that could help facilitate institutions like slavery and/or white supremacy into society.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feb 5
To Paul Krause and his blogpost that tries to demonstrate how, generally speaking, the media and universities have disdain for the common man as they promote their top-down ideologies. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.
The above article does everything to stoke the already present fears that some, especially conservatives, have of the media and universities without testing the validity of those fears. Declarations are made about the media and universities in general but no evidence is offered to support the declarations. In essence, we have just another 'fake news' cry made famous by Donald Trump.
Compare Krause's article with a book general claims about the media except that the book mentioned went to great lengths to provide evidence of its claims. The book Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy Of The Mass Media did more than just assert that the media is a servant to its corporate owners and advertisers, it showed data to support the claims. And the claims were not that the media published fake news, it was that through over reporting on one set of stories, and underreporting, if not ignoring, others, the media used emphasis to try to control popular opinion.
Was Gramsci's attempt to break narratives due solely to his Marxist roots? Or were imperialism, colonialism, institutional racism, wars, exploitation, economic classism, and so forth realities that moved many people to reject past, established narratives?
Certainly one of the errors of Marxism is that it tries to substitute one class's rule with another. But Church history shows that, for centuries, the Church also has been supporting class rule by aligning itself with money and power. The pre-revolutionary times of France, Russia, and Spain provide examples of that alignment as well as today's religiously conservative Christian support for Neoliberal Capitalism does the same. The religiously conservative Christian Church has little sense of what democracy really means. For to many religiously conservative Christians, democracy is there to provide the political tools for Christians to gain a position of supremacy over society.
But Western Democracy is more than just elections. Jeffersonian Democracy includes a egalitarian state of being where a given democratic nation is to be owned or shared by all of its groups as equal partners regardless of any demographic differences. That means instead of some kind of authoritarian based rule, as the religiously conservative Church has often worked for in groups like the Moral Majority or through individual campaigns like the support for the Defense of Marriage Act, each group is not only to look out for its own interests, each group is to look out for the interests of other gropus in order to prevent marginalization.
Any group that denies or minimizes marginalization or the other problems that Gramsci worked so hard against seems to me to provide evidence that it has communicated a disingenuous disdain for the common man. And that also goes for anyone from the left, right, or liberal side of things who does not believe in sharing power with other groups. Thus, the vanguard approach, on which Gramsci has no monopoly considering how that was Lenin's approach as well as the approach of the Church when it seeks to control society, is the first sign that those seeking to rule for our best interests are no different from past rulers who ruled without pretense.
To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost quote from Kevin DeYoung trying to distance slavery from the spirituality of the Presbyterian Church. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.
The litmus test of whether slavery was referenced to by the Church implies nothing about the spirituality of the Church. For we need to ask whether the spirituality of the Church that preceded slavery contained elements that contributed to the promotion of slavery. After all, the Southern Presbyterian Church did support slavery. And no doubt that, though not supporting slavery, there were Northern Presbyterians who believed in white supremacy.
What is clear from DeYoung's article (see https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevin-deyoung/two-cheers-spirituality-church/ ) is that the spirituality of the Presbyterian Church came from Calvin and Beza. And though I am not familiar enough with Beza to comment on his influence, it is clear that if some of today's categories were applied to Calvin, he, like Luther, would be seen as possessing an Authoritarian Personality Type. Such a personality type says little to nothing regarding how we relate to God, but it does speak volumes to how one can overreact with hostility and aggression to challenges to preferred sources of human authority and traditions. And it is that kind of personality type that could help facilitate institutions like slavery and/or white supremacy into society.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feb 5
To Paul Krause and his blogpost that tries to demonstrate how, generally speaking, the media and universities have disdain for the common man as they promote their top-down ideologies. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.
The above article does everything to stoke the already present fears that some, especially conservatives, have of the media and universities without testing the validity of those fears. Declarations are made about the media and universities in general but no evidence is offered to support the declarations. In essence, we have just another 'fake news' cry made famous by Donald Trump.
Compare Krause's article with a book general claims about the media except that the book mentioned went to great lengths to provide evidence of its claims. The book Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy Of The Mass Media did more than just assert that the media is a servant to its corporate owners and advertisers, it showed data to support the claims. And the claims were not that the media published fake news, it was that through over reporting on one set of stories, and underreporting, if not ignoring, others, the media used emphasis to try to control popular opinion.
Was Gramsci's attempt to break narratives due solely to his Marxist roots? Or were imperialism, colonialism, institutional racism, wars, exploitation, economic classism, and so forth realities that moved many people to reject past, established narratives?
Certainly one of the errors of Marxism is that it tries to substitute one class's rule with another. But Church history shows that, for centuries, the Church also has been supporting class rule by aligning itself with money and power. The pre-revolutionary times of France, Russia, and Spain provide examples of that alignment as well as today's religiously conservative Christian support for Neoliberal Capitalism does the same. The religiously conservative Christian Church has little sense of what democracy really means. For to many religiously conservative Christians, democracy is there to provide the political tools for Christians to gain a position of supremacy over society.
But Western Democracy is more than just elections. Jeffersonian Democracy includes a egalitarian state of being where a given democratic nation is to be owned or shared by all of its groups as equal partners regardless of any demographic differences. That means instead of some kind of authoritarian based rule, as the religiously conservative Church has often worked for in groups like the Moral Majority or through individual campaigns like the support for the Defense of Marriage Act, each group is not only to look out for its own interests, each group is to look out for the interests of other gropus in order to prevent marginalization.
Any group that denies or minimizes marginalization or the other problems that Gramsci worked so hard against seems to me to provide evidence that it has communicated a disingenuous disdain for the common man. And that also goes for anyone from the left, right, or liberal side of things who does not believe in sharing power with other groups. Thus, the vanguard approach, on which Gramsci has no monopoly considering how that was Lenin's approach as well as the approach of the Church when it seeks to control society, is the first sign that those seeking to rule for our best interests are no different from past rulers who ruled without pretense.
Wednesday, January 9, 2019
Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For January 9, 2019
Jan 7
To Bradley Birzer and his article on Christian Humanism. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative Blog.
It seems that many of us religiously conservative Christians are forever searching for religious justifications for controlling society. This search is made evident here in the following quote:
We should remember that Western Civilization revolved around Caucasians. Thus any insistence on continuing the Western Civilization from the past in a multicultural and diverse world cannot escape racism. That doesn't mean that we can't maintain some parts of Western Civilization. It does mean that trying to continue the Western Civilization from the past either in its entirety or even most of it includes a call to promote racism.
We are not called to sanctify the world, we are called to preach the Gospel. We are also called to seek justice but unlike preaching the Gospel, our seeking for justice is most likely to be done in partnership with unbelievers in society and that is where we need new Christian scholarship.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jan 8
To Patrick Oetting and his blogpost that praises the free market and condemns tariffs such as Trump’s tariffs. This appeared in the Acton blog.
The above uses Trump's tariffs to support its claims against tariffs. But there is a problem with that approach. The problem being that tariffs can apply varying rates and thus making widespread conclusions based on one set of tariffs does not do the subject justice. In addition, the above evaluation of tariffs is based on immediate rather than long-range consequences. Thus a snapshot approach to examining tariffs is the approach used above to examine tariffs.
Finally, the claims made for free trade do not coincide with what we are seeing in today's world. Neoliberal capitalism has ushered in a stronger free trade than the previous form of capitalism. And yet, wealth disparity is growing within many nations so that even the IMF has listed detriments to neoliberalism. We might also note that the notion of comparative advantage can be used to keep a nation's economy in a global system.
Historically speaking, our nation employed tariffs from its beginning up to and through FDR's presidency. The long-term results of that use of tariffs was that America's industries were given ample opportunities to catch up and even surpass their global competitors.
Now the historical success of past approaches to tariffs implies neither that tariffs are always necessary nor that regardless of their rates, that tariffs always work. However, the historical success of past tariffs clearly shows that they can benefit the whole economy of a nation and thus articles that claim that tariffs always hurt the economy, like the above article, are easily proven to be wrong.
To Bradley Birzer and his article on Christian Humanism. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative Blog.
It seems that many of us religiously conservative Christians are forever searching for religious justifications for controlling society. This search is made evident here in the following quote:
Fourth, Christians (Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant)—in alliance with believing Jews and even virtuous pagans—must sanctify the world through the Grace of God. For men of good will to fight amongst themselves squanders precious time and resources, and it leaves the field to the Enemy.
We should remember that Western Civilization revolved around Caucasians. Thus any insistence on continuing the Western Civilization from the past in a multicultural and diverse world cannot escape racism. That doesn't mean that we can't maintain some parts of Western Civilization. It does mean that trying to continue the Western Civilization from the past either in its entirety or even most of it includes a call to promote racism.
We are not called to sanctify the world, we are called to preach the Gospel. We are also called to seek justice but unlike preaching the Gospel, our seeking for justice is most likely to be done in partnership with unbelievers in society and that is where we need new Christian scholarship.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jan 8
To Patrick Oetting and his blogpost that praises the free market and condemns tariffs such as Trump’s tariffs. This appeared in the Acton blog.
The above uses Trump's tariffs to support its claims against tariffs. But there is a problem with that approach. The problem being that tariffs can apply varying rates and thus making widespread conclusions based on one set of tariffs does not do the subject justice. In addition, the above evaluation of tariffs is based on immediate rather than long-range consequences. Thus a snapshot approach to examining tariffs is the approach used above to examine tariffs.
Finally, the claims made for free trade do not coincide with what we are seeing in today's world. Neoliberal capitalism has ushered in a stronger free trade than the previous form of capitalism. And yet, wealth disparity is growing within many nations so that even the IMF has listed detriments to neoliberalism. We might also note that the notion of comparative advantage can be used to keep a nation's economy in a global system.
Historically speaking, our nation employed tariffs from its beginning up to and through FDR's presidency. The long-term results of that use of tariffs was that America's industries were given ample opportunities to catch up and even surpass their global competitors.
Now the historical success of past approaches to tariffs implies neither that tariffs are always necessary nor that regardless of their rates, that tariffs always work. However, the historical success of past tariffs clearly shows that they can benefit the whole economy of a nation and thus articles that claim that tariffs always hurt the economy, like the above article, are easily proven to be wrong.
Wednesday, December 12, 2018
Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For December 12, 2018
December 11
To Thomas Ascik and his article that asked if America can return to being a Christian society. In his article he reviews the work of a few other Christians and is dismayed in discovering that they offer no legitimate actions that would make American society a Christian one. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.
Perhaps the most prominent fault that religiously conservative American Christians share is that of the lack self-awareness. For example, religiously conservative Christians are not demonized for holding to traditional definitions of marriage and roles for sex, they are demonized for trying to force unbelievers into accepting and practicing Christian traditions.
Likewise, if government cannot define marriage for society, then who can? Is the Church in position to define marriage for unbelievers?
Also, in calling for a limited, small government, what does Thomas Ascik, the write of the above article, think will happen to resulting the power void? Does he imagine that it will automatically dissipate? Those who call for limited government, despite having legitimate concerns, are also calling for a limited democracy wherever a working democracy is employed. Shouldn't the size of government be democratically determined as long as those limits stipulated in the Amendments to The Constitution are respected?
I have never figured out why any of my fellow religiously conservative Christians call for a return to a Christian Society from the past that never was. For we could never have legitimately claimed to possess a Christian society for as long as we embraced a racism that believed in a white supremacy that ethnically cleansed Native Americans from the land and subjugated Blacks through slavery, Jim Crow, and wealth disparity regardless of the percentage of Christians in the land or the influence of Christianity on society. For our claims to be Christian can be easily negated by how we treat those from groups other than our own. And our obliviousness to that negation only shows how much we lack self-awareness.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Summers and his blogpost that defends Capitalism. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative Blog.
One of the most prominent faults we religiously conservative Christians have is that of having a lack of self-awareness. That lack of self-awareness applies both to us personally and how we try to rule over others in society rather than share society with unbelievers as equals. And our lack of awareness is demonstrated in obliviousness to how our sacred cows affect others. And a lack of self-awareness is shown in the above article that defends capitalism.
We should start with the faulty definition of capitalism:
Here capitalism is determined by private ownership rather than public ownership. However, a key distinguishing trait of capitalism has been left out. That trait is that ownership and guidance of production is also determined by solely by wealth which leaves out labor. Here we should note the central role of labor in producing wealth for the business. But those who only provide such labor are objectified by the capitalist system. Of course, there are individual business owners who show more respect for the their workers than other business owners. But in a system where the largest businesses are owned by shareholders, those who own the most shares indirectly guide production. And the most prominent ethic employed by those shareholders is the maximize personal profits ethic. That ethic is a cannibalizing ethic that devours all competition. Logically speaking, if a higher profit can be gained by breaking the law, then the maximize personal profits ethic demands that one breaks the law. Thus this ethic makes the most powerful shareholders into absentee landlords of the workplace.
Yes, there are owners who treat many of their employees with respect and loyalty. But just as there were some slave owners who were kinder to their slaves than others, the real issue is how much dignity does the system recognize in those at the bottom of the pile. How much dignity did slavery recognize in those who were slaves? And so how much dignity does the capitalism system itself recognize in its workers when labor power can be commodified, and thus objectified, to the same degree that raw materials are?
Above all, because ownership and control is determined by wealth, Capitalism distributes power by wealth. And that distribution of power applies both to the workplace and government. The sharing of power with others then is looked upon as an impediment to the maximization of profits. And yet, the sharing of power is the beginning of peace while the refusal to share power is the beginning of war. Perhaps that is why we tend to have class wars under Capitalism. And we should that just because an exploited class has not resisted does not mean that we have no class war.
There are elements that we should borrow from capitalism to form a hybrid system. But capitalism per se is not worth defending.
To Thomas Ascik and his article that asked if America can return to being a Christian society. In his article he reviews the work of a few other Christians and is dismayed in discovering that they offer no legitimate actions that would make American society a Christian one. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.
Perhaps the most prominent fault that religiously conservative American Christians share is that of the lack self-awareness. For example, religiously conservative Christians are not demonized for holding to traditional definitions of marriage and roles for sex, they are demonized for trying to force unbelievers into accepting and practicing Christian traditions.
Likewise, if government cannot define marriage for society, then who can? Is the Church in position to define marriage for unbelievers?
Also, in calling for a limited, small government, what does Thomas Ascik, the write of the above article, think will happen to resulting the power void? Does he imagine that it will automatically dissipate? Those who call for limited government, despite having legitimate concerns, are also calling for a limited democracy wherever a working democracy is employed. Shouldn't the size of government be democratically determined as long as those limits stipulated in the Amendments to The Constitution are respected?
I have never figured out why any of my fellow religiously conservative Christians call for a return to a Christian Society from the past that never was. For we could never have legitimately claimed to possess a Christian society for as long as we embraced a racism that believed in a white supremacy that ethnically cleansed Native Americans from the land and subjugated Blacks through slavery, Jim Crow, and wealth disparity regardless of the percentage of Christians in the land or the influence of Christianity on society. For our claims to be Christian can be easily negated by how we treat those from groups other than our own. And our obliviousness to that negation only shows how much we lack self-awareness.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Summers and his blogpost that defends Capitalism. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative Blog.
One of the most prominent faults we religiously conservative Christians have is that of having a lack of self-awareness. That lack of self-awareness applies both to us personally and how we try to rule over others in society rather than share society with unbelievers as equals. And our lack of awareness is demonstrated in obliviousness to how our sacred cows affect others. And a lack of self-awareness is shown in the above article that defends capitalism.
We should start with the faulty definition of capitalism:
The term capitalism refers to an economic organization in which the means of production are privately owned, and production is guided by profit.
Here capitalism is determined by private ownership rather than public ownership. However, a key distinguishing trait of capitalism has been left out. That trait is that ownership and guidance of production is also determined by solely by wealth which leaves out labor. Here we should note the central role of labor in producing wealth for the business. But those who only provide such labor are objectified by the capitalist system. Of course, there are individual business owners who show more respect for the their workers than other business owners. But in a system where the largest businesses are owned by shareholders, those who own the most shares indirectly guide production. And the most prominent ethic employed by those shareholders is the maximize personal profits ethic. That ethic is a cannibalizing ethic that devours all competition. Logically speaking, if a higher profit can be gained by breaking the law, then the maximize personal profits ethic demands that one breaks the law. Thus this ethic makes the most powerful shareholders into absentee landlords of the workplace.
Yes, there are owners who treat many of their employees with respect and loyalty. But just as there were some slave owners who were kinder to their slaves than others, the real issue is how much dignity does the system recognize in those at the bottom of the pile. How much dignity did slavery recognize in those who were slaves? And so how much dignity does the capitalism system itself recognize in its workers when labor power can be commodified, and thus objectified, to the same degree that raw materials are?
Above all, because ownership and control is determined by wealth, Capitalism distributes power by wealth. And that distribution of power applies both to the workplace and government. The sharing of power with others then is looked upon as an impediment to the maximization of profits. And yet, the sharing of power is the beginning of peace while the refusal to share power is the beginning of war. Perhaps that is why we tend to have class wars under Capitalism. And we should that just because an exploited class has not resisted does not mean that we have no class war.
There are elements that we should borrow from capitalism to form a hybrid system. But capitalism per se is not worth defending.
Wednesday, November 14, 2018
Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For November 14, 2018
Nov 13
To Gracy Olmstead and her blogpost that asks whether we can restore civility to America. She suggests public action as a way of increasing public civility. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative Blog.
Perhaps the most lethal Christian weapon against incivility comes from the parable of the two men praying (see Luke 18: 9-14, https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke+18%3A9-14&version=NIV). For incivility assumes some sort of superiority over another person and nothing destroys the notion of one's own superiority like that parable.
However more needs to be said. That is because the siren call of believing in one's superiority comes in many forms. It comes to us individuals when we compare our own intellect, wealth, physical abilities, beliefs or actions with those of other people. It also comes to us in groups when we compare our race, nationality, religion, or economic class with other groups.
The irony here is that the notion of superiority appeals to those with authoritarian personality types and one of the besetting sins of many of us religiously conservative Christians is to embrace an authoritarian personality type for ourselves. And yet, the notion of all of us being equal because of our sins is a Biblical belief whether one consults the parable of the two men praying or what Paul says in Romans 3:9. At the same time, there are many nonChristians who understand many of their faults sins without our preaching and who favor civility.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Michael De Sapio and his blogpost asking whether we can stop the decline of the West. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.
Though it might be fun for some to speculate on the decline of the West, most of that speculation reveals more about the source than the object. What is decline? It is the turn toward decadence which, in reality, is a condemnation of turning from the masculine to the feminine -- see 'the turn from hardness and virility to “effeminacy” and “softness".'
What causes decline? According to the article, a possible cause includes 'that it has lost its former spiritual core—based first on Christian and then upon Enlightenment ideals.' Such a statement by itself shows a total, rather than partial, rejection of Post Modernism which is confirmed by what follows that quote. And yet, what was Post Modernism reacting to? For what stage of Western history did not advancement greatly depend on or demonstrate exploitation and conquest? Again, we return to the glorification of the masculine over the feminine. Don't Post Modernists have any valid concerns over the past abuses of people? And how can we be smug when our evidence for the greatness of Western Civilization so heavily depends on what we have accomplished and gained for ourselves at the expense of failing to recognize the dignity of others?
Post Modernism is correct in challenging us to question not just ourselves but our basic beliefs and assumptions about life. The problem with Post Modernism is whether it has provided us with real tools for change. If it has not, then Post Modernism will fall prey to the standards it uses to judge the past. In the meantime, there have always been too many faults with the West to look at the present and recent past and declare that the West is in decline.
To Gracy Olmstead and her blogpost that asks whether we can restore civility to America. She suggests public action as a way of increasing public civility. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative Blog.
Perhaps the most lethal Christian weapon against incivility comes from the parable of the two men praying (see Luke 18: 9-14, https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke+18%3A9-14&version=NIV). For incivility assumes some sort of superiority over another person and nothing destroys the notion of one's own superiority like that parable.
However more needs to be said. That is because the siren call of believing in one's superiority comes in many forms. It comes to us individuals when we compare our own intellect, wealth, physical abilities, beliefs or actions with those of other people. It also comes to us in groups when we compare our race, nationality, religion, or economic class with other groups.
The irony here is that the notion of superiority appeals to those with authoritarian personality types and one of the besetting sins of many of us religiously conservative Christians is to embrace an authoritarian personality type for ourselves. And yet, the notion of all of us being equal because of our sins is a Biblical belief whether one consults the parable of the two men praying or what Paul says in Romans 3:9. At the same time, there are many nonChristians who understand many of their faults sins without our preaching and who favor civility.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Michael De Sapio and his blogpost asking whether we can stop the decline of the West. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.
Though it might be fun for some to speculate on the decline of the West, most of that speculation reveals more about the source than the object. What is decline? It is the turn toward decadence which, in reality, is a condemnation of turning from the masculine to the feminine -- see 'the turn from hardness and virility to “effeminacy” and “softness".'
What causes decline? According to the article, a possible cause includes 'that it has lost its former spiritual core—based first on Christian and then upon Enlightenment ideals.' Such a statement by itself shows a total, rather than partial, rejection of Post Modernism which is confirmed by what follows that quote. And yet, what was Post Modernism reacting to? For what stage of Western history did not advancement greatly depend on or demonstrate exploitation and conquest? Again, we return to the glorification of the masculine over the feminine. Don't Post Modernists have any valid concerns over the past abuses of people? And how can we be smug when our evidence for the greatness of Western Civilization so heavily depends on what we have accomplished and gained for ourselves at the expense of failing to recognize the dignity of others?
Post Modernism is correct in challenging us to question not just ourselves but our basic beliefs and assumptions about life. The problem with Post Modernism is whether it has provided us with real tools for change. If it has not, then Post Modernism will fall prey to the standards it uses to judge the past. In the meantime, there have always been too many faults with the West to look at the present and recent past and declare that the West is in decline.
Wednesday, October 10, 2018
Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For October 10, 2018
Oct 8
To Joe Carter and his blogpost on the Columbian Exchange. That exchange includes the benefits enjoyed by Europe and the suffering and loss of life brought to the natives of the New World by Europeans like Columbus. This appeared in the Acton blog.
It's sad that when listing the parts of the Columbian Exchange, the atrocities committed by Columbus and other Europeans are not mentioned. Atrocities such as mass killings, slavery, and exploiting workers were not mentioned alongside the loss of life from European diseases. How could such an omission exist in a Christian blog written by a Christian?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Allyson Wieringa and her blogpost questioning the call for the government to put Church charities out os business and to raise the minimum wage to $15 per hour. This appeared in the Acton blog.
What is wrong with the government making Church charities not needed? Whose loss is that anyway? And if the Church no longer needs to worry about providing charity because those in need are receiving help elsewhere, then doesn't that mean that the Church can focus more on preaching the Gospel?
Though I can't speak for England, right now, we are in an Ayn Rand coup of the American government. In that coup, those with the most wealth use their wealth to seize power over the government. Then they use that power to continually reduce fulfilling their social responsibilities. As a result, tax burdens are shifted more toward those who have less and that results in sharp increase in deficit spending. The Ayn Rand opportunist try to use their arguments and power to reduce or even eliminate social safety nets even if those safety nets are self-funding and thus do not contribute to the deficit.
We should note here the kind of government in which Ayn Rand's family financially succeeded: the government of the Tsars. And the Tsars were dictators who enforced the belief that to oppose the Tsar is to oppose the nation. That is similar to the declarations made by Lenin and the Bolsheviks with respect to the workers.
One other point must be made here. Though raising the minimum wage is good, it leaves a major issue unaddressed. Seeing that socialism, from a Marxist perspective, relies on the dictatorship of a proletariat democracy, letting the gov't alone to set all increased wages does not empower the workers. Rather, it establishes a particular group of people in government as the vanguard for the workers. And like most vanguards such as Lenin's Bolshevik Party right after the Russian Revolution, they will declare that anyone who opposes them opposes the workers whom they say they represent. And then we are right back where we started from with the Tsars and Lenin. Not that we don't need the government to raise the minimum wage. What we do need is a minimum wage that is high enough to help and low enough to require workers and owners to continue to meet together to see what each side needs and then to start making decisions that benefits both sides.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oct 9
To Thomas Ascik and his blogpost about some Supreme Court decisions on same-sex marriage and laws that addressed inheritance. In that blogpost, DOMA, the Defense Of Marriage Act, is referred to. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.
I want to comment on one part of the article above: the references to DOMA. DOMA stands for the Defense Of Marriage Act. But the name itself is ambiguous. Which or whose marriage is being defended? The answer is simple: no one's marriage is being defended. Instead the desire of same-sex couples to be legally married is being attacked by those who claim to have a monopoly on the definition of marriage. Thus, perhaps we should call DOMA, OBTMAA-- the Offensive By Traditional Marriage Activists Act.
The legalization of same-sex marriage does not threaten any traditional heterosexual marriage. Claims otherwise are based on fears that those moving in to the marital neighborhood will bring down the property values. On the other hand, despite the results of inhibiting monogamous relationships and thus reducing promiscuity in the LGBT community, those opposed to same-sex marriages by other people are threatening the marital prospects for those in the LGBT community. Why do they do that? It is simply because they want to impose their own religious/cultural beliefs on others. That imposition would appear to violate the 1st Amendment regardless of how democratically the legal definition of marriage was determined. Why the imposition? There are a number of reasons one can find when talking to DOMA apologists.
To Joe Carter and his blogpost on the Columbian Exchange. That exchange includes the benefits enjoyed by Europe and the suffering and loss of life brought to the natives of the New World by Europeans like Columbus. This appeared in the Acton blog.
It's sad that when listing the parts of the Columbian Exchange, the atrocities committed by Columbus and other Europeans are not mentioned. Atrocities such as mass killings, slavery, and exploiting workers were not mentioned alongside the loss of life from European diseases. How could such an omission exist in a Christian blog written by a Christian?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Allyson Wieringa and her blogpost questioning the call for the government to put Church charities out os business and to raise the minimum wage to $15 per hour. This appeared in the Acton blog.
What is wrong with the government making Church charities not needed? Whose loss is that anyway? And if the Church no longer needs to worry about providing charity because those in need are receiving help elsewhere, then doesn't that mean that the Church can focus more on preaching the Gospel?
Though I can't speak for England, right now, we are in an Ayn Rand coup of the American government. In that coup, those with the most wealth use their wealth to seize power over the government. Then they use that power to continually reduce fulfilling their social responsibilities. As a result, tax burdens are shifted more toward those who have less and that results in sharp increase in deficit spending. The Ayn Rand opportunist try to use their arguments and power to reduce or even eliminate social safety nets even if those safety nets are self-funding and thus do not contribute to the deficit.
We should note here the kind of government in which Ayn Rand's family financially succeeded: the government of the Tsars. And the Tsars were dictators who enforced the belief that to oppose the Tsar is to oppose the nation. That is similar to the declarations made by Lenin and the Bolsheviks with respect to the workers.
One other point must be made here. Though raising the minimum wage is good, it leaves a major issue unaddressed. Seeing that socialism, from a Marxist perspective, relies on the dictatorship of a proletariat democracy, letting the gov't alone to set all increased wages does not empower the workers. Rather, it establishes a particular group of people in government as the vanguard for the workers. And like most vanguards such as Lenin's Bolshevik Party right after the Russian Revolution, they will declare that anyone who opposes them opposes the workers whom they say they represent. And then we are right back where we started from with the Tsars and Lenin. Not that we don't need the government to raise the minimum wage. What we do need is a minimum wage that is high enough to help and low enough to require workers and owners to continue to meet together to see what each side needs and then to start making decisions that benefits both sides.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oct 9
To Thomas Ascik and his blogpost about some Supreme Court decisions on same-sex marriage and laws that addressed inheritance. In that blogpost, DOMA, the Defense Of Marriage Act, is referred to. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.
I want to comment on one part of the article above: the references to DOMA. DOMA stands for the Defense Of Marriage Act. But the name itself is ambiguous. Which or whose marriage is being defended? The answer is simple: no one's marriage is being defended. Instead the desire of same-sex couples to be legally married is being attacked by those who claim to have a monopoly on the definition of marriage. Thus, perhaps we should call DOMA, OBTMAA-- the Offensive By Traditional Marriage Activists Act.
The legalization of same-sex marriage does not threaten any traditional heterosexual marriage. Claims otherwise are based on fears that those moving in to the marital neighborhood will bring down the property values. On the other hand, despite the results of inhibiting monogamous relationships and thus reducing promiscuity in the LGBT community, those opposed to same-sex marriages by other people are threatening the marital prospects for those in the LGBT community. Why do they do that? It is simply because they want to impose their own religious/cultural beliefs on others. That imposition would appear to violate the 1st Amendment regardless of how democratically the legal definition of marriage was determined. Why the imposition? There are a number of reasons one can find when talking to DOMA apologists.
Wednesday, October 3, 2018
Comments Which Conservatives Bllock From Their Blogs For October 3, 2018
Oct 2
To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost blaming the problem Millennials have with perfectionism on the influence of social media. This appeared in Heidelblog.
The article is beyond belief. Why? When mentioning a real problem, the problem Millennials have with perfectionism, the parents of Millennials do not even receive honorable mention. How is that possible?
One reason why may be possible it is because it is us baby-boomers who, for the most part, are the parents of Millennials. Parents still have a significant influence on how their children grow up, especially with how a child reacts to changing social and cultural conditions. Plus, has Clark forgotten about 'Helicopter Parents'? Clark is correct in starting off by saying that he was not critiquing Millennials. But he should have followed that by saying that saying that this was a partial critique of those who raised Millennials.
As for neoliberalism, Scott seems to have a selective memory regarding what fostered neoliberalism and what it produces. Neoliberalism started after America supported a military coup in Chilé in 1973. That coup overthrew the democratically elected government of Salvador Allende after Allende, with support of many of his people, had decided to pursue a more leftist agenda. America's government, because of business interests there, wanted a free market. And so a dictator was installed so that a free market could follow. And, btw, that dictator was eventually indicted for committing crimes against humanity which involved crimes against his own people. Since then, free markets have been following the growth of authoritarianism in governments. Some of that growth in authoritarianism has occurred right here in the U.S. (see https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746 ).
Furthermore, neoliberalism's free markets have caused growing wealth disparities throughout the world. Some of those losses have occurred right here in the U.S. (see https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746 ). Of course that doesn't include the fact that workers support their families in a shareholder economic world where these workers are seen as disposable objects for profit. Even if the produce a significant profit for their owners, if a higher profit can possibly be made elsewhere, workers can lose their jobs. So many jobs offer no job security because workers can be easily replaced by having their jobs offshored or by technology. Do we really believe that the angst caused by such an environment was never passed down to the kids?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Paul Krause and his blogpost about how Christianity must significantly change culture for its own good. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative.
I look at articles like the one above as a defense for Church to assume more control over society and culture. The defense for such actions are deductively made, but that defense becomes unraveled when induction, via examining history, is employed. Church history does not tell many positive stories of the West when the Church was dominant. For when Christianity is seen as revolving around a region, it all too soon becomes a vehicle that promotes self-worship instead of the worship of God.
The self-worship seen in Western Civilization when the Church was a dominant force included colonialism and imperialism along with white supremacy. In America, the ethnic cleansing of Native Americans from the land, race-based slavery, and Jim Crow were strongly promoted and then defended with perceived tenets of the Christian faith along with the Scriptures. But America has always been more Protestant than Catholic. But not all parts of Europe were that way. And what we find in history is the lust for power, the use of violence, the embracing of intolerance, and the hoarding of wealth. These practices were seen as entitlements if not morally obligatory. Thus with the proclamation of the Gospel was the claim that white men must rule over women and people of color.
The problem with articles like the one above is that they either explicitly or implicitly promote Christian supremacy over society. That means instead of Christians sharing society with all others as equals, Christians must seize the day so as to save any pagan society from itself. But who was there to save Christian Europe, and parts of the rest of the World, from the Church? Thus came the problem that civilization changed from being Christian to being more atheistic because of the failures of the Church when it was in charge.
The NT Scriptures command us to preach the Gospel and to promote justice. And they warn us against meddling too much in society in terms of personal matters. Finally, Jesus warns us against 'lording over others.' So we need to be very careful when we Christians attempt to change society and culture lest we imitate our forefathers in how they tried too hard to influence society and culture.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Rev. Ben Johnson and his blogpost citing a German Socialist party’s claim that Jesus would be a Socialist had he been on earth today. This was posted in the Acton blog.
It certainly is wrong of the Socialist Party to speak for Jesus on the issue of voting. But regarding the problems brought to us by Capitalism, Marx, not necessarily all of his followers, was on target especially regarding neoliberalism--today's form of Capitalism. We live in a shareholder economy where the traditional definition of stakeholder has been reduced to shareholders and possibly a few key decision makers. The traditional business definition of stakeholder consists of all who are impacted by the business. That includes those who are included in today's definitoin as well as workers, the community in which a business is located, customers, and others. To give an example, a while ago, the then CEO of Exxon was asked if Exxon should be concerned about the effects of their prices on their customers. He clearly stated that the only people Exxon is accountable to are the shareholders.
With today's new definition of stakeholders, all others are considered to be disposable objects whom a business could choose to care about. But when a business follows the maximize profits ethics, which is a popular ethic followed by those who reject the traditional definition of stakeholder, what follows is that not only do we work with the redacted definition of stakeholders, but that that ethic is cannibalizing ethic that devours all other ethical and moral guidelines. Thus obeying the law depends on belief that either the business can get away with it or that being caught will not impact the ROI.
We should note that with neoliberalism, we see an ever growing wealth disparity and that results in an ever growing political power disparity. Growing political power disparities destroy democracies.
Finally, I am not sure why Marx said that religion is the opiate of the people, but do know why Lenin said it. He spoke from observation on how those following the Christian religion enabled the exploitation of workers and others by those with wealth. He wasn't speaking from an ideological point of view as much as observational one. It is one of the few things he got right.
To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost blaming the problem Millennials have with perfectionism on the influence of social media. This appeared in Heidelblog.
The article is beyond belief. Why? When mentioning a real problem, the problem Millennials have with perfectionism, the parents of Millennials do not even receive honorable mention. How is that possible?
One reason why may be possible it is because it is us baby-boomers who, for the most part, are the parents of Millennials. Parents still have a significant influence on how their children grow up, especially with how a child reacts to changing social and cultural conditions. Plus, has Clark forgotten about 'Helicopter Parents'? Clark is correct in starting off by saying that he was not critiquing Millennials. But he should have followed that by saying that saying that this was a partial critique of those who raised Millennials.
As for neoliberalism, Scott seems to have a selective memory regarding what fostered neoliberalism and what it produces. Neoliberalism started after America supported a military coup in Chilé in 1973. That coup overthrew the democratically elected government of Salvador Allende after Allende, with support of many of his people, had decided to pursue a more leftist agenda. America's government, because of business interests there, wanted a free market. And so a dictator was installed so that a free market could follow. And, btw, that dictator was eventually indicted for committing crimes against humanity which involved crimes against his own people. Since then, free markets have been following the growth of authoritarianism in governments. Some of that growth in authoritarianism has occurred right here in the U.S. (see https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746 ).
Furthermore, neoliberalism's free markets have caused growing wealth disparities throughout the world. Some of those losses have occurred right here in the U.S. (see https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746 ). Of course that doesn't include the fact that workers support their families in a shareholder economic world where these workers are seen as disposable objects for profit. Even if the produce a significant profit for their owners, if a higher profit can possibly be made elsewhere, workers can lose their jobs. So many jobs offer no job security because workers can be easily replaced by having their jobs offshored or by technology. Do we really believe that the angst caused by such an environment was never passed down to the kids?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Paul Krause and his blogpost about how Christianity must significantly change culture for its own good. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative.
I look at articles like the one above as a defense for Church to assume more control over society and culture. The defense for such actions are deductively made, but that defense becomes unraveled when induction, via examining history, is employed. Church history does not tell many positive stories of the West when the Church was dominant. For when Christianity is seen as revolving around a region, it all too soon becomes a vehicle that promotes self-worship instead of the worship of God.
The self-worship seen in Western Civilization when the Church was a dominant force included colonialism and imperialism along with white supremacy. In America, the ethnic cleansing of Native Americans from the land, race-based slavery, and Jim Crow were strongly promoted and then defended with perceived tenets of the Christian faith along with the Scriptures. But America has always been more Protestant than Catholic. But not all parts of Europe were that way. And what we find in history is the lust for power, the use of violence, the embracing of intolerance, and the hoarding of wealth. These practices were seen as entitlements if not morally obligatory. Thus with the proclamation of the Gospel was the claim that white men must rule over women and people of color.
The problem with articles like the one above is that they either explicitly or implicitly promote Christian supremacy over society. That means instead of Christians sharing society with all others as equals, Christians must seize the day so as to save any pagan society from itself. But who was there to save Christian Europe, and parts of the rest of the World, from the Church? Thus came the problem that civilization changed from being Christian to being more atheistic because of the failures of the Church when it was in charge.
The NT Scriptures command us to preach the Gospel and to promote justice. And they warn us against meddling too much in society in terms of personal matters. Finally, Jesus warns us against 'lording over others.' So we need to be very careful when we Christians attempt to change society and culture lest we imitate our forefathers in how they tried too hard to influence society and culture.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Rev. Ben Johnson and his blogpost citing a German Socialist party’s claim that Jesus would be a Socialist had he been on earth today. This was posted in the Acton blog.
It certainly is wrong of the Socialist Party to speak for Jesus on the issue of voting. But regarding the problems brought to us by Capitalism, Marx, not necessarily all of his followers, was on target especially regarding neoliberalism--today's form of Capitalism. We live in a shareholder economy where the traditional definition of stakeholder has been reduced to shareholders and possibly a few key decision makers. The traditional business definition of stakeholder consists of all who are impacted by the business. That includes those who are included in today's definitoin as well as workers, the community in which a business is located, customers, and others. To give an example, a while ago, the then CEO of Exxon was asked if Exxon should be concerned about the effects of their prices on their customers. He clearly stated that the only people Exxon is accountable to are the shareholders.
With today's new definition of stakeholders, all others are considered to be disposable objects whom a business could choose to care about. But when a business follows the maximize profits ethics, which is a popular ethic followed by those who reject the traditional definition of stakeholder, what follows is that not only do we work with the redacted definition of stakeholders, but that that ethic is cannibalizing ethic that devours all other ethical and moral guidelines. Thus obeying the law depends on belief that either the business can get away with it or that being caught will not impact the ROI.
We should note that with neoliberalism, we see an ever growing wealth disparity and that results in an ever growing political power disparity. Growing political power disparities destroy democracies.
Finally, I am not sure why Marx said that religion is the opiate of the people, but do know why Lenin said it. He spoke from observation on how those following the Christian religion enabled the exploitation of workers and others by those with wealth. He wasn't speaking from an ideological point of view as much as observational one. It is one of the few things he got right.
Wednesday, September 26, 2018
Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For September 26, 2018
Sept 25
To Joseph Sundee and his blogpost that tries to show a strong tie between free markets and free press as he denounces the interest some have in democratic socialism. This appeared in the Acton blog
There might be a strong correlation between economic freedom and press freedom, but correlations do not imply cause and effect. And we might ask whether press freedom only measures infringements exercised by government, not by financial elites. This is true since most of our major news outlets are owned by financial elites.
Sundee's article reduces freedom to individual liberty forgetting that democracy is an exercise in social freedom. Thus to try to limit democracy in order to enhance the liberties of business is to say to the people that they can't make rules that control how business interacts in society. Thus to argue for free markets against government regulations in a government that is a working democracy is to attempt to limit what the rest of society can say to business. It is a limiting of social freedom and subjugates the rest of society to business. And at this point, we should note that society is a pie in which business is merely a slice and not vice-versa.
Since the Acton blog is a religious blog, we should remind it that Church history tells us multiple tragic stories of when the Church supports those with wealth and power. Those stories include what happened to the Church when it supported wealth and power in the pre-revolutionary times of France, Russia, and Spain. And we could include Chilé in as different way since its revolution saw a democratically elected leader overthrown and replaced with a brutal, military dictator who ushered in free markets. We should also note that the economic freedom enjoyed by Ayn Rand's family took place under the dictatorship of the Tsars. And that the Provisional Government that replaced the Tsars in the February, 1917 Russian Revolution was controlled by the Capitalists who insisted on continuing Russia's involvement in WW I despite the disastrous consequences that it brought to the people. So bad were those consequences that it welcomed Lenin's hijacking of the Russian Revolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Rev Ben Johnson and his blogpost that attempts to portray a the fully autonomous individual with what is opposite from his “Christian” understanding of America’s Constitutionalism and its reliance on natural law. This appeared in the Acton blog.
My impression from reading about the Homo Economist is that he is a person who promotes the free markets of neoliberal capitalism. We should note that, along with Bolshevism, neoliberal Capitalism relies on the strengthening of a federal government that shows less and less interest in the concerns of those who live outside the circle of financial elites. On the other hand, there is that Johnson's reference to 'ordered liberty' and an unsupported assertion that The Constitution depended on natural law.
Those last two references give the appearance to support a conservative vanguardism. And that vanguardism, if it is defined by the blogposts, that appears in the Acton blog would give almost free reign to businesses despite any objection from society while it mandates that a Christian interpretation of natural law would deny equality in society to the LGBT community. Why the latter? It is said that acceptance of the sexual revolution clashes with religious liberty. Where does that clash occur? It occurs when laws demand that Christians treat those from the LGBT community as equals in the market place and in society. Here we should note that many religiously conservative Christians, especially in the South, were dragged kicking and screaming into accepting the basic tenets of the Civil Rights Movement.
So perhaps Homo Economists and making the federal government stronger for emerging vanguards are conditionally positively related rather than existing as polar opposites. After all, the history of neoliberal capitalism shows a tendency to rely on oppressive government actions to protect its venture. The first 9/11, the one that occurred in Chilé serves as one of several examples.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Paul Krause and his blogpost that claims that real humanism comes from Catholic anthropology. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative.
It seems to me that if any one group wants to claim credit for being the original source or key contributor to real humanism, then that group must not only use logical deduction to prove its point, it must also use induction. That is it must include a history of actions that could be defined as humanistic while showing a minimal or non-existent list of actions that would be defined as opposing humanism.
It is the neglect of using induction to prove that real humanism is heavily dependent on the Church regardless of the branch (Orthodox, Roman, Protestant). The history of the Church is filled with a lust for power and possessions. It shows that the Church has sided with wealth and power and participated in exploiting, sometimes brutally, the vulnerable way too many times. It shows how the Church has condoned colonialism as it used it to spread its influence and domination.
Today's Post Modernism is, in large part, due to the failure of the Church in promoting true humanism in its actions. And the Church should not feel alone, Post Modernism also faults Modernism with its dependence on science and reason for the same failure. This is why Post Modernism has rejected the metanarratives of both Pre Modernism, where faith is the rule, and Modernism, where reason is the rule. And though Post Modernism is wrong in rejecting the metanarrative of faith, its observations about the failures of faith to bring real humanism into the world are on target.
The lesson here is that we can't use deduction to come to conclusions that the use of induction cannot support. The Bible has a parallel to such logic: 'faith without works is dead.'
To Joseph Sundee and his blogpost that tries to show a strong tie between free markets and free press as he denounces the interest some have in democratic socialism. This appeared in the Acton blog
There might be a strong correlation between economic freedom and press freedom, but correlations do not imply cause and effect. And we might ask whether press freedom only measures infringements exercised by government, not by financial elites. This is true since most of our major news outlets are owned by financial elites.
Sundee's article reduces freedom to individual liberty forgetting that democracy is an exercise in social freedom. Thus to try to limit democracy in order to enhance the liberties of business is to say to the people that they can't make rules that control how business interacts in society. Thus to argue for free markets against government regulations in a government that is a working democracy is to attempt to limit what the rest of society can say to business. It is a limiting of social freedom and subjugates the rest of society to business. And at this point, we should note that society is a pie in which business is merely a slice and not vice-versa.
Since the Acton blog is a religious blog, we should remind it that Church history tells us multiple tragic stories of when the Church supports those with wealth and power. Those stories include what happened to the Church when it supported wealth and power in the pre-revolutionary times of France, Russia, and Spain. And we could include Chilé in as different way since its revolution saw a democratically elected leader overthrown and replaced with a brutal, military dictator who ushered in free markets. We should also note that the economic freedom enjoyed by Ayn Rand's family took place under the dictatorship of the Tsars. And that the Provisional Government that replaced the Tsars in the February, 1917 Russian Revolution was controlled by the Capitalists who insisted on continuing Russia's involvement in WW I despite the disastrous consequences that it brought to the people. So bad were those consequences that it welcomed Lenin's hijacking of the Russian Revolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Rev Ben Johnson and his blogpost that attempts to portray a the fully autonomous individual with what is opposite from his “Christian” understanding of America’s Constitutionalism and its reliance on natural law. This appeared in the Acton blog.
My impression from reading about the Homo Economist is that he is a person who promotes the free markets of neoliberal capitalism. We should note that, along with Bolshevism, neoliberal Capitalism relies on the strengthening of a federal government that shows less and less interest in the concerns of those who live outside the circle of financial elites. On the other hand, there is that Johnson's reference to 'ordered liberty' and an unsupported assertion that The Constitution depended on natural law.
Those last two references give the appearance to support a conservative vanguardism. And that vanguardism, if it is defined by the blogposts, that appears in the Acton blog would give almost free reign to businesses despite any objection from society while it mandates that a Christian interpretation of natural law would deny equality in society to the LGBT community. Why the latter? It is said that acceptance of the sexual revolution clashes with religious liberty. Where does that clash occur? It occurs when laws demand that Christians treat those from the LGBT community as equals in the market place and in society. Here we should note that many religiously conservative Christians, especially in the South, were dragged kicking and screaming into accepting the basic tenets of the Civil Rights Movement.
So perhaps Homo Economists and making the federal government stronger for emerging vanguards are conditionally positively related rather than existing as polar opposites. After all, the history of neoliberal capitalism shows a tendency to rely on oppressive government actions to protect its venture. The first 9/11, the one that occurred in Chilé serves as one of several examples.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Paul Krause and his blogpost that claims that real humanism comes from Catholic anthropology. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative.
It seems to me that if any one group wants to claim credit for being the original source or key contributor to real humanism, then that group must not only use logical deduction to prove its point, it must also use induction. That is it must include a history of actions that could be defined as humanistic while showing a minimal or non-existent list of actions that would be defined as opposing humanism.
It is the neglect of using induction to prove that real humanism is heavily dependent on the Church regardless of the branch (Orthodox, Roman, Protestant). The history of the Church is filled with a lust for power and possessions. It shows that the Church has sided with wealth and power and participated in exploiting, sometimes brutally, the vulnerable way too many times. It shows how the Church has condoned colonialism as it used it to spread its influence and domination.
Today's Post Modernism is, in large part, due to the failure of the Church in promoting true humanism in its actions. And the Church should not feel alone, Post Modernism also faults Modernism with its dependence on science and reason for the same failure. This is why Post Modernism has rejected the metanarratives of both Pre Modernism, where faith is the rule, and Modernism, where reason is the rule. And though Post Modernism is wrong in rejecting the metanarrative of faith, its observations about the failures of faith to bring real humanism into the world are on target.
The lesson here is that we can't use deduction to come to conclusions that the use of induction cannot support. The Bible has a parallel to such logic: 'faith without works is dead.'
Wednesday, September 19, 2018
Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For September 19, 2018
Sept 18
To Joe Carter and his blogpost that cites an article on how to read The Constitution. This appeared in the Acton blog.
Having read the cited article, it seems that there is a missing part to how to understand The Constitution. Paulsen, the author of the article cited, talks about understanding the purpose and history of the writing of The Constitution. But while mentioning the historical context of the 14th Amendment as an example, he neglects to mention the historical context and reasons for writing The Constitution. The reasons for writing The Constitution was the need to respond to the widespread dissent over the then economic times and Shays Rebellion. That putting down the rebellion required the funding of a private militia. Thus, one of the major concerns that were addressed in The Constitution was the need for a federal force that could put down future insurrections. One only needs to look up all references to the Militia made in The Constitution, including the Bill of Rights to check the validity of that claim.
Some more context can be garnered by reading Henry Knox's letter to George Washington (see https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/04-05-02-0095 ) and the Constitutional debates (see http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/yates.asp ). Knox's letter shows the concern caused by the times and Shays Rebellion and the Constitutional debates recorded the conversations of the drafters that went into the writing of The Constitution.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Joseph Mussomelli and his blogpost that proclaims how we Americans should still claim American Exceptionalism provided that we follow his revisions. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.
There is a huge problem with what is being proposed in the above article. That problem consists of the conjunction between the lessons of WW II and the idea that America is morally superior to others. The combination makes the George Washington form of American Exceptionalism untenable. That is because the belief in our moral superiority along with the perception of threats abroad, compel us to act independent of the cooperation of the UN. In addition, belief in American Exceptionalism itself disconnects us from the atrocities we have committed within our own nation.
American Exceptionalism blinds us to the decadence that justified carrying out Manifest Destiny and promoting white supremacy either in the form of slavery or Jim Crow. How did our ethnic cleansing of Native Americans not affect our notion of our own moral status in the world? We can talk about it only if we are allowed to converse with no sense of horror or shame. To converse with others in that way, we must at some point excuse the gross racism that permitted us to steal, or force Native Americans from, the land. That is often done by minimizing the humanity of Native Americans. So that the only atrocities we should be ashamed of are those committed in other lands. In other words, people of other ethnicities are recognized to be more human than the indigenous people of this continent.
And how should we feel about slavery and the subsequent Jim Crow? Should we not again hide our faces in guilt and shame or can we remain unaffected by the atrocities brought on by both because the Civil War was fought to free the slaves and the Civil Rights movement removed Jim Crow laws? And since our worse immoral crimes are in the past, isn't Mussomelli proposing that there is no sense in beating ourselves up over past. Is that what we would advise the Germans to do with their history of Nazism and all that followed that?
Either form of American Exceptionalism emotionally disconnects us from our past. That disconnect is most apparent in the Wilson intervention type of American Exceptionalism. But all of the necessary ingredients for carrying out the ugliest form of Exceptionalism are an integral part of the recommended, George Washington isolationist type of American Exceptionalism or Mussomelli's revised version of Exceptionalism still lead us to the ugliest form of Exceptionalism. That should be clear by how Mussomelli whitewashes some of our past such as our interventions in Cuba and the Philippines from decades ago.
Finally, why insist on being Exceptional in the first place? Is it because of our religious history that Mussomelli wants us to feel compelled to claim superiority over all others? Or is that insistence on being exceptional is because of a belief in racial superiority of Europeans and Western Civilization? Why insist on being exceptional when our religious heritage contains the parable of the two men praying where the person who claimed to be exceptional was rejected by God? Perhaps the reason why Mussomelli insists on America claiming to be exceptional is because it is the only remaining argument that can be used to prevent America from changing the way it has been.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Emily Kleinen and her blogpost on how we try to distract ourselves from the finality of death, the eternal, and God by our earthy pursuits. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.
The article well describes a hospice way of living. That is that we seek to be comfortable until the end comes The hospice way of living is a living for oneself and it certain denies the eternal and God.
However, Reformed theologian Francis Schaeffer, a while back ago, warned us that this hospice way of living, which he described as making a god out of the pursuit of personal peace and prosperity, also afflicts Christians who also have their eyes on the eternal and on God.
The point being that this hospice way of living is not just motivated out of a desire to distract ourselves from death, the eternal, and God, it can also be motivated out of a pure addiction to the material world. In that case godliness becomes a search for being selfishly righteous. That is we live for ourselves as long as we avoid breaking certain taboos.
Regardless of the motivation, what is lost is what the Old Testament talked about such as in Psalms 103 where the Psalmist mentions many of the benefits God grants us and what the New Testament saw the fulfillment of. And perhaps the reason for people losing track of what the Scriptures say is because of our weaknesses in the face of such strong temptations.
To Joe Carter and his blogpost that cites an article on how to read The Constitution. This appeared in the Acton blog.
Having read the cited article, it seems that there is a missing part to how to understand The Constitution. Paulsen, the author of the article cited, talks about understanding the purpose and history of the writing of The Constitution. But while mentioning the historical context of the 14th Amendment as an example, he neglects to mention the historical context and reasons for writing The Constitution. The reasons for writing The Constitution was the need to respond to the widespread dissent over the then economic times and Shays Rebellion. That putting down the rebellion required the funding of a private militia. Thus, one of the major concerns that were addressed in The Constitution was the need for a federal force that could put down future insurrections. One only needs to look up all references to the Militia made in The Constitution, including the Bill of Rights to check the validity of that claim.
Some more context can be garnered by reading Henry Knox's letter to George Washington (see https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/04-05-02-0095 ) and the Constitutional debates (see http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/yates.asp ). Knox's letter shows the concern caused by the times and Shays Rebellion and the Constitutional debates recorded the conversations of the drafters that went into the writing of The Constitution.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Joseph Mussomelli and his blogpost that proclaims how we Americans should still claim American Exceptionalism provided that we follow his revisions. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.
There is a huge problem with what is being proposed in the above article. That problem consists of the conjunction between the lessons of WW II and the idea that America is morally superior to others. The combination makes the George Washington form of American Exceptionalism untenable. That is because the belief in our moral superiority along with the perception of threats abroad, compel us to act independent of the cooperation of the UN. In addition, belief in American Exceptionalism itself disconnects us from the atrocities we have committed within our own nation.
American Exceptionalism blinds us to the decadence that justified carrying out Manifest Destiny and promoting white supremacy either in the form of slavery or Jim Crow. How did our ethnic cleansing of Native Americans not affect our notion of our own moral status in the world? We can talk about it only if we are allowed to converse with no sense of horror or shame. To converse with others in that way, we must at some point excuse the gross racism that permitted us to steal, or force Native Americans from, the land. That is often done by minimizing the humanity of Native Americans. So that the only atrocities we should be ashamed of are those committed in other lands. In other words, people of other ethnicities are recognized to be more human than the indigenous people of this continent.
And how should we feel about slavery and the subsequent Jim Crow? Should we not again hide our faces in guilt and shame or can we remain unaffected by the atrocities brought on by both because the Civil War was fought to free the slaves and the Civil Rights movement removed Jim Crow laws? And since our worse immoral crimes are in the past, isn't Mussomelli proposing that there is no sense in beating ourselves up over past. Is that what we would advise the Germans to do with their history of Nazism and all that followed that?
Either form of American Exceptionalism emotionally disconnects us from our past. That disconnect is most apparent in the Wilson intervention type of American Exceptionalism. But all of the necessary ingredients for carrying out the ugliest form of Exceptionalism are an integral part of the recommended, George Washington isolationist type of American Exceptionalism or Mussomelli's revised version of Exceptionalism still lead us to the ugliest form of Exceptionalism. That should be clear by how Mussomelli whitewashes some of our past such as our interventions in Cuba and the Philippines from decades ago.
Finally, why insist on being Exceptional in the first place? Is it because of our religious history that Mussomelli wants us to feel compelled to claim superiority over all others? Or is that insistence on being exceptional is because of a belief in racial superiority of Europeans and Western Civilization? Why insist on being exceptional when our religious heritage contains the parable of the two men praying where the person who claimed to be exceptional was rejected by God? Perhaps the reason why Mussomelli insists on America claiming to be exceptional is because it is the only remaining argument that can be used to prevent America from changing the way it has been.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Emily Kleinen and her blogpost on how we try to distract ourselves from the finality of death, the eternal, and God by our earthy pursuits. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.
The article well describes a hospice way of living. That is that we seek to be comfortable until the end comes The hospice way of living is a living for oneself and it certain denies the eternal and God.
However, Reformed theologian Francis Schaeffer, a while back ago, warned us that this hospice way of living, which he described as making a god out of the pursuit of personal peace and prosperity, also afflicts Christians who also have their eyes on the eternal and on God.
The point being that this hospice way of living is not just motivated out of a desire to distract ourselves from death, the eternal, and God, it can also be motivated out of a pure addiction to the material world. In that case godliness becomes a search for being selfishly righteous. That is we live for ourselves as long as we avoid breaking certain taboos.
Regardless of the motivation, what is lost is what the Old Testament talked about such as in Psalms 103 where the Psalmist mentions many of the benefits God grants us and what the New Testament saw the fulfillment of. And perhaps the reason for people losing track of what the Scriptures say is because of our weaknesses in the face of such strong temptations.
Wednesday, August 22, 2018
Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For August 22, 2018
August 16
To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost quote of Ben Sasse who stated that a government that is big enough to put a business out of business for following the First Amendment is too big. This appeared in the Heidelblog.
On the other hand, we saw in Jim Crow First Amendment rights being used to deny other people their rights. Now either Sasse doesn't see that other people's rights are being violated when they cannot participate as equals in the marketplace, or he doesn't see that the people whose rights are being violated don't deserve to have equal rights in the marketplace. In either case, Sasse's statement about the size of government should be followed with the question, is a state that is big enough to enforce just laws too big? And in either case, Sasse's statement is more of an attempt at marketing the issue in favor of his views than anything else.
What should also be noted is that while those who advocate the correction of social injustices in ways that violate conservative politics are accused of having inadequate eschatologies by the Heidelblog and other Christians, somehow conservative political views are being advocated. Does that imply that conservative political views have an inadequate concern for social justice?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
August 19
To George Stanciu and his blogpost on the good and bad of Capitalism and how the Christian is to live in such a system. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog
This article shows a good attempt to take a balanced approach to Capitalism. Stanciu did miss one point, that America didn't employ Adam Smith's free trade principles until sometime during the FDR administration. Up until that time, America employed protectionism in order to allow its industries to grow and become competitive.
There is a repeated theme in Stanciu's article, it is that of reductionism and the problems it causes. Adam Smith's reducing human motivation to self-interest, the self-reducing ethic of maximizing profits encourages us to follow the rules only when it costs less to follow them than to break them, and Capitalism's reducing of the labor power of the worker to a commodity making the worker disposable. In the end, the biggest reductionism that we see in Capitalism is that it leads us to reduce the study and practice of economics to that of commerce--a point made by Chiléan economist, Manfred Max-Kneef. Whereas commerce is primarily concerned the buying and selling of goods, the Greek root in the word economics infers a more comprehensive and holistic approach to the study of our system.
I appreciated Stanciu's borrowing from Martin Luther King, Jr. in his description of our society as being thing-oriented. Martin Luther King, Jr. made that observation in his 1967 speech against the Vietnam War. But King had much earlier said something else that pertains to Capitalism. That it leads us to measure life by the things we buy and accumulate rather than how we have contributed to others.
Now some Christians believe that only Christians should enlighten the use of Capitalism by society. That is simply an effort to have one's cake and eat it too. But the constant reductionisms made in Capitalist economic systems causes many of us Christians to start off as Don Quixotes only to see exhaustion change us into becoming cynics. As King would say, not only should we help the individual victims we find on the road to Jericho, we should change that road itself so that there are fewer victims. That implies changing our economic system. And that is the real challenge for the Christian in our Capitalist economic system; it is to work, with some unbelievers, in order to change our economic system so that there are fewer victims on the road to Jericho. For to do charity work only while riding in on the coattails of Capitalism causes the Church to repeat serious mistakes from the past. For we find that in the pre-revoutionary times of France, Russia, and Spain the Church stood with wealth and power. When those respective revolutions came, the Church and the Gospel she is suppose to preach was unnecessarily persecuted.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
August 21
To Joe Carter and his blogpost on whether income disparity is a moral issue. This appeared in the Acton blog.
Perhaps if Carter referred to the Scriptures instead of some principles, he would see why income inequality can become a moral issue.
Of course he speaks about income inequality as a whole implying that all instances of wealth inequality neither pose moral problems nor raise any red flags.
What do the Scriptures say? James says the following to the rich (see https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James+5%3A1-6&version=NIV:
Now some may argue that James is talking to rich individuals. But how does his message not apply to groups of wealthy owners who practice the same treatment of workers that individual wealthy owners do? In addition, we might ask what is the difference between unpaying an employee and keeping their wages from them? Isn't the difference in that when a business owner underpays their employees, they are keep some of the employees wages rather than all as mentioned by James?
Or we can go to Jeremiah 22 and read what Jeremiah has to say to the son of Josiah (see https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah+22%3A13-17&version=NIV ):
Notice the same sins that James preached against is what Jeremiah preached against. And again, what is the difference between underpaying employees vs not paying them at all? Are not both examples of exploitation?
Or we can read what Isaiah wrote (see https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+58%3A1-3&version=NIV ):
Carter cannot see the moral factors that can, though not always do, be involved when there is income disparity. And he cannot see the moral factors because he hasn't dealt with the human elements that can be involved with certain degrees of income disparity. He doesn't not deal with the results exploited workers have to suffer through as a result of income disparity. And he doesn't mention what the wealthy did in order to create income disparity. If he had, then perhaps he would admit that there can easily be a moral factor involved with the existence of income inequality. And again, income disparity becomes a group problem when a group of those who are wealthy act like an individual who is wealthy who exploits their workers.
To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost quote of Ben Sasse who stated that a government that is big enough to put a business out of business for following the First Amendment is too big. This appeared in the Heidelblog.
On the other hand, we saw in Jim Crow First Amendment rights being used to deny other people their rights. Now either Sasse doesn't see that other people's rights are being violated when they cannot participate as equals in the marketplace, or he doesn't see that the people whose rights are being violated don't deserve to have equal rights in the marketplace. In either case, Sasse's statement about the size of government should be followed with the question, is a state that is big enough to enforce just laws too big? And in either case, Sasse's statement is more of an attempt at marketing the issue in favor of his views than anything else.
What should also be noted is that while those who advocate the correction of social injustices in ways that violate conservative politics are accused of having inadequate eschatologies by the Heidelblog and other Christians, somehow conservative political views are being advocated. Does that imply that conservative political views have an inadequate concern for social justice?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
August 19
To George Stanciu and his blogpost on the good and bad of Capitalism and how the Christian is to live in such a system. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog
This article shows a good attempt to take a balanced approach to Capitalism. Stanciu did miss one point, that America didn't employ Adam Smith's free trade principles until sometime during the FDR administration. Up until that time, America employed protectionism in order to allow its industries to grow and become competitive.
There is a repeated theme in Stanciu's article, it is that of reductionism and the problems it causes. Adam Smith's reducing human motivation to self-interest, the self-reducing ethic of maximizing profits encourages us to follow the rules only when it costs less to follow them than to break them, and Capitalism's reducing of the labor power of the worker to a commodity making the worker disposable. In the end, the biggest reductionism that we see in Capitalism is that it leads us to reduce the study and practice of economics to that of commerce--a point made by Chiléan economist, Manfred Max-Kneef. Whereas commerce is primarily concerned the buying and selling of goods, the Greek root in the word economics infers a more comprehensive and holistic approach to the study of our system.
I appreciated Stanciu's borrowing from Martin Luther King, Jr. in his description of our society as being thing-oriented. Martin Luther King, Jr. made that observation in his 1967 speech against the Vietnam War. But King had much earlier said something else that pertains to Capitalism. That it leads us to measure life by the things we buy and accumulate rather than how we have contributed to others.
Now some Christians believe that only Christians should enlighten the use of Capitalism by society. That is simply an effort to have one's cake and eat it too. But the constant reductionisms made in Capitalist economic systems causes many of us Christians to start off as Don Quixotes only to see exhaustion change us into becoming cynics. As King would say, not only should we help the individual victims we find on the road to Jericho, we should change that road itself so that there are fewer victims. That implies changing our economic system. And that is the real challenge for the Christian in our Capitalist economic system; it is to work, with some unbelievers, in order to change our economic system so that there are fewer victims on the road to Jericho. For to do charity work only while riding in on the coattails of Capitalism causes the Church to repeat serious mistakes from the past. For we find that in the pre-revoutionary times of France, Russia, and Spain the Church stood with wealth and power. When those respective revolutions came, the Church and the Gospel she is suppose to preach was unnecessarily persecuted.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
August 21
To Joe Carter and his blogpost on whether income disparity is a moral issue. This appeared in the Acton blog.
Perhaps if Carter referred to the Scriptures instead of some principles, he would see why income inequality can become a moral issue.
Of course he speaks about income inequality as a whole implying that all instances of wealth inequality neither pose moral problems nor raise any red flags.
What do the Scriptures say? James says the following to the rich (see https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James+5%3A1-6&version=NIV:
Now listen, you rich people, weep and wail because of the misery that is coming on you. 2 Your wealth has rotted, and moths have eaten your clothes. 3 Your gold and silver are corroded. Their corrosion will testify against you and eat your flesh like fire. You have hoarded wealth in the last days. 4 Look! The wages you failed to pay the workers who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty. 5 You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourselves in the day of slaughter. 6 You have condemned and murdered the innocent one, who was not opposing you.
Now some may argue that James is talking to rich individuals. But how does his message not apply to groups of wealthy owners who practice the same treatment of workers that individual wealthy owners do? In addition, we might ask what is the difference between unpaying an employee and keeping their wages from them? Isn't the difference in that when a business owner underpays their employees, they are keep some of the employees wages rather than all as mentioned by James?
Or we can go to Jeremiah 22 and read what Jeremiah has to say to the son of Josiah (see https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah+22%3A13-17&version=NIV ):
“Woe to him who builds his palace by unrighteousness,
his upper rooms by injustice,
making his own people work for nothing,
not paying them for their labor.
14 He says, ‘I will build myself a great palace
with spacious upper rooms.’
So he makes large windows in it,
panels it with cedar
and decorates it in red.
15 “Does it make you a king
to have more and more cedar?
Did not your father have food and drink?
He did what was right and just,
so all went well with him.
16 He defended the cause of the poor and needy,
and so all went well.
Is that not what it means to know me?”
declares the Lord.
17 “But your eyes and your heart
are set only on dishonest gain,
on shedding innocent blood
and on oppression and extortion.”
Notice the same sins that James preached against is what Jeremiah preached against. And again, what is the difference between underpaying employees vs not paying them at all? Are not both examples of exploitation?
Or we can read what Isaiah wrote (see https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+58%3A1-3&version=NIV ):
“Shout it aloud, do not hold back.
Raise your voice like a trumpet.
Declare to my people their rebellion
and to the descendants of Jacob their sins.
2 For day after day they seek me out;
they seem eager to know my ways,
as if they were a nation that does what is right
and has not forsaken the commands of its God.
They ask me for just decisions
and seem eager for God to come near them.
3 ‘Why have we fasted,’ they say,
‘and you have not seen it?
Why have we humbled ourselves,
and you have not noticed?’
“Yet on the day of your fasting, you do as you please
and exploit all your workers.
Carter cannot see the moral factors that can, though not always do, be involved when there is income disparity. And he cannot see the moral factors because he hasn't dealt with the human elements that can be involved with certain degrees of income disparity. He doesn't not deal with the results exploited workers have to suffer through as a result of income disparity. And he doesn't mention what the wealthy did in order to create income disparity. If he had, then perhaps he would admit that there can easily be a moral factor involved with the existence of income inequality. And again, income disparity becomes a group problem when a group of those who are wealthy act like an individual who is wealthy who exploits their workers.
Wednesday, June 27, 2018
Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For June 17, 2018
June 20
To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost that describes the kind of Reformation that the American Church needs to undergo. This appeared in Heidelblog.
With his criticisms of Pietism and Fundamentalism and his list of 4 indicators for telling whether Reformation is occurring in America, one has to ask what changes, a.k.a., reformations, would Clark's own church need to make for a true reformation to occur at his church?
That question shows the problem. For it is Clark, who is a true theologian of the Reformation, who seems to be playing the role of the Pharisee from the parable of the two men praying as he tells the rest of American Christianity what changes they need to make to come up to the standards set by Clark and his church. For that is the obvious conclusion that one comes away with here. While Clark's church and theological circle doesn't need reformation, the rest of American Christianity does. And if that is an accurate assessment of Clark's answer, then it would seem that Clark's church and theological circles have everything to teach the rest of us while having no need to learn anything from us. And at that point, Bonhoeffer's assessment of American churches, as well as Clark's own stated description of fundamentalism, applies to Clark and possibly his own church and theological circles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 26
To Joe Carter and his blogpost that references a Forbes’ article that asks what is next for Spain now that it has elected a Socialist as its Prime minister. This appeared in the Acton blog.
referenced article: https://www.forbes.com/sites/alejandrochafuen/2018/06/20/spain-throwing-out-the-baby-with-the-bathwater/#d89161f76313
Neither Carter's comments nor the article referenced above really answer the question of what's next for Spain. But I would like to venture a guess here seeing that my political affiliation, according to my driver's license, is with the same party as the newly elected leader of Spain. Spain's future, from a socialist perspective, depends more on Sanchez's efforts at listening to the people rather than directing them. Spain's future will depend on Sanchez giving more decision-making power to Spain's workers. After all, the proletariat dictatorship is what Marxist Socialism is about. However, not instituting the proletariat dictatorship has been the failure of leaders who called themselves socialists.
Starting with Lenin, there was no transfer of power from gov't officials to workers in many "socialist" regimes. Those who gained power, by either seizing it or through elections, saw themselves as vanguards who were there to bring socialism. And because of that, they ended up relying on bourgeois models of governing than on socialist ones. And that resulted in no significant change between what was before and what came after.
So what's next for Spain depends on whether Sanchez acts as a true Marxist Socialist by giving more decision-making powers to workers or by using the current bourgeois model of government but ruling as a socialist or will he give socialism a try. With either model of governing, there are no guarantees. It is that one model consolidates power while the other distributes it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Pat Buchanan and his blogpost on how, for the most part, liberals are destroying public civility. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.
What Buchanan forgets is that the end of public civility started with the Right. It started with Rush Limbaugh some decades ago as he employed black-white thinking to convince his followers that no good could come from liberals or the Left--note that they are not the same.
What Limbaugh did, and still does, on his radio show is to conduct a virtual book burning session where conservatives are encouraged to throw into the fire of criticism which employed all-or-nothing thinking anything that was not conservative. And conservatives feeling worn from the criticisms of non-conservatives were more than happy to oblige. So led by Limbaugh, they played the persecution card. Of course, never mind that, like other conservative heroes, Limbaugh never seemed to live by important conservative standards. And the standard that seems most often broken is the one one pertaining to marriage. Whether we look at Gingrich, Limbaugh, or Trump conservative standards used to judge nonconservatives were not used to judge these conservative hero-spokesmen. Of course, Limbaugh had other transgressions, such as mocking Michael J. Fox because of his symptoms from Parkinson's Disease.
And let's look at Buchanan's use of evidence. The race riots that followed King's assassination had nothing to do with liberals vs conservatives. It had everything to do with extreme frustration at the lack of justice in the US. Yes, some soldiers returning from Vietnam were spat on and that was wrong. But what avoided Buchanan's notice was that 2 to 3 million Vietnamese civilians were killed by American troops--mostly by bombings from the air. Where were conservatives then? And if you want to look at the epitome of public incivility, one only needs to look at the history of how Blacks were treated in this nation. And when people challenged that incivility, SOME conservatives called integration 'communism' and held up signs proclaiming 'White Power' and displaying swastikas. Or look at the centuries of incivility suffered by the LGBT community. Are conservatives less guilty than liberals when it comes to practicing incivility?
What lies behind all of the incivility regardless of its ideological source is the morally lethal combination of all-or-nothing thinking and the self-righteousness as demonstrated by the Pharisee from the parable of the two men praying. And to assign more guilt to one side or the other is to passionately embrace that morally lethal combination as one's own personal partner. To reverse the curse of that morally lethal combination, we must learn how to recognize what opposing ideologies bring to the table and look to collaborate. Otherwise, we will look to conquer. And no doubt that conquering interferes with public civility. After all, look at how trying to conquer is killing public civility today.
To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost that describes the kind of Reformation that the American Church needs to undergo. This appeared in Heidelblog.
With his criticisms of Pietism and Fundamentalism and his list of 4 indicators for telling whether Reformation is occurring in America, one has to ask what changes, a.k.a., reformations, would Clark's own church need to make for a true reformation to occur at his church?
That question shows the problem. For it is Clark, who is a true theologian of the Reformation, who seems to be playing the role of the Pharisee from the parable of the two men praying as he tells the rest of American Christianity what changes they need to make to come up to the standards set by Clark and his church. For that is the obvious conclusion that one comes away with here. While Clark's church and theological circle doesn't need reformation, the rest of American Christianity does. And if that is an accurate assessment of Clark's answer, then it would seem that Clark's church and theological circles have everything to teach the rest of us while having no need to learn anything from us. And at that point, Bonhoeffer's assessment of American churches, as well as Clark's own stated description of fundamentalism, applies to Clark and possibly his own church and theological circles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 26
To Joe Carter and his blogpost that references a Forbes’ article that asks what is next for Spain now that it has elected a Socialist as its Prime minister. This appeared in the Acton blog.
referenced article: https://www.forbes.com/sites/alejandrochafuen/2018/06/20/spain-throwing-out-the-baby-with-the-bathwater/#d89161f76313
Neither Carter's comments nor the article referenced above really answer the question of what's next for Spain. But I would like to venture a guess here seeing that my political affiliation, according to my driver's license, is with the same party as the newly elected leader of Spain. Spain's future, from a socialist perspective, depends more on Sanchez's efforts at listening to the people rather than directing them. Spain's future will depend on Sanchez giving more decision-making power to Spain's workers. After all, the proletariat dictatorship is what Marxist Socialism is about. However, not instituting the proletariat dictatorship has been the failure of leaders who called themselves socialists.
Starting with Lenin, there was no transfer of power from gov't officials to workers in many "socialist" regimes. Those who gained power, by either seizing it or through elections, saw themselves as vanguards who were there to bring socialism. And because of that, they ended up relying on bourgeois models of governing than on socialist ones. And that resulted in no significant change between what was before and what came after.
So what's next for Spain depends on whether Sanchez acts as a true Marxist Socialist by giving more decision-making powers to workers or by using the current bourgeois model of government but ruling as a socialist or will he give socialism a try. With either model of governing, there are no guarantees. It is that one model consolidates power while the other distributes it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Pat Buchanan and his blogpost on how, for the most part, liberals are destroying public civility. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.
What Buchanan forgets is that the end of public civility started with the Right. It started with Rush Limbaugh some decades ago as he employed black-white thinking to convince his followers that no good could come from liberals or the Left--note that they are not the same.
What Limbaugh did, and still does, on his radio show is to conduct a virtual book burning session where conservatives are encouraged to throw into the fire of criticism which employed all-or-nothing thinking anything that was not conservative. And conservatives feeling worn from the criticisms of non-conservatives were more than happy to oblige. So led by Limbaugh, they played the persecution card. Of course, never mind that, like other conservative heroes, Limbaugh never seemed to live by important conservative standards. And the standard that seems most often broken is the one one pertaining to marriage. Whether we look at Gingrich, Limbaugh, or Trump conservative standards used to judge nonconservatives were not used to judge these conservative hero-spokesmen. Of course, Limbaugh had other transgressions, such as mocking Michael J. Fox because of his symptoms from Parkinson's Disease.
And let's look at Buchanan's use of evidence. The race riots that followed King's assassination had nothing to do with liberals vs conservatives. It had everything to do with extreme frustration at the lack of justice in the US. Yes, some soldiers returning from Vietnam were spat on and that was wrong. But what avoided Buchanan's notice was that 2 to 3 million Vietnamese civilians were killed by American troops--mostly by bombings from the air. Where were conservatives then? And if you want to look at the epitome of public incivility, one only needs to look at the history of how Blacks were treated in this nation. And when people challenged that incivility, SOME conservatives called integration 'communism' and held up signs proclaiming 'White Power' and displaying swastikas. Or look at the centuries of incivility suffered by the LGBT community. Are conservatives less guilty than liberals when it comes to practicing incivility?
What lies behind all of the incivility regardless of its ideological source is the morally lethal combination of all-or-nothing thinking and the self-righteousness as demonstrated by the Pharisee from the parable of the two men praying. And to assign more guilt to one side or the other is to passionately embrace that morally lethal combination as one's own personal partner. To reverse the curse of that morally lethal combination, we must learn how to recognize what opposing ideologies bring to the table and look to collaborate. Otherwise, we will look to conquer. And no doubt that conquering interferes with public civility. After all, look at how trying to conquer is killing public civility today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)