Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For June 7, 2023

 June 5

To Heidelblog and William H. Lazareth for a quote from part of Lazareth's preface for Luther's Works, Vol. 44: The Christian in Society I. In that quote, Lazareth wrote that secular institutions  will be reformed when their employees acknowledge that secular occupations are religious vocations.

One problem with the above approach to social responsibilities is that it relies solely on a quote from Martin Luther despite the contextual differences that exist between then and now. But such is always the problem with traditionalists.

Of course, another problem is that Lazareth's statement is uncritically stated without any evaluation.

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

June 6

To Dr. Gordon Lloyd and his article on some of what went into the writing of  The Constitution. Dr Lloyd relies heavily on Madison's notes only because he believes what some say that Yates's notes are unreliable. This article was posted in the Imaginative Conservative Blog

With the two main sources being questioned, it is odd that the article discusses what went into the writing of The Constitution without mentioning its historical context. BTW, we should note that there might be other reasons why Dr. Lloyd has no trust in Yates's note on the Constitutional debates besides what James H. Hutson said about their reliability. For one thing, Yates's notes do not always put Madison in the best of light. Also, Lloyd does take a shining to Madison.

Lloyd fails to mention anything about the historical context for the writing of The Constitution even though the circumstances are historically well known. There was widespread dissent as well as Shays Rebellion. Henry Knox seems to have referenced Shays Rebellion in his letter to George Washington the 'insurgents' from Massachusetts. Knox, however, failed to adequately describe those who were rebelling. He neglected to mention that those who were rebelling against Massachusetts's economic policies were mostly veterans of the Revolutionary War who became farmers. Knox also mentions how these farmers were gaining sympathy from young people in the surrounding states. And Knox mentions the existence of conflicts between the states.

In both Knox's letter and Federalist Paper #10, groups of those who opposed the then current economic policies and advocated changes, such as the reliance on paper money, were pejoratively called factions. And with discovering the past use of pejoratives to describe opponents, perhaps we can discover more similarities between our politicians today and those of yesteryear than we expected to find.

That dissent and Shays Rebellion was prominent in the writing of The Constitution becomes more obvious when we read through that document to find the references to the Militia. For the Constitutional purpose of the Militia was to enforce laws, repel invasions, and put down insurrections. The Federalist Papers add an additional insight into the purpose of the Militia. By depending on the Militia to protect the nation and enforce laws when necessary instead of a standing army, the government would be more reluctant to become tyrannical.

Another part of the context of the writing of The Constitution was the percentage of eligible voters when that document was ratified. Mark Pocan, a Democrat from Wisconsin who at least was in the House of Representatives estimated the percentage of Americans who could vote to be between 20% and 25%. Here we should note that The Constitution was silent on the right to vote.

Also when we look at the makeup of the Congress, the choice of Senators for each state was originally out of the voters' hands and The Constitution's was silent on voting laws and any declaration on the right to vote. For Senators were chosen by their respective state's government. In addition, Senators were given a 6-year term, all of which give's credence to Yates's notes on the Constitutional Convention.

When we consider the even a small bit of the context of the writing of The Constitution, we get some insight into what the Framers wanted that seemed to be absent from the article. And what we find is that just perhaps the Framers of The Constitution should not be put on a high pedestal on which they are usually placed.

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

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs for March 16, 2022

 March 9

To Barbara J. Elliot and her article on how Ronald Reagan stood up to what he called the 'Evil Empire.' This article appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

According to the above article, Ronald Reagan qualifies as the leading candidate to play the role of the Pharisee from the parable of the 2 men praying. Not being aware of his own sins that include a more subtle support for racism home and more explicit support abroad with his approach to South Africa, exporter of terrorism to Central American nations, supporter of dictators like Pinochet and Saddam Hussein, and acting as the enemy of unions at home. Reagan modeled how many politically conservative Americans wished to see their country. For they made an idol of their city on the hill nation and, as Chris Hedges has pointed out, the endgame for idolatry is actually self-worship.

And of course, one could easily so see the world back then, and even now, when one so focuses on the sins of others so far away that one's  own sins quickly, and seemingly forever, become out of focus. And that approach to turning a blind eye to one's own sin lives on today among many conservatives only their focus is on domestic groups and ideologies. For in order to preserve the desired image of their own city on the hill, they label groups like BLM and theories like CRT as belonging to a foreign source, Marx to be specific, and thus with their focus so fixated on that, again they become blind to the sins that now have been spotlighted before their very eyes.

It isn't that the Soviet Union wasn't evil, it was. But it wasn't only evil. The Iron Curtain was there primarily not to control but to protect from a repeat of history. It was there to protect from the repeating of past western invasions. 

On the other hand, that city on the hill continued after WW II to do what it did prior to WW I: use military might to serve the interests of homegrown wealth such as in coups that replaced left-leaning democracies in Iran (1953), Guatemala (1954), Greece (1967), and Chile (1973) to name some examples, with dictators who did what our government wanted them to do. One only needs to consult former Marine Corp General Smedley Butler for a list of foreign interventions that the US engaged in to protect wealth at home. And none of that includes the dictators we supported who got into power without our help. 

And none of that also includes America's history of practicing various levels of systemic racism at home. For much of the time while people in East Berlin were being shot for trying to escape to West Berlin, people in America were being hung and/or beaten and otherwise discriminated against because of their race. In fact, some are still being shot today because of their race.

So who was the Evil Empire? Perhaps the fault of that question lies in the use of the singular.

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

To R. Scott Clark and his article on racism and why Christians from the past have embraced it and how to challenge racism. This appeared in the Heidelblog.

How do we Christians address racism? Doesn't the answer to that question depend on who are audience is? If our audience are members of the Church, then certainly we should answer with the Scriptures. But what if our audience are unbelievers or society at large? With Church history being what it is, can we honestly say that we should rely solely on the Scriptures to address racism? After all, since many famous renowned heroes of the Church believed not only in white supremacy, but in slavery as well, our argument against slavery at best borders on being impotent if we rely solely on the Scriptures to challenge racism and slavery. 

While the validity of the Gospel revolves around Jesus rather than us believers, what we do and say, as well as what we refrain from doing and saying, affects the credibility of the Gospel to unbelievers. In addition, God's Word is not the recognized universal standard for truth for most unbelievers. So how do we address racism? And what about all of the other injustices not mentioned above like economic classism, denying climate change, nationalism, war and so on? 

It's not that we should avoid using the scriptures to address racism and the rest of the justice issues listed above; it is that we have to employ a broader appeal using a wider scope of sources than just the Scriptures to address racism. Even then, knowing how some prominent Christians from the past held on to racism and slavery and that we ourselves are vulnerable to promoting other injustices, we should meet resistance to our message with some understanding of the dangers that earthly loyalties pose to all people.

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

March 11

To Bradley Birzer and his article on war and how the US might want to respond to the invasion of the Ukraine. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

I very much appreciate Birzer's sentiments about war, especially war now Russia's current invasion. But we should note that our founding fathers were mere mortals who spoke from a different context than the one in which we now live. And if we want to invoke George Washington for advice here about avoiding foreign entanglements, then perhaps we should pay even more attention to The Constitution when it prohibits the long term existence of a standing army.

We should note here the most prevalent fault of traditionalists and old people is that they rely too much on the past to understand and respond to the future. Of course we also need to remember that we can rely too little on what we have learned from the past. But we should also note that unlike in days of our founding fathers yore, devastating wars can begin and end so quickly that Congress has no time to respond.

Unfortunately the world's eagerness, at times, to rely on war not only threatens the national sovereignty of targeted nations as well as the livelihood and well being of its people, a war any place can eventually threaten the lives of people in all places. Why? It is because technology makes the proliferation of WMDs inevitable.

The Russell-Einstein Manifesto was just concerned with WMDs consisting of nuclear devices when it stated the obvious (see  https://www.spokesmanbooks.com/Spokesman/PDF/85russein.pdf   ):

Here, then, is the problem which we present to you, stark and dreadful and inescapable: Shall we put an end to the human race; or shall mankind renounce war? People will not face this alternative because it is so difficult to abolish war.

The abolition of war will demand distasteful limitations of national sovereignty.

Yes, Russia started the current war, not the US. But how much was Putin's willingness to go to war is being based on past US interventions and invasions that were prosecuted with impunity? Why didn't the world respond to the US invasion of Iraq or its war on Libya's former regime run by Muammar Gaddafi? Why did the world not respond with sanctions on Israel for its occasional invasions into Lebanon and its sometimes vicious attacks on the Gaza Strip or its confiscation of land from Palestinians living in the West Bank?

Yes, Putin invaded the Ukraine, in part, to restore Russias glory days. But how much of Putin's concept of glory days for today has been influenced by seeing a need to keep up with the US and its freedom to wage wars and interventions?

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blog For February 16, 2020

 Feb 8

To Chuck Chalberg and his article on CRT and what is dividing Americans. The comment is directed at only part of the article. The article appeared in the Imaginative Conservative Blog.

It seems to me that the logic employed by Chalberg in the above article is similar to the logic employed by Post Modernism. For whereas Post Modernism employed an outcome-based truth system to support its rejection of the metanarratives of both Pre Modernism, where the metanarrative is faith, and Modernism, where the metanarratives are science and reason, Chalberg rejects CRT because of what he believes the theory implies: America is a force for ill in the world. Such is assumed false by Chalberg. In addition, Chalberg's division of Americans, where they are divided between those who believe that America has been a force for good vs those who believe that America has been a force for ill illustrates a black-white worldview in that the position not considered is that America has been a force for both good and ill in the world.

It is understandable that American traditionalists, and religiously conservative Christian Americans have a strong tendency to be American traditionalists, would outrightly object to and oppose CRT. That is because such traditionalists have their significance closely bound to believing the best about their country. But how many of those conservative opponents to CRT understand racism from having experienced it as its victims.

It isn't that CRT is without errors. But it is that CRT attempts to describe racial oppression in America from the perspective of how many Blacks have  experienced that oppression. And yet, Chalberg's main concern here is that it describes America as a force for ill rather than for good.

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

Feb 11

To W. Robert Godfrey and his recorded adult class lesson why Christendom has been replaced. This lesson eventually focuses on the influence Darwin's thinking had as it helped undo Christendom. This recording was posted on the Abounding Grace Radio webste.

This series by Godfrey is meant to calm the uneasiness that many of my fellow religiously conservative American Christians have over  the changes in our society. Our nation and society no longer have a Christian outlook, a.k.a.,  embracing Christendom, on the world. But what we religiously conservative Christians have been oblivious too or have too easily excused is the suffering that Christendom caused. That suffering rivals the suffering caused by Christendom's replacements. Here, we would do well to listen to a Post Modern critique. For Post Modernism had rejected those who make exclusive truth claims because of history, because of the feeling of entitlement that has enabled some to more easily commit atrocities.

While Godfrey reduces what Darwin taught to chance and survival of the fittest and neglects Darwin's concern for justice in this lesson, he claims that Christianity teaches us to love and care for the needy and to act justly. But is that what history tells us what Christians do? In addition, some unbelieving friends of mine criticize Christians for needing the threat of a punishing God to motivate them to love and help others.

Godfrey has an out for Christendom's failures. But he doesn't extend that same out to the unbelieving thinkers and non-Christian ideologies for their failures. Again, Post Modernism seems to have observed that Christendom does not differ from other influences and ideologies in terms of the abuses and atrocities they have caused. Perhaps we should not relish the 'good old days' of Christendom nor should we consider it a mystery why it has been replaced.

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

Feb 12

To Chris Gordon and his article on the danger of drifting away from Jesus because of one's concern with worldly problems. This appeared in the Abounding Grace Radio website.

The above article needs balance for the sake of both Christians and unbelievers. When Dietrich Bonhoeffer visited a predominantly black church with a friend from seminary, he was deeply impressed with how the minister could talk about both the Gospel and worldly problems.  

Both worldly problems and the Gospel need to be preached on and thought about. Why? Well, in the church Bonhoeffer visited, our nation was in the middle of Jim Crow when whites could lynch blacks with impunity. And though the church that Bonhoeffer visited was not located in the Jim Crow region of the US, there was long-standing and harsh racial oppression of blacks everywhere, including the North. Racial oppression had to be preached on in that church because it was a very pressing problem for all of the members of the congregation. 

In white churches, thinking that the need to preach on or think about racial oppression was perceived to be not as great because most, if not all, of the people in those churches were not facing racial oppression.  But racial oppression needed to be preached about there just as much as in the black churches for a different reason. That reason being to warn the members of those churches not to contribute to or participate in the oppression of others.

We need the preaching of the Gospel and the preaching and thinking about worldly problems. That is because the Gospel is not there to provide an escape from worldly problems, but the strength to be faithful while living in the midst of those problems. For the oppressed, the Gospel is there to help them bear through the oppression. For the privileged, the Gospel is there to help them repent from contributing to or participating in the oppression of others as well as to extend help and mercy to the oppressed.

That last point is very significant to our sharing of the Gospel with unbelievers. for failure to understand how the Gospel  should help Christians as either the oppressed or the privileged has led some to discredit the Gospel and even persecute Christians for using the Gospel to escape the problems of the world. Consider the following quote from Vladimir Lenin:

Present-day society is wholly based on the exploitation of the vast masses of the working class by a tiny minority of the population, the class of the landowners and that of the capitalists. It is a slave society, since the “free” workers, who all their life work for the capitalists, are “entitled” only to such means of subsistence as are essential for the maintenance of slaves who produce profit, for the safeguarding and perpetuation of capitalist slavery...

Religion is one of the forms of spiritual oppression which everywhere weighs down heavily upon the masses of the people, over burdened by their perpetual work for others, by want and isolation. Impotence of the exploited classes in their struggle against the exploiters just as inevitably gives rise to the belief in a better life after death as impotence of the savage in his battle with nature gives rise to belief in gods, devils, miracles, and the like. Those who toil and live in want all their lives are taught by religion to be submissive and patient while here on earth, and to take comfort in the hope of a heavenly reward. But those who live by the labour of others are taught by religion to practise charity while on earth, thus offering them a very cheap way of justifying their entire existence as exploiters and selling them at a moderate price tickets to well-being in heaven. Religion is opium for the people. Religion is a sort of spiritual booze,   in which the slaves of capital drown their human image, their demand for a life more or less worthy of man.

Our our concern is not about choosing between preaching and thinking about the Gospel or preaching and thinking about worldly problems. Our concern here should be how to preach the Gospel so that, amongst other things, we can persevere through the problems of the world and hopefully bring others alongside with us.

Comments Which Conseervatives Block From Their Blogs For January 26, 2022

 Jan 22

To Bradley Birzer and his article that reviews how Irving Babbit, a renowned literary critic, viewed the history of Europe and the French Revolution. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative.

Why is it that when conservatives look at the abuses of the French Revolution, they assign fault solely to the people and ideas that started the revolution as if the conditions that led to the Revolution had an insignificant effect on people? Though not mentioned in the above article, the same occurs when conservatives look at the October, 1917 Russian Revolution. The dictatorship that Lenin installed and Stalin fortified was only the fault of Marx even though the historian Orlando Figes pointed out that Lenin's idea of manhood came from Russian literature, not Marx, and that Russia was emerging out of the centuries-long dictatorship of the Tsars.

Without addressing the issue, the reason for that oversight can be found in the article above when reading Birzer's summary of Babbit's interpretation of the changes in Europe:

Mostly, the great humanist claimed, because of the rise of a romantic and mushy humanitarianism, one that desired the individual to throw off the so-called shackles of tradition, custom, mores, and norms, to revolt against the fathers and mothers and against all that one inherited. By doing so, the humanitarians had desired the liberation of the “beautiful souls” but, in reality unleashed a form of Promethean individualism

Even in that statement, there is nothing that is noted about the abuses, as seen in the French Revolution, that are attributed to the centuries of tradition that their ancestors bequeathed to them.

Why was there a French Revolution? It was because the traditions that were left to France smiled on those with wealth and power, the aristocracy, and on those who sided with the aristocracy and the Church--the Roman Church in particular. 

So what if more and more people were struggling financially and with the acquiring of food being made more difficult and expensive. And so what that the 3rd Estate was getting a growing share of the tax burden to pay for wars. The abuses of the French Revolution, according to many conservatives, is to be blamed only on Enlightenment ideas, not the sufferings visited on the people by the nobility supported by the Church. An economic crisis and food shortage  along with a shifting of the tax burden and a lack of political representation for the 3rd Estate, which was approximately 98% of the people, preceded the French Revolution. In short, many people were suffering under an authoritarian but distant regime.

Here is something that conservatives should consider when looking at the French Revolution. When people look to undo long-standing social injustices, they often have a phobic reaction to those injustices. And part of any phobic reaction is to conflate what can be accidentally associated with those injustices with actual causes of the injustices. In essence, because the first fear in any phobia is the fear of being able to distinguish what is an actual threat from that which is only a perceived threat, the reaction to long standing injustice often employs all-or-nothing thinking. Thus, because of the traditional way of life handed down to the 3rd Estate in France, whatever was learned and applied from the Enlightenment thinkers was interpreted with that type of thinking. We could look at the Russian Revolution hijacked by Lenin and see that the same way of thinking took place.

Thus, the first, and a very major, problem that is in the above article is the scapegoating of the Enlightenment because of the conservative refusal to look their "sacred" traditions and such as having as having any significant role in causing the conditions suffered by the 3rd Estate. For if conservatives did consider those conditions, they would have to admit that their much vaunted traditions and such and the rule of those with wealth and power, which was supported by the Church, were very flawed and thus should not be as highly regarded as conservatives want them to be.

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

Jan 23

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost trying to warn people of the dangers of public school. This appeared in Heidelblog.

First, Clark offers no statistical evidence that sexual assault in schools has been increasing let alone significantly increasing. Anecdotal evidence, though very disturbing, does not provide the evidence for Clark's accusations. The statistical evidence required to show a significant increase means one must do a great deal of statistical work.

Second, it seems that Clark would say that public schools are dangerous for kids outside of the sexual predator issue because of what is being taught--we should note that Clark does not provide evidence for what he says is being taught. Clark sets Critical Theory as opposing critical thought. But what is critical thought to Clark? Does critical thought mean that we accept traditional views of our nation and its place in history and the world? Doesn't Critical Theory teach us to not take the old status quo for granted but to examine much of what came with that old status quo that was previously assumed to be true by the privileged and sometimes even the marginalized? Why can't Critical Theory be seen as an example of critical thought.

Third, Clark's claim that were 7 stockbrokers charged with these claims in a short period of time then the story would be in huge print is pure speculation. It also shows a great deal of ignorance of the lives of many stockholders. The very sinful side of life lived by some stockholders was  mentioned in the documentary Inside Job, if memory serves. It involved significant drug use sexual escapades. and yet we hear little if anything about that.

Clark is more than right in reporting these stories of sexual predators in schools and would be more than right to ask questions. But he does not provide the necessary statistical evidence to support his claims. Clark should also be leery, though, of associating sexual misconduct toward children with secularism or any non-conservative view of things considering the sexual misconduct toward children that exists in churches. 

Fourth, and though I am not a big fan of how some things are taught in the public schools because of what I witnessed when teaching college. But we should note that educators sometimes feel forced to teach more than what Classical Education would require because of the failures of families in caring and properly instructing their own children. We need to understand that the failures we see in the public school system are due to the faulty decisions made by administrators, teachers, parents, and students. Administrators uncritically latch on to new perspectives and theories of education. Teachers, who know better, don't use their unions often enough to challenge  the changes that administrators try to push through. A school district attorney told me that some parents pressure at least the high school in the district he was serving to give their students high enough grades so that they could get into the best colleges. Broken homes, which exist in all economic classes, can seriously harm student performance. Neighborhood schools in the lower economic school districts are handicapped by class sizes and inadequate resources. And there are too many students who are addicted to entertainment and fun who go along for the ride of fewer requirements and grade inflation.

Finally, Clarks seems to be associating conservative or the traditional views of things with what is acceptable to Christianity though he doesn't say that explicitly. In so doing, not only does he help divide the country more than it is, he helps isolates Christians from learning what should be learned from the world. History tells us of the reactions Luther and Calvin had to Heliocentricism. It is not just that they rejected the theory, they ridiculed those who promoted and accepted the idea as pretending to be smarter than God. We Christians continue that historical precedent today by our rejection of the human contributions to Climate Change or our embracing of conspiracy theories about the Covid 19 virus and the vaccines. It seems that we too often determine what is real by the acceptability of the outcomes we see they can produce.

Overall, though Clark brings up some important issues, he does so as an alarmist who seems to have already been promoting an agenda.

There is one other problem with associating the conservative or traditional view of things with what is acceptable to Christianity. That is that such can cause us to merge that view with our Christian faith and thus changing our Christian faith into a cultural religion.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For November 10, 2021

 Nov 5

To W. Robert Godfrey and his lesson about what is going on today. In this lesson, discussed gender identification and what happens when the Church aligns itself with or obtains great wealth. This was posted on the Abounding Grace website (see https://agradio.org  )

Should note two things here. First, the idea of there are more than two genders is not exclusive to today's Western Civilization. Some Native American tribes recognized up to 5 different genders. We should note that their different gender identifications do not necessarily translate easily into the model being employed now in America.

The different gender identifications found among the Native Americans should partially help us in understanding gender identification in our own society. It should at least tell us that gender identification issues aren't unique to the current course of Western Civilization. But we should also note one other thing. That is that though one's biological sex plays a factor in gender identification, it isn't the only source of influence on one's gender identification. And that has been shown in multiple civilizations. Thus, and this applies to both sides of the debate, we can't equate biological sex with gender identification. That while one's biological sex is based solely on the physical, one's gender identification is based on factors in addition to one's biological sex.

The other point should be made is this. While Godfrey rightly talks negatively about the problems that occur when the Church has or is closely connected to great wealth, today's religiously conservative American Christians, through their loyalty to the Republican Party, are politically siding with great wealth. So how is it that religiously conservative Christians in America have escaped the trap, which Godfrey mentions, that has captured the Church in the past? Here we should note that the dominant branches of the Church in some of the nations that experienced revolutions in the past few centuries were siding with wealth and power at the time. Three examples of that siding occurred in the pre-revolutionary times of France, Russia, and Spain.

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

Nov 9

To Bradley Birzer and his article on freedom and the beginning of Western Civilization. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative Blog.

For all of the nobility ascribed to Western Civilization, it is clear that there is a great disconnect between that and our history. 

If we take America for example and how it was allegedly based on Judeo-Christian tradition, on what part of that tradition was white supremacy based? In seeking more and more land at the expense of the way of life and even the lives of Native Americans, what was the good being sought? For each Black person who was brought or born here to be bought and owned as property, what ideals were being pursued? Or when Jim Crow replaced Slavery or when systemic racism still lingered after the end of Jim Crow, what morals were being pursued?

And what should we say about Europe with its constant wars over land and religion? What about European imperialism and colonization? What should we say about England's separation of Church and state when people came here to escape its religious persecution only to start persecuting those from other denominations once they got here? 

Why is it that the above article only associates idealism with Western Civilization and  neglects to mention that horrific atrocities were part of history of Western Civilization? Why is that? Perhaps it is because we long to pray the prayer of the Pharisee from the parable of the two men praying (Luke 18:9-14). For it seems that the only freedom being sought by apologists for Western Civilization is the freedom from having to look into a non-magic mirror. For the measure of our nobility is found not in how we treat our own, but in how we treat others.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For October 13, 2021

 Around Oct 5

To R. Scott Clark and E. J. Hutchinson for Clark's blogpost that cites hutchinson's article that calls for the 2nd table of the Decalogue to become the law of the land. This appeared in the Heidelblog.

Hutchinson's article can be found at:

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/yes-bring-back-the-decalogue/

Let's see, according to what some Christian commentators and writers have said before,  Christians should reject the teachings of social-justice warriors because these warriors don't understand the law/Gospel distinction but let's have the government prosecute or let citizens sue (a.k.a., civil court vigilantism) those who commit adultery because there is a prohibition against adultery is in the Decalogue. But wait, there's more. Some these same Christians believe that the use of musical instruments in the worship of God is passed because it only belongs in the Old Testament and thus this provides another confusion between the law and the Gospel.

Or let Christian businesspeople exercise their freedom of religion by refusing to fully serve the LGBT community, but because many Christians believe that the 2nd table of the Decalogue should be the law of the land, then the prohibition against adultery and related sins should be the law of the land. But wait, there is more. We should not, according to 2Kers, want a return to Christendom.

But what about those who do not, because of their religion or lack thereof, believe that not all of the Ten Commandments should be law of the land? Also, remember how adultery is defined in the Scriptures. How much of that definition should become law of the land? Or what about the other parts of the 2nd Table? Should we prosecute each instance of a person who, either as a child or adult, does not honor their parents as the Scriptures have defined that? Or how should we enforce a law that prohibits coveting?

Of course, the response from some Christian leaders have to any objections because of our guaranteed freedoms is that governments should enforce the 2nd Table of the Decalogue because it is Natural Law. But Natural Law as defined by whom? Is it Natural Law as defined by the Church? After all, if we look to nature as a source for Natural Law, then homosexuality should be accepted because of the number of species of animals, approximately 1,500, in which homosexuality is practiced. Also, for my fellow Christians, is it the New Testament that tells us that the Christian definition for Natural Law should become the law of the land or is it our theology that says that? What can we learn here from I Corinthians 5?

And if we are going to enforce the 2nd Table of the Decalogue, why shouldn't we include the 1st Table, or at least parts of it, too? Oh, we did that with the Blue Laws. 

Of course, the real problem here is in the title and subtitle of the above article: 'Two Millenia of Western History' is speaking to the Michigan AG, and to the rest of the nation. Also,  'We all expected the Magistrate to enforce the 2nd table of the Decalogue.' Is that a according to I Corinthians 5; Mark 6:7-11; and Matthew 20:25-28? Was that true of all Christians for two Millenia?

One of the problems here is that many of us religiously conservative American Christians refuse to see the contradiction that exists between the desire expressed in the above article and the 1st Amendment guaranteeing the freedom of religion. Another problem is that many of us religiously conservative American Christians refuse to see how our desires for making the 2nd Table of the Decalogue the law of the land, especially with their focused concern on sexual sins, all but confirms our tendency to passionately embrace the authoritarian personality type. And the problem there is that it was Germans with that personality type who supported and remained loyal to person who was not just a dictator, but a monster. 

What the above article also says to me is that too many of us religiously conservative American Christians want a controlling hand over America. We want a return to the 'good ol days' of Christianity having a place of supremacy over society. And the above article reveals something else. It reveals why many of us religiously conservative American Christians interpret opposition to our control over society as persecution. Many of us interpret opposition to our control over society that way because we feel exclusively entitled to determine what should and should not the law of the land.

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

Oct 8

To John Horvat and his article on why Christians are not responsible for the fall of our liberal society even though they judge people and seek to stop certain types of immorality the way they do. He says this because of GOd's anger toward sin. This was in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

The Liberals are right and Horvat is wrong. Why? It isn't because the lifestyles of those in the LGBT community should be rejected by believers nor that CRT has flaws. The real  problem is that Horvat and some other fellow believers in Christ cannot make an adequate distinction either between society and the Church or the roles of today's society in New Testament times and those of Israel in the Old Testament. Church discipline is for those who claim that they are members of the Church via their faith in Jesus Christ. Church discipline is not to extend to society either directly or through a proxy. 

The Scriptures that deal with Church discipline are very helpful here. Read what I Cor 5: 9-13 says about a Church disciplinary case:

I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people—not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.

What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.”

It is not for us to shun or seek to marginalize sexually immoral unbelievers. According to Paul, to do so would mean that we would have to leave the world or rule over it by what is implied by our actions. And those who leave the world cannot help carry out the Great Commission. Those who seek to force certain morals on unbelievers are not following Jesus's instructions that he gave to His disciples.

It is a rigid intolerance, much of it shown by conservative elements of the Church, that is significantly responsible for destroying society today. When we demand that people who do not share our faith must, nonetheless, follow our rules, we are exhibiting our own control issues, which are sometimes driven by our own fears and weaknesses. And that desire to label others as evil and ourselves as good is used to make us feel entitled, or even obligated, to seek to punish unbelievers who cross the red lines we have drawn for them.

Elective abortion must be stopped, but we must also be careful in how we stop it. But CRT is evil? Marx had nothing worthwhile to contribute? The LGBT community is evil has no relative giid, compared to us, good in it? Do we understand the pedestal we have put ourselves on when we believe those things? That pedestal alone is a big enough stumbling block that shuts the ears of many unbelievers from listening to the Gospel. Now we want to add our trying to control society so that it does what we command it to do in God's name? 

We need to look in a non-magic mirror to see what we really look like. For when we build such pedestals for ourselves and look to punish unbelievers for being different from us, we might very well resemble the Pharisee from the parable of the 2 men praying (Luke 18:9-14). For that Pharisee, like us, was very zealous for the law and following the commandments.

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

Oct 9

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost that links to a YouTube Project Veritas report on a whistleblower report from Pfizer on the use of cells from a human cell line in the production of Covid-19 vaccines. This appeared in Heidelblog.

This is all old news. This is news that has already been out there. And some of the reasons why Pfizer did not want people to know that cell lines were used in testing are demonstrated by the above video. That is to discourage the use of the Covid vaccines.

We should note that what was used were cells from a fetal cell line, not the fetal cells of an aborted fetus (see  https://www.science.org/content/article/abortion-opponents-protest-covid-19-vaccines-use-fetal-cells   )--that article also addresses religious objections to using cells from cell lines. And that those cells in that cell line were used in testing, not in the manufacturing, of the mRNA vaccines. We should note that the Youtube presentation started to use cells from an aborted fetus with cells from a fetal cell line interchangeably.  That using cells from fetal cell lines is a long standing practice and has been used in other vaccines and some medicines. And as long as cells from an already established cell line are used, there is no incentive to use cells from an aborted fetus and thus no incentive for any fetuses to be aborted.

So what is the violation here? Are we celebrating a certain unnecessary level of sensitivity or are we trying to magnify that sensitivity? Or are we telling people  that one's sensitivity to the use of cells from cell lines should be self-examined or are we exploiting what could be a hypersensitivity for other purposes? For example, this blog, Heidelblog, has already published articles that, at least indirectly, promote the use of Ivermectin as a preventative medicine and/or cure for Covid-19. That is despite the fact that Ivermectin is not a proven medicine in the fight against Covid-19.

In addition, we need to consider the source. The factual reporting rating for Project Veritas, the news source of the story is below:

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/project-veritas/

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For September 22, 2021

 Sept 16

To Gene Veith and his blogpost that criticizes Biden's social infrastructure bill especially in reference to its social aspects of providing child care and education that includes the 1st two years of community college for anyone. This appeared in the Cranach blog on Patheos. The comment below was put on pending. But there is a hack that allowed the comment to be posted against the algorithm that made the comment pending. The point is that it was blocked and would continue to be blocked without the hack.

And to think that Veith complained about my calling out his Okhahoman conservatism.

But his educational concerns assume several things. First, that the vast majority of community colleges are teaching leftist propaganda while gen-ed courses in universities do not with their courses in great books and history. Didn't some Christians complain earlier about how classic education was being forsaken earlier at schools like UPenn when they were throwing out the writings of Shakespear because of Post Modernism concerns?

Second, there is Veith's assumption that the first two-years of community college will automatically transfer in to universities, to both biblical and unbiblical--somewhat like the old regular and unleaded gas--colleges, and put those students into their 3rd year. I have worked with analyzing the transfer of credits from community college to 4 year schools to know that is not the case. If anything, the 2-year community college education means that a student will likely add a 5th year of college because not all of the credits will transfer in. And since it is unlikely that religion courses in community colleges rarely transfer into Christian colleges, I don't think that the transfer of course credit from community college to universities will work like what Veith imagined. Heck, even as a student at ORU, there were specific religion courses that transfer students had to take including the one transfer student we had from Rutgers.

Third, if Veith is so concerned about the poor quality of education in areas where there are poor and disadvantaged people. Of course he doesn't mention anything about how the shortage of funds for education and the lack of living wage jobs play a role in creating inadequate educational facilities and unstable homes.

What is Veith's main concern here? It is that the gov't might be more involved than it already is in our lives. But why is that a concern when the gov't is necessarily involved in our lives, that we are not keeping pace with many other 1st world nations in terms of education, and that we have the problem with student debt that we have? His Oklahoman conservatism, and this is not just a conservatism that is specific to Oklahoma, is suspicious of government involvement in anything other than punishing the bad guys and making sure that our military can kick any other nation's butt, If we have a working democracy, isn't gov't going to represent the people and thus we should not assume that its involvement is bad? But that is the key question here. Do we have a working democracy? And if not, how can we get one should be Veith's concern rather than assume that any big government is bad government because it is socialist leftist. BTW, big gov't ≠ leftist or socialists gov'ts. Such is a conservative myth.

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

Sept 18

To R. Scott Clark and his very brief blogpost that quotes Ignatius about how the Church is at its best when it is hated by the world but the title of the blogpost is about how the Church should avoid seeking a new Christendom. This appeared in Heidelblog.

Not all hatred from the world should be desired by the Church. I believe it is Peter who points that out.

But the title of the blogpost does not seem to match up well with the content of the blogpost.  One can comment on the title by saying that while avoiding Christendom, the Church must also avoid failing to speak prophetically to the world about its corporate sins. 

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

To John Horvat and his blogpost calling for Americans, primarily Christians, with [true] grit to stop up and replace government programs in the solving of America's problems. Here it is implied that these Christian Americans should be replacing government programs that address many of our social problems. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

A couple of the common retorts that conservatives often give to us socialists include socialism cannot work because there are not enough Christians or that socialism cannot work because people are sinners. And yet, we have the above article on how to solve America's problems. We just need Christians with '[true] grit' to step up to solve our problems.

Of course there is an agenda behind the above conservative approach. That agenda is to cut government spending so that we either can reduce or even eliminate taxes on the wealthy.

What is not considered in the above article is that the reason we have government programs, which btw have a mixed record, is because of the systemic and personal failures that included human pride, greed, or fear. 

So Christian [true] grit is to replace government programs to solve our problems? There are at least two questions that need to be answered here. First, does the Church have the resources to solve all of the problems that the government is trying to mitigate? Second, does the Church have the will to solve the problems that government is trying address?

Of course, if we took the above article seriously, we could eliminate our defense department and law enforcement because all we need is Christians with [true] grit to step up and solve the problems they try to tackle. Of course everyone can see how laughable such an idea is. Then why don't we see how replacing government programs with Church solutions is also laughable? Don't we see that the Church lacks the desire to address all of the problems government is trying to address when we see church after church move out of the urban areas and into the comfortable suburbs? What percentage of megachurches exist in troubled urban areas?

There is also another agenda behind the above ideas expressed in the above article. That agenda is that the government should give special treatment to the Church so it can demonstrate its [true] grit. For perhaps centuries, religiously conservative Christians have looked to receive special treatment from the government. An example of that special treatment today is when the religiously conservative Christians want the legal right to discriminate against those in the LGBT community. During the Jim Crow era, many, not all, conservative Christians wanted, and got, the right to practice racial discrimination. And here we should note that racial discrimination still exists only it must be practiced in more subtle or marketable ways. Such an example is the current attacks on voting rights marketed as 'secure' elections.

When the government gives the Church special treatment, it often results in the Church gaining some level of supremacy or even domination over society. Why would conservative Christians favor that? It is because we religiously conservative Christians have a quite a penchant for hierarchy and authoritarianism. And so it is difficult for us to exist in an environment where equality and egalitarianism reside.

BTW, there is one more problem with the above article. What it says is that government is there only to represent some, not all, of the people. And the above article implies that government is there to represent a certain group of the haves so they can help the have-nots. And again, what is being asked for is discrimination with no evidence that the [true] grit haves would have either the resources or desire to address the problems that government is trying to address.

Yes, many government programs cannot solve our problems. But here we need to add the word alone to the end of that sentence. But government programs often mitigate the suffering of many people and they can do more when  they are joined by those in the private sector. But currently, there doesn't seem to be enough interest in the private sector to help solve those problems, many of which have been either created or greatly added to by some elites from the private sector.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For September 15, 2021

 Aug 27

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost that defends the right of people to refuse to comply with vaccine mandates. This appeared in Heidelblog.

Are there justifiable moral reasons for refusing the vaccine in the face of the current pandemic? The argument for that refusal must be regarded as weaker now in the face of the Delta variant and the future variants that the Delta variant points to.

The beginning of the above blogpost is problematic because it points to competing claims. That is problematic because it doesn't mention the sources of those competing claims. It doesn't say anything about people vetting their news sources. To spread misinformation, especially deadly misinformation because one was negligent to vet one's news sources is to become vulnerable to violating the prohibitions against bearing false witness and killing. So this discussion about having the moral right to refuse the vaccination must start with knowing how to obtain news sources that are as reliable as possible.

Next, Clark's argument is structured around the individual and their conscience. The selective appeal to the sovereignty of the conscience is determined by the writer's own views and political-moral issues at hand. For example, Clark does not argue for the sovereignty of the conscience when it comes to homosexuality and same-sex marriage. Why? Because the conscience is fallible and thus must answer to higher authority. So why are we not discussing the fallibility of the conscience when structuring the discussion of mandated vaccinations around the conscience?

We should note that to so structure the discussion around the conscience can become counterproductive to promoting Biblical morals. Why? That is because to structure the discussion that way causes people, especially Christians, to be self-directed to the point of being self-focused. The concern for such people is to maintain their own moral purity. But Biblical morals are also about loving one's neighbor as themselves. Biblical morals adds to the mix a concern and even preoccupation with the welfare of others. Note that Biblical morals adds love for neighbor to the mix; it does not replace the valid concerns for maintaining one's own purity.

Next comes a confusing concern about the legality of the abortion from which fetal cells were used in the development of the vaccines. Before noting the confusion, we should note that fetal cells, that is cells from an actual fetus, were not used at all in the development or production of any vaccine. Rather, cells from a fetal cell line were used. That means that reliance on these cells is not causing more abortions. 

As for the moral objections to using such cells, one might ask if it is immoral to use organs in transplant operations from a person who was murdered. Again, the question of whether such use becomes an incentive for future murders is important here. Does the cause of death suggest anything about the use of those organs? If not, doesn’t the comparison suggest a similar, if not the same, answer, for use of fetal cells from an abortion? And since cells from a fetal cell line is being used, doesn’t the suggestion become stronger in the face of the current pandemic?

Clark’s objection to this line of thinking is one of choice only in a broader context. A volunteer organ donor is making the choice to donate one’s organs. But how does that apply when the fetal cell donor has no ability to make such a choice? Is Clark comparing apples to oranges in making  this particular point? Again, isn’t the overriding moral issue here whether the use of these fetal cells leads to future abortions?

As for the confusing concern for the legality of the abortion when it occurred, if one believes that elective abortions is murder, what does the legal status of the abortion add to the discussion of using cells from fetal cell lines?

Clark’s argument encourages Christians to be very focused on their own moral purity. In so doing, he is encouraging a greater self preoccupation at the expense of love for neighbor. The moral objections he considers are not well thought out. And at the end, he lacks precision in talking about the flaws of the vaccines. He fails to mention that the drop in the efficacy of the current vaccines are due to the Delta variant rather than a drop against the earlier forms of the Covid-19 virus. In addition, the growth of the Delta variant has been greatly contributed to by the number of unvaccinated people. And for as long as that number is not reduced, new variants, which pose even greater threats than the current forms of Covid-19, are more likely to emerge. 

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

Around Aug 27

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost that quotes an article by Chris Gordon that that we must focus on and keep the 10 Commandments in order to worship God as he wants us to. This appeared in Heidelblog.

The link for the article quoted by Clark is below:

https://agradio.org/resource/legalism-what-it-is-and-what-it-is-not

But isn't true that in the Old Testament, ways of living and worship had to be more prescribed in detail because Christ and His coming was veiled in the Old Testament? For the Old Testament doesn't just contain the 10 Commandments, it also adds to that ways of applying those Commandments. Isn't it true that in the Old Testament, God's people were centralized in a geographical area and under a certain lineage for the most part and thus God's direction for them was to be different from the neighbors to show that they were set apart while worshiping a revealed Christ?

And isn't it true that under the New Testament, many of those strict prescriptions for life and worship no longer became binding? Isn't it true that the New Testament describes the Sabbath as shadow of what was to come? 

And isn't it true that we now live as a dispersed people throughout the world? And thus our unity is no longer around a particular ethnic group or geographical center, but around Christ. And so local culture may play legitimate roles in a group of believer's worship of God.

And so isn't it true that if how we live and worship accurately reflects or points to Christ, that we are not worshiping God according to our own devices, but instead we are following and proclaiming Christ?  And if how we worship God is adequately proclaiming Christ, then our worship is not only valid, it is safeguarded from following our own devices. In fact, revolving our ways of worship around who Christ is according to the Scriptures is a better perspective for determining how we will worship.

So shouldn't the focus of our worship be on Christ rather on the 10 Commandments. For if our ways of worship accurately portray Christ as the Scriptures define him to be, we will automatically include what is necessary from the 10 Commandments since those Commandments play a significant role in defining who Christ is because they show why He came to earth in the first place.

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

Sept 1

To R. Scott Clark and Katie Herzog for his blogpost citing of an article by Herzog on how some in Medical Schools are approaching gender identity issues. This appeared in Heidelblog.

Herzog's article can be found at:

https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/med-schools-are-now-denying-biological

The article cited contains quite a generalization from  a few examples. But it also contains a common error made by both conservatives and many in the LGBT community. That error is to conflate gender or gender identity with biological sex. 

While conservatives believe that our gender identity should be defined solely by our biological sex,  those on the other side of the argument believe that our biological sex should be defined only by our gender identity. The problem there is that while our biological sex is a physical construct, our gender identity is a social construct which implies that there are other factors, non physical factors at that, that contributed to our gender identity. 

What the AMA and doctors that follow its direction when recognizing and attempting to   respond to gender dysphoria. Gender dysphoria is a real condition that is not yet adequately understood. We should note that though in somewhat different ways, this gender identity issue was handled differently by some Native American tribes some of which only recognized up to 5 genders, they honored those whose gender identity was different than their biological sex. But, again, the gender identity issue in those tribes did not always match up with our gender identity issues here.

The point here is that we religiously conservative Christians, not all of whom are politically conservative, need to stop conflating biological sex with gender identity before judging others for approaching gender identity in ways we disapprove of. 

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

Sept 3

To R. Scott Clark and Matt Taibbi for Clark's blogpost quote of a Taibbi article on an NPR episode that talked about the 'dangers of free speech.' This appeared in Heidelblog.

Reality says that authoritarianism is the other pandemic. Authoritarianism, from what I have personally experienced, has become the rage in liberal circles, conservative ones, and even leftist circles. BTW, I count NPR as being liberal, not leftist. And it is authoritarianism that helps govern how tolerant of diversity we are especially in our own ranks.

Common sense would tell us that conservatives have a stronger penchant for authoritarianism than others have because of their emphasis on preserving tradition. In fact, the conservative vigilance in guarding tradition produces conservatism's most glaring fault: the over reliance on selective parts of the past to understand and respond to the present. But the more ideological a group is, the more likely it is to become authoritarian regardless of its conservative credentials. Only instead of the past, a strongly ideological group will rely too much on its own ideology to understand and respond to the present.

And how ideological a group becomes will depend on how much it sees its own ideology as being be all and end all it is either regarding all of life or a given sphere of life. The more a given group believes that its own ideology is omniscient, the more it sees the ideas from other groups as a corrupting influence and thus the less tolerant it will be of those other groups and the more authoritarian it will act toward others. 

So it isn't just NPR that is antagonistic to free speech, every authoritarian group is. They just show it in different ways.

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

Sept. 9

To R. Scott Clark and Carl Trueman and Clark's blogpost quote of an article by Trueman on how the faults of past Christian leaders should not move us to dismiss everything they said. This appeared in the Heidelblog

Carl Trueman's article can be found at:

https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2021/09/judging-the-sins-of-our-fathers

If judging the sinfulness of our fathers should include taking into account our own sinfulness, that's a good point that should be taken. But should that also apply when we judge the sinfulness of our ideological, religious, and all other opponents too?

But we should add another point when it comes to judging Christian leaders like Jonathan Edwards. That point is that we are often reminded of Edwards's good credentials as reasons to accept what he said without much examination. At the same time, here we are told to remember our own sins when being reminded of his sins. Perhaps, we should remember both Edwards's sins and his good points when we listen or read to his theology so that we neither automatically accept nor reject it. Instead, we should thoroughly examine Edwards's words to see what we agree with and what we disagree with it. To do otherwise would be to passionately embrace authoritarianism.

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

Sept 10

To R. Scott Clark and Ilya Shapiro for Clark's blogpost citation of Shapiro's article that opposes vaccine mandates. This appeared in heidelblog.

Ilya Shapiro's article appears in 

https://www.cato.org/blog/federal-vaccine-mandates-pose-constitutional-triple-threat

What is missing from the above citation is the context for vaccine mandates. We do know that even before the pandemic, we've had vaccine mandates. Many colleges require its residential students to receive a particular meningitis vaccine. A vaccine mandate regarding the vaccine for smallpox was supported by SCOTUS in 1905 (see Jacobson v. Massachusetts) and there was a 1922 case ruled on by Judge Brandeis regarding school mandates for children (see https://www.npr.org/2021/08/29/1032169566/the-u-s-has-a-long-precedent-for-vaccine-mandates  ).

To debate vaccine mandates in general would be to go against history and the present.  To go against particular vaccine mandates requires an adequate discussion about the disease, the vaccines, and both the public and private risks and benefits of a given set of vaccines. But neither the above citation nor the article it comes from includes past or present mandates nor the specifics about the proposed vaccine mandate. Rather it speculates on the effects vaccine mandates can have on the application of The Constitution. 

So why does the above citation and the article it is taken from avoid  so much of the context of vaccine mandates in general and the recently proposed one in particular?

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

Sept 11

To Joseph Mussomeli and his article on the importance of remembering the dead from the 9/11 attacks. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative.

Mussomeli come closer to understanding 9/11 than most conservatives I've either listened to or read. But where he comes closest to understanding is also where he loses it. 

In analyzing the reactions of both the left and the right to 9/11, he correctly describes the perpetrators of 9/11 as acting out of a desire for justice, though it was a perverted sense of justice.  And he is correct in describing the left as sort of attributing 9/11 to American belligerence and imperialism. But what he fails to understand was that the left was not excusing crimes, they were trying to get us to understand why it happened. Also, the perpetrators of 9/11 were acting not out of a merely perceived sense of just, but out of remembering their own dead--remembering our dead from 9/11 is the central theme of the article.

In what was said innterviews with Bin Laden can be easily confirmed by history. It was Bin Laden who pointed to the number of dead in Iraq from both our sanctions (hundreds of thousands of children died from the combination of first Persian Gulf War and the sanctions that followed) and from our support from Israel's Occupation against the Palestinians (more Palestinian civilians have been killed than those from any other group in the conflict). Another reason for the 9/11 attacks was the use of US troops in the first Persian Gulf War and their continued presence in Saudi Arabia. 

Not being cognizant of the number of dead we've caused as being a necessary lesson to understanding 9/11 is a key missing link in better  understanding 9/11 in order to prevent another such attack. This is where Mussomeli fails. But his failure is partial. 

Furthermore, we might note that what happened on September 11th, 2001 was actually the second 9/11. The first one occurred in 1973 and saw a US supported violent military coup in Chile. Yes, that was the first 9/11. And many more civilians died in the aftermath of that 9/11 than were lost in our 9/11. In addition, what makes us oblivious to those facts is our own America-cefuller picture of 9/11. Though it must be said that Mussomeli's America-centrism is not as strong as that of many other people. And Mussomeli should be commended for coming as far as he did in reflecting on 9/11.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For July 28, 2021

 July 24

To Bradley Birzer whose article reviewed a 1993 book by Gordon Wood that claims that almost all of the signers of the Declaration of Independence believed that the American Republic was dying. Part of the book covered what some of the founding fathers believed would be the cause of death of the Republic they created.

Aside from the book review, if I, like some of the founders who were quoted, was to share my biggest worry about America, it would be that too many Americans took their own PR about themselves and their country too seriously. By doing so, they have enacted too much of a cancel culture on tough love feedback that would provide life prolonging correction to the health of their own and the republic..

The being too serous about one's own PR about oneself and America is driven by gaining feelings of significance by feeling superior to others. That way of feeling significant dwells more in the subconscious of too many of us than in our own self-awareness. The way of feeling significant drives us to believe in and then unite around an imaginary self image that is both pompous and fragile.  It is pompous is shown by how we want to see ourselves as compared to others. It is fragile because the alternative to feeling superior robs us of our sense of entitlement. And American history is full of Americans feeling entitled to that which belonged to others.

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

July 27

To R. Scott Clark and Ed Whelan for Clark's blog article that quotes Whelan's article as it laments over a Tenth Circuit Court ruling that  ruled that a graphic and website design company must offer its services of creating a wedding website for same sex couples because it does so for heterosexual couples. This appeared in Heidelblog.

Website for Ed Whelan's article

https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/bonkers-tenth-circuit-ruling-against-free-speech/

For some Christian business people, it is horrible that the Courts demand that they treat same-sex couples the same way as they treat heterosexual couples. It is horrible for them that they demand that Christian businesses must regard same-sex couples as being equal to heterosexual couples. But such is life in a nation that is suppose to promote equality. 

We should remember those Christians who used the Bible to support Jim Crow segregation. We should remember them because they tried to use the Scriptures to defend discrimination. The question we Christians must ask ourselves is, do we want society to regard and treat those from the LGBT community as equals or do we want society to have the right to marginalize those in the LGBT community by allowing people in the public square to discriminate against them?

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For July 21, 2021

 July 15

To Jerry Salyer and his blogpost article that attempts to distance Orwell from today's woke progressives. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative Blog.

Did Salyer simply forget to mention that Orwell declared himself to be a Socialist and was at one time an editor at a socialist paper? At the same time,  Orwell's experiences in life  allowed him to escape ideological tribalism seen in his honest criticisms of socialists and, in particular, totalitarian rule whether it was on right seen in Nazism or the "left" as seen in what the Soviet Union called Communism. 

Orwell quite a bit of time living in the lower economic classes and gained sincere sympathy for them. 

As for patriotism and nationalism, their definitions depend on the point a person wants to make. When we define nationalism simply as self-rule, then who could object? The British did when it came to India as did the US when it came to a number of left-leaning democracies. But the above descriptions of nationalism shows its ugly side and should be outrightly objected.

But is patriotism really an obstacle or an enabler of nationalism. For how can one's belief that  one's own nation and way of life is the best not become an opiate for the ugly side of nationalism when one sees how interconnected and interdependent nations are on each other? Can't those dependencies and the differences between nations make those nations into at least potential threats to one's own best place in the world and thus justifying the ugly side of nationalism in the nation that is superior to others. 

And where does the belief in the superiority of one's own nation and way of life get its grounding in people who never travelled to other places? Here we should note that, in the definition of patriotism, the line 'belief in the superiority of one's own place and way of life,' does not appear to be a quote from Orwell. So is there is disconnect here between Orwell's view of patriotism and what Salyer attributes to him?

Having read very brief biographical material on Orwell, my own feeling is that either one must disagree with Orwell's views on patriotism or that there is a significant differene between Orwell's views patriotism and what Salyer described them to be. Here we should note that the part of the description of patriotism of the belief in the superiority of one's own nation and 'way of life' may have reflected Salyer's view of patriotism more than Orwell's.

One final note, the attempts to align or distance an independent thinker like Orwell with or against any group is more of an anti-Orwellian move. Why? It is because such an attempt is nothing more than an authoritarian tactic. And Orwell was quite opposed to authoritarianism. And that is especially true when it comes to using straw man descriptions of the group one is targeting like what Salyer uses for woke progressives.

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

July 16

To Pat Buchanan and his article that complains about the EU demanding that Hungary give equal rights to those in he LGBT community or Hungary must leave the EU. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

What if there was an EU back in the 1950s and the US was a member. But the leader of the EU told the US: 'Back equal rights for Blacks or leave.' Would Buchanan complain about that demand?

The basic idea around tolerance is that there are acceptable differences. And the question is whether we should insist on there being tolerance in a society which consists of believers and unbelievers. Without tolerance in a society, there can be no democracy. But Buchanan is arguing for is that tolerance in the EU means that the EU must accept those nations where Christians are allowed to show no tolerance for certain unbelievers. 

Those societies where a religious minority or majority are allowed to dictate their terms to unbelievers do not believe in freedom, they believe in privilege. For freedom - equality = privilege. What Christians are enjoying in those societies are not what some unbelievers are enjoying.

Furthermore, what Buchanan is defending is what some Muslims defend in nations like Iran and Saudi Arabia. If either of those nations were in the European continent and wanted to join the EU, would the EU be wrong in demanding that those nations treat their non-Muslim citizens as being equal to their Muslim citizens?

Finally, that Christians rule over society in the way that is being done in Hungary goes against the New Testament. For in a number of places, the New Testament describes society was a place where the Church has no dominion over nor should it.

Quite simply, Buchanan's approach is an authoritarian one. That is because Buchanan himself is an authoritarian. That is how he thinks the US should run. But not only the US, but all other nations too provided that he approves of the leaders who are ruling that way.

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

July 17

To R. Scott Clark and his blog article that tries to warn likeminded Christians that the language used by Revoice Theology and some Side B Christians about sexuality is a trap. This appeared in Heidelblog.

What Clark fails to notice is that there are faults on his side of the argument as well as that of the Revoice side. 

On the Revoice side, there is no adequate recognition that nature has fallen along with man when Adam sinned. A Christian who follows the Scriptures cannot say that because God, through nature, made them this way and thus their desires are not sinful if they are not carried out.

On the other hand, Clark oversimplifies the dilemma that Side B Christians face. First, he fails to recognize the injustice of the marginalization that those in the LGBT community face in society. While Clark touts natural law, it was natural law before nature fell. Homosexuality is well practiced in the animal kingdom and with benefits to some species. And though Paul correctly says that homosexuality is against nature as God intended, he talks about homosexuality in unbelievers as if it should not surprise anyone. And in I Cor 5, Paul describes a heterosexual sin in ways that make it appear to be a worse sin than homosexuality.

And what Clark doesn't seem to understand about repentance from some sexual sins, such as sinful sexual desires, is that repentance must always be described in the present, continual sense rather than the aorist tense. The way I remember Clark speaking about them in past articles, those currently struggling with homosexual desires should have already repented of those desires and those desires should be gone. We should ask if either Clark or his peers no longer struggle with unbiblical heterosexual desires. For it seems to me that while we are alive on earth, we will remain vulnerable to following to those desires until either we die or the Lord comes again.

It is the hardline position, such as one  that Clark takes, one that seems to support the marginalization of the LGBT community in society, for which Clark would use natural law to justify, that has helped push Side B Christians to embrace some of the unbiblical beliefs about themselves which they have.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For May 26, 2021

 May 19

To R. Scott Clark and his one sentence blogpost that says that the current UFO craze tells us more about journalism than anything else. This appeared in Heidelblog.

What do the photos and testimonies from military pilots tell us?

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

May 20

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost that says that culture, though being important, is not the most important thing. This appeared in Heidelblog.

Just as it is possible for a focus on culture to cause us to compromise what the Gospel says, so too can a neglect of culture do the same. We are not being given an either-or choice here. But that is what Clark seems to say and not say at the same time in the above article.

Yes, our culture does not give us the power of God, the Gospel does. But that is because while culture is an arena that we continually visit, the Gospel is the message from God. And as an arena in which we spend so much time, we should care about its maintenance and thus should be involved in that maintenance as part of loving our neighbors. 

So the real issue about cultural involvement for Christians is how we can advance moral cultural values that give neither our faith nor ourselves a privileged place in society.

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

May 25

Walt Garlington and his blogpost poem about the twilight of the West. He calls it the twilight because of the waning influence of the Church, for him that is the Roman Church, on the West. This appeared in the Imaginative conservative blog.

Are we seeing a twilight of the West or a changing from the magic mirror that tells one what one wants to hear to a mirror that is more baed in reality though it may be a bit  overly critical? 

The influence of the Church, including its Protestant, Roman, and Orthodox branches has brought a lot of suffering and heart ache to the world. And unfortunately, that is what Post Modernism is reacting to rather than the message of the Gospel. If we have problems seeing what Post Modernism sees it is because we are privileged and are judging the Church's influence on the West by how it has benefited us the privileged.