Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For January 18, 2017

Jan 3

To Joseph Pearce and his blogpost on some of what Queen Elizabeth said. The part focused on here is where Pearce states that Queen Elizabeth is advocating subsidiarity. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative Blog.

The writer of this article grossly misinterprets the Queen in a certain area. For the Queen said:

But even with the inspiration of others, it’s understandable that we sometimes think the world’s problems are so big that we can do little to help. On our own, we cannot end wars or wipe out injustice, but the cumulative impact of thousands of small acts of goodness can be bigger than we imagine.

Pearce interprets her as saying the following:

Can we really believe that the head of state of one of the most powerful countries in the world is extolling the principle of subsidiarity—the principle that individuals, families, local communities, charities and churches can change society for the better whereas big and burdensome governments tend to make the big problems even bigger?

What Pearce's interpretation misses is the key phrase 'On our own.' Because of that phrase, Pearce's exclusive-or interpretation of saying that either big gov't saves the vulnerable or local groups of people help the vulnerable but not both presents a false dichotomy. In addition, to exclude gov't from helping people is to say that gov't can only represent those people who can help themselves. And such leaves the vulnerable wholly dependent on the benevolence and access to resources that those around them have.
 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost quote of Carl Trueman who complained that we are intolerant of the wrong things. This appeared in the Heidelblog.

Intolerance should not just be determined by the tenets and behaviors we are objecting to, but by the context in which these beliefs and behaviors exist as well. It is one thing to be intolerant of heresy or immoral sexual behavior in the Church, but should we be intolerant of it in society as well?

Right now we have battle lines being drawn between post Modernists and authoritarian traditionalists with both have something significant contribute to the other, but with neither one of them listening because they they think know enough already. It is wrong for either of these groups to be intolerant of others in society. Why? Because society is not the Church, it includes both those who belong to the Church and those who don't. And while some in the Church are upset because they feel that they are being marginalized by society's acceptance of different sexual orientations and identities, the truth is that the Church, for centuries, has had society marginalize those who practice certain sexual sins and it has done so with all of the personal traits of the pharisee from the parable of the two men praying.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jan 4

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost quote of Paul Helm that questions whether there is a right side of history? This appeared in the Heidelblog.

Let's approach this subject on a case by case basis. Were those who opposed slavery in America on the right side of history or if there is no right side of history, are they to be placed next to those who supported slavery as if there is no difference between them?

Seems to me that the right side of history is the side that does not invoke shame for one's position. And it also seems that we should not let the fact that the right side can be wrongly identified be used to deny the existence of the right side of history.

As for comparing the Enlightenment with Medieval times, there is no reason why we can't compare those two times on a trait by trait basis so that both get a mixed report even though side might be more preferable to the other. Otherwise, we have only shown ourselves to have a fear of having a preferred time period being examined more closely.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jan 17

To Joseph Pearce and his blogpost asking whether Trump will be a nationalist or an imperialist. The article describes in binary terms nationalism on one hand and imperialism/internationalism/globalism on the other hand. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

The use of terms 'nationalism' and 'imperialism' is understandable but inadequate. For while one dictionary definition of nationalism allows a nation to pursue imperialism while the other definition merely advocates for self-rule. Likewise, internationalism or globalism is not the same as imperialism. Internationalism or globalism can refer to collaborative efforts between nations in some sphere whereas  imperialism involves controlling or conquering rather than collaboration. In addition, we need to recognize that in both nationalism and globalism, we can have either democratic rule or elite-centered rule.

Thus, we need to be clear about the terms we are using. Each nation should respect the right of the people from all other nations to exercise self-rule. But such does not eliminate internationalism. Because some of what a nation does can impact other nations, there is an international accountability. In addition, certain moral values must not be violated in how a nation treats subsets of its population or there must be international accountability.

But something else must be said about either self-rule and collaborative efforts. They can be based on democratic principles where all people are involved in the decision making processes or they can be elite-centered. For example, the US is now considered by some to be an oligarchy (see  http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746  ). Thus, regardless of the national interests Trump pursues, because we are a nation that suffers from elite-centered rule, his pursuits will not result in self-rule.

An example of elite-centered rule from an internationalist perspective could be seen in Obama's efforts to fast-track the TPP. His efforts simply removed democratic principles from the decision making process. In addition, the result of the TPP would be to give foreign investors power and control over each member nation in that corporations could sue governments over laws that were democratically passed if such laws cost the corporations profits while these same corporations were not accountable to the governments. But when talking about internationalism, are we going classify the ICC or the UN with their internationalism in the same category as trade agreements such as the TPP or the EU?

The problem we have in describing the world around us is that we tend to use binary thinking. During the Cold War, we had the Free World vs Communism. However, there were many things practiced by some in the Free World that resembled the pejorative stereotype we assigned to Communism. And there were democratic efforts made by Socialists that were not duly recognized and thus distinguished from Lenin-Stalin Communism by the Free World. So we should see that this model of nationalism vs imperialism where the former neglects to distinguish between democratic rule and elite-centered rule while the latter fails to distinguish imperialism from internationalism and the different types of globalism is flawed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To Art Carden and his blogpost about Adam Smith’s Invisible Hand. In that article, Carden describes the conflict as being the invisible hand o the market vs fist of the state. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

There are two problems with this article. First, the binary understanding of the conflict that exists regarding markets. That conflict being the invisible hand of the market vs the fist of the state. The second problem is tendency for some to misunderstand what Smith said.

According to this article, it seems that the invisible hand of the market represents the freedom of all people while the fist of the state represents alien tyrants. The history of labor struggles in the US strongly contradicts that perception. For we should note that representation in the free market is not based by the individual but by the dollar or whatever currency is involved. Those with the most dollars have the most say while those with the least wealth are barely heard. And in a society where things are valued more than people, the public interest is not necessarily served by those who have the greatest say over what happens in the market. Again, the history of American labor struggles bares this out. We might also want include the history of offshoring jobs as well.
interest.

In addition, what if the state is working democracy, how can its decisions that limit the free market be described as the fist of an alien tyrant? Rather such a government is putting limits on a market that is anything but democratic.

Second, Smith did not speak of the invisible hand of the market by observation alone, but by some speculation. His description of the invisible hand came from arguing against mercantilism and the influence that those with wealth had over government officials. So did eliminating mercantilism also eliminate the influence that those with wealth have over government officials.

In addition, the line from the article that says:

This is where the invisible hand of the market comes in. Voluntary market exchange reveals the patterns of specialization, division of labor, and production most consistent with consumers’ preferences. Others’ talents, tastes, values, and knowledge constitute the invisible hand. I convey information about my own talents, tastes, values, and knowledge with offers to buy or sell. Others convey their knowledge by their willingness to accept my bids and offers. I am being led by the invisible hand of others’ knowledge toward patterns of specialization and production that leave us most satisfied, given that we are all free to accept or reject any offer.

does not entirely represent Smith's sentiments. The following is what Smith also wrote about the division of labor (see http://www.gradesaver.com/the-wealth-of-nations/study-guide/quotes as it quotes Smith):

In the progress of the division of labor, the employment of the far greater part of those who live by labor, that is, of the great body of the people, comes to be confined to a few very simple operations; frequently to one or two. But the understandings of the greater part of men are necessarily formed by their ordinary employments. The man whose whole life is spent in performing a few simple operations, of which the effects, too, are perhaps always the same, or very nearly the same, has no occasion to exert his understanding, or to exercise his invention, in finding out expedients for removing difficulties which never occur. He naturally loses, therefore, the habit of such exertion, and generally becomes as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human creature to become. The torpor of his mind renders him not only incapable of relishing or bearing a part in any rational conversation, but of conceiving any generous, noble, or tender sentiment, and consequently of forming any just judgment concerning many even of the ordinary duties of private life.

It seems that those who use Smith to promote free markets, do so selectively.

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

To Joe Carter and his blogpost on 5 facts about Martin Luther King Jr. This appeared in the Acton blog.

But there is one other fact about Martin Luther King if we are to truly honor him. That fact was that opposing racism was not his only core concern. He also opposed materialism and economic exploitation as well as war and militarism. In fact, he saw the three of them, that is racism, materialism/economic exploitation, and war/militarism as being inseparable and incapable of being defeated for as long as our society cared about gadgets, profits, and property rights more than it was concerned about people (see http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2564.htm as just one of several references that support what was just written about King).

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For April 20, 2016

Remember to expect more errors in this series of blogposts than in others because less editing is involved. What is below contains my comments to conservative blogs which were blocked. The errors here are minor and the ideas expressed here can be understood despite them.

April 14

To Steve McAlpine and his blogpost that reviews the book Disappearing Church: From Cultural Relevance To Gospel Resilience. This is book is about how the Church lost its groove in society and how it can regain it. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website

With all of the analysis about how we are now in a post Christian world that has partially rejected us and the advocation for the Benedict Option, I was wondering where are the critiques of how the Church has failed society in this review. Where has the Church unnecessarily turned people off? Where was it mentioned of how the Church has focussed so hard on pounding the consciences of individuals while either remaining silently complicit with or heartily affirming the fragile self-esteems of those with wealth and power? For didn't the Roman Church support those with wealth and power prior to both the French and Spanish Revolutions as did the Orthodox Church prior to the Russian Revolution? And hasn't the Conservative Protestant Church been doing the same for most of America's history while we ethnically cleansed Native Americans from the land while embracing a Capitalist economic system that relies on human exploitation? Where are the critiques of the Church when, in the past, there was a Christian hegemony over society and culture that stood idly by when nonwhites were being marginalized while it worked and still does as hard as it could to marginalize the LGBT community in society?

And why support the Benedict Option? After all, with that option the Church can be likened to a kid who takes his games home because he couldn't win those games against his friends. So he withdraws and goes home in order to learn how to beat them at his games. Isn't that a picture of us? Doesn't the Benedict Option direct us to withdraw from society because we are no longer the privileged group in control of society so we can regroup in order to retake society? Doesn't this show that we don't know how to share society with others as equals?

We can't honestly discuss why we are in a post Christian society and world without taking a long, hard look at ourselves in the mirror. Though I can't say that the book has refrained from doing that, this review of the book has failed to do so.


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

April 17

To Denny Burk and his blogpost criticizing Hillary Clinton’s stance on the greatest human crisis today: abortion. This appeared in Denny Burk’s blog

The disagreement I have with the analysis above regards emphasis. Is abortion the greatest human right crisis of our time when we still face the possibility of nuclear annihilation or the possibility  that our earthly lifestyles are in the process of creating a dead planet?

Or is abortion such a grave human rights crisis that we can afford to ignore the crises that come from war & poverty? Or should we ignore the grave problems caused by racism and economic classism in order just to focus on abortion.

Certainly abortion is a very serious issue today. And neither Sanders or Clinton have satisfactory answers to this issue. But lest we imitate liberals in playing the pharisee from the parable of the two men praying,  we also fall short in what say about other serious topics and that falling short has caused some not to see our stance against elective abortions  as being CONSISTENTLY pro-life. And until we get more consistent so that we understand that both major parties are seen as having failed to become pro-life, then complaining about Clinton on this subject will not  get us far.

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

April 18

To Jeff Robinson and his blogpost on how intolerance can be beautiful. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.

There are at least  two conditions that can make some intolerances beautiful. The article above only states one: practices that are objectionable because they promote injustice. The second condition that can make some intolerances beautiful is that, depending on the practice, our first reaction would be not to punish. For it is when our first response is punitive  that helps sustain some objectionable attitudes and practices.

For example, racism should never be tolerated. But if society's first reaction to racist statements or practices is punitive, then all of us have a conflict of interest when we examining ourselves for any racism in our speech, attitudes, or actions. And I know from my upbringing where, because homeowners in my township were prohibited from selling their houses to noncaucasions and thus there were no Blacks in any of my schools until my senior year in high school, that I grew up with some racist views. Have I eliminated all of those views? I hope so. But the fear of societal punishment causes me to lose some objectivity in answering that question. BTW, we should note here that the intolerance Martin Luther King Jr. had to racism did not require that punishment be the first response. King sought to win over his opponents and enemies. Those who could not be won over were, according to what King promoted and practiced, to have their behaviors controlled by law.

We should note one other fact about when intolerance can be beautiful. It depends on the context. Should society be required to be intolerant of all that the Church should intolerant of? That was the question being asked when the Conservative Church in America was pushing for sanctions against homosexuality and then later trying to prevent same-sex marriage and is now trying to legalize discrimination against those from the LGBT community for religious reasons. It was also the question whose answer drove the Puritans to persecute people from other denominations such as the Quakers.

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

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost video clip surveying students on self-identity. This appeared in Heidelblog.

First, who said there were no limits to self-identity? Perhaps the validity of any self-identity should be measured on a case by case basis. But the current conservative evangelical approach to those who seek to change genders, at least from what is suggested by the video clip above, results in an all-or-nothing approach to self-identity. Such an approach only focuses on a specifically chosen limited set of criteria for each identity.

In addition, the same group believes that  the Church should determine the criteria society should use for each self-identity.

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

April 19

To Joe Carter and his blogpost that claims that cars that run solely on electricity really run on coal because that is what generates our electricity. This appeared in the Acton Blog.

At the website, politifact.com, statements are graded on the following scale: Pants on Fire, False, Mostly False, Half True, Mostly True, and True. The above statement that says:

Tesla Motors Releases a Car for the Masses That Runs on Coal

would receive a Mostly False rating. Why? Because, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (see https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=427&t=3 ), only 33% of our electric energy is provided by coal. Renewable energy accounts for 13%, natural gas and nuclear power account for 335 and 20% respectively speaking, and the rest is generated by petroleum and other gasses.

But there is another point to be made here. It is easier to convert the source for our electricity generation from coal to renewable sources than to do the same with our vehicles. So as we continue to find ways to rely more on renewable energy sources, today's investment in an all electric car gives us more potential to protect the environment in the future than if we continue to invest in cars running on gas.

But let's give Carter his due; he drives a Prius. That deserve recognition.

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

To Joe Carter and his blogpost on what Bernie Sanders could learn from the Pope on the Capitalism while he visits there. This appeared in the Acton blog.

This article woefully displays Carter's ignorance of Socialism. For not only does he assume a set of beliefs on Sanders' part because Sanders has called himself a Socialist, he views Socialism as a monolith and thus asserts that all socialists have the same beliefs.

When one examines what Sanders is promoting, one discovers that Sanders is nothing more than a follower of FDR, not a Socialist. Socialism, especially from the Marxist tradition, is not just or sometimes even concerned with central government control or 'complete egalitarian societies.' Socialism is concerned with the redistributing of power from the bourgeoisie to the proletariat. From there, we have a variety of view regarding how egalitarian society should be to what ownership of private property is allowed to whether one believes or not in the state.  We should note that most Socialism is like Capitalism in one way, both believe in classocracy. The differences between them then is in the class in charge and how the class in charge gets its power. With Socialism, the class in charge is the proletariat and it arrives at its power democratically. In Capitalism, the class in charge is the bourgeoisie and it arrives at its power through power struggles. If only Carter would actually read what Socialists say and have done, he might being to know what he is talking about rather than rely on pejorative stereotypes.

As for the Pope's quote that "should" cause Sanders dismay:

on the level of individual nations and of international relations, the free market is the most efficient instrument for utilizing resources and effectively responding to needs.

there is nothing here to worry Sanders or even any socialist. For whatever positive the Pope says about Capitalism, as Martin Luther King Jr. noted, according to his biography by Travis Smiley, the actual redistribution of of goods and services has proved Capitalism not to have actually delivered on is potential. That is because Capitalism's fuel is greed, its lubrication is competition, and its engine is centralized control by those with wealth. And anyone could see that centralized control is potentially more efficient and effective than democratic control. The problem is that centralized control first feeds itself whatever it deems is necessary while leaving all other to fend for the table scraps. Let alone, we should note the context of the Pope's statement on the Free Market is within individual nations, not a globalized economy.

The Even Darker Side Of Putin's Anti-Gay Agenda

The trouble with isms is the people who pursue them. Such people tend to be purists. And because they are purists, they are exclusive. Why be a purist? One pursues purism for at least one of the following two reasons: control and glory. All to often, people seek control as a response to fear while people seek glory in order to feel significant.

Because of the above, the more one runs after an ism, the more one shuts out others from being insensitive to their sufferings to denying their contributions to vilifying them as monsters. The above applies to racism, nationalism, many ideologically based ism, and other kinds of isms.

Thus, we should include the above when examining Vladimir Putin, Russia's leader, and his anti-gay agenda. That is because two isms are being consistently associated with the anti-gay policies he supports in Russia. These two isms are conservatism and nationalism. And whether Putin is taking an opportunistic ride on the popularity, in Russia that is, of these two isms or he is a true believer, he has securely attached himself and his anti-gay-rights position to them.

Putin has described himself and Russia as the champions for conservative values. And he also explicitly rejects/resents Western liberalism's sometimes hypocritical attempts to impose its values on Russia in this matter. He says that this is a violation of Russia's democracy . 

Such a defense revives old memories of the South's response to the Civil Rights movement. "Mixing Is Communism" read some of the signs defending segregation and Jim Crow. The advantage that Civil Rights workers of the past had that today's Western Liberals don't was that there was a centralized authority to which the Southern states were answerable. So all Civil Rights workers had to do to start facilitating changes in the South was to gain the sympathies of enough federal lawmakers.

But today's world does not even consist of a confederation. That is because the world's strongest nation, the US, has followed the rule of force because it can. Thus, whatever moral force that the UN could exercise in this matter has been decimated. So the only outside pressure available to those concerned with the rights of gays consists of economic pressure through boycotts and political pressure through isolation. But such is unlikely since Russia has resources to sell and, with some legitimacy, been involved in mediating some of the world's hotspots. 

Another Russian reminder of the old South's resistance are laws used to punish and imprison those in the LBGT community and their activists. While Putin insists that there is equality regardless of sexual orientation and that his only concern is preventing children from being exposed to homosexual propaganda, the law is written with a lot of leeway given to law enforcement and vagueness for potential arrestees. So while Putin claims there is equality for all regardless of sexual orientation, an act that recognizes the need to placate dissent and save some face, LGBT activists who publicly state that homosexuality is not perversion are arrested and imprisoned. At the same time,  gays and LGBT activists have been beaten and even tortured with impunity.

In addition, Putin has recently announced a reversal in the birthrate of Russian children--a previous drop in Russia's birthrate was blamed on homosexuality (click here). This is described as being important for the future of Russia's growth. We should note that while the US has been recognized as the world's only superpower, in some ways, Russia has never ceased being a superpower. After all, how else would anyone describe a country whose nuclear arsenal could easily destroy the world many times over. Where they have failed to maintain their superpower status is their ability to project power throughout the world. But that is beginning to change.

It wasn't too long ago that America was considering deploying anti-ballistic missile site bases in NATO's eastern countries to which Russia responded with the threat of using tactical nuclear weapons in a first strike. Combine that with how Russia is now looking to play key roles in brokering international conflicts and hot spots, along with its new weapons programs, we are looking a nation that is seeking to restore some of its glory and control from the past. But at the same time, we should note the harshness with which it has met dissent at home and this has occurred long before the conviction and imprisonment of its oppositional artists, Nadya Tolokonnikova and Masha Alyokhina. As of 2010, 19 Russian journalists had been killed (click here) including Anna Politkovskaya. Today, Russia controls much of the media. We should also note Russia's past brutal treatment of Chechnya under Putin's leadership.

In order to reclaim power and prestige, unity is a necessity. And the more unity is desired, the more dissent and diversity are seen as Kryptonite. Putin is directing Russia to find that unity in the traditional values of conservatism and nationalism. We should note that combining strong-armed tacts with both a call to return to traditional values and nationalism was a trademark of Germany's Nazis. So we shouldn't be surprised that Russia's Neo-Nazis are the ones attacking gays and LGBT activists as well as Arabs, the latter has been occurring in the Ukraine. We should also note that gay rights activists have been attacked by those from the Russian Orthodox Church and "pro-Kremlin youth groups" (click here) . 

Putin is in the midst of another power grab. This can be seen not just in his domestic agenda, but in his foreign policies as well. And our concern here is that his anti-gay agenda indicates what we can expect from him in the future. And that future looks more ominous everyday because he has wrapped himself up in isms that are harshly excluding gays and others who are different in Russian society. And he doing that in ways that are reminiscent of an atrocity filled past.