Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For April 12, 2023

March 29

To Joseph Pearce and his article that called George Orwell a prophet because of what Orwell wrote in his book 1984 while condemning secular rule along with socialism, Soviet Union Communism, and Nazism. He does make some good points about the dangers posed by technology. This article was posted on the Imaginative Conservative's website.

The problem with the above article is that Pearce shows a lack of awareness about Orwell's political ideological leanings. While Pearce merges socialism with Soviet Union communism, which is something that Gorbachev did not do when talking about the Soviet Union's tyrannical leaders, Orwell not only did not conflate the two, he promoted Democratic Socialism.

What is sad is that Pearce's attacks on socialism and secular rule are opportunistic and rely on false premises regarding Orwell and socialism itself. Just as there is more than one kind of capitalism, there is more than one kind of socialism. And Orwell favored Democratic Socialism (see  https://www.biographyonline.net/socialism-george-orwell/  ).

One other point should be made. What the Nazis called socialism, in reality, was not even close to socialism. At least it wasn't the kind of worker-led socialism promoted by Marx or the kind believed in by Orwell. And Nazism wasn't the 'wicked alter-ego' of Soviet Union Communism. Rather, some of Hitler campaign talking points sounded similar to what we hear from the Trumpublicans. After all, Hitler campaigned on bringing back traditional value and putting Germany first. Hitler believed that the Aryan race was the superior race while Trumpublicans believe in the moral superiority of like-minded political conservatives. And Hitler emphasized the importance of having a strong military. 

Also, Hitler's regime not only allowed for the private ownership of property and relied on the advice of Business elites to run his government. He also opposed democracy and diversity. In addition, Hitler co-opted religion rather than opposing it. Hitler saw Soviet Union communism as Nazism's true ideological enemy.

While Pearce legitimately criticizes totalitarian regimes, he errs in claiming that they practiced socialism. The root of his errors is based on not knowing what socialism is and conflating it with Soviet Union communism.

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

March 30

To Heidelblog and Simonetta Carr for the portion of Carr's article quoted in a Heidelblog post about the Protestant tradition. 

Simonetta Carr's full article can be found at:

    https://corechristianity.com/resource-library/articles/3-reasons-people-ignore-church-history-but-shouldnt/

We should want to learn Church has taught in the past without becoming traditionalists. Why is that? It is because traditionalists are simply the flip side of the coin from narcissists. For while narcissists believe that we have everything to teach those from the past and nothing to learn from them, traditionalists believe that those from their favorite part(s) of the past have everything to teach us today and nothing to learn from us--that is to borrow a phraseology from Martin Luther King Jr. And that makes today's narcissists into tomorrow's traditionalists.

Of course, Jesus us warns us against substituting our traditional beliefs for God's Word when he challenged the religious teachers of His day in Mark 7. And so Carr is more than correct in saying that we cannot afford to put our traditional beliefs on the same level as the Scriptures. But how many of us do that on an informal level anyway? How many of us do not allow for interpretations of the Scriptures that have not been made by those theological heroes from the past? How many of us believe in full subscription to confessional standards that cover more than just the basics of the faith? When we put our traditional believes on too high a pedestal, we make those traditional belief a canon for the canon of the Scriptures.

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

April 1

To R. Scott Clark and his blog article that questions whether the overture from the Evangel Presbytery in the PCA is appropriate because it petitions the government to take a legal stand that would prohibit the medical or surgical procedures done on minors seeking a gender reassignment. This was posted on Heidelblog.

The first point to be made here is about what is considered to be extraordinary cases. Like the word 'extreme,' the word 'extraordinary' is a relative measurement. But use of the Westminster Devines to consider what is extraordinary, as Clark attempts to do, shows both the pedestal on which Clark has put those Devines as well as his commitment to traditionalism, which itself has a disregard for historical progress.

The transgender issue has been with humanity much longer than religiously and politically conservative people would like to admit. Yes, God created man male and female. But that statement was made before the Fall. Both man and nature fell because of the Fall and nature bears witness to that as we have 1 in so many thousands of births where the biological sex of a person is indeterminant. And thus, we have 3 biological sexes.

But gender identity is another issue from biological sex because whereas one's biological sex deals with what is biological, gender identity deals what is psychological. And what we should note here is that the conservative approach to the gender identity mirrors the LGBT approach to gender identity. Both conflate biological sex with gender identity. While it is obvious how the LGBT approach conflates them, it is not as obvious to conservatives how they conflate them. They do so by using the visible biological sex indicators as the only factor that a person should use to determine their gender identity. Both nature and history gives us a different story. Nature does so since there are biological factors that can come into play in gender identity (see  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7415463/   ). History does so because taking a different gender identity other than what would be determined by one's biological sex is an old problem that is not unique to the West. For example, here we should note that some Native American tribes recognized up to 5 different genders and they honored those who identified as a different gender than what would be indicated by their biological sex.

Thus, we need to distinguish how the Church should approach gender identity from how the state should approach it. If truth be told, neither the LGBT community nor those who are conservative in this matter know all of the factors involved and because of that, the overture in question seems premature if it would ever be appropriate. Even scientists studying gender identity understand all of the factors involved.

We should also note that not all medical assistance given to minors who seek a gender reassignment produce permanent effects and surgical assistance to do the same is rare and is cautiously determined.

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

April 3

To R. Scott Clark and his first blog article in a helpful series on the dangers of Kinism. Kinism is a form of Christian Deconstructionism that teaches that we need to segregate ourselves by our physical ethnicities. Used criticism of the Covid lockdowns to introduce the subject. This appeared in Heidelblog.

Regarding the lockdown, the lack or slow implementation of lockdowns did a lot more damage than the lockdowns themselves. This was seen in Europe and in some major cities in the U.S. where the number of deaths and those requiring hospitalization overwhelmed the available resources. Deaths and long Covid produce permanent losses for individuals and their families. Questioning the lockdowns without acknowledging the other side of things was an unnecessary political jab in the above article.

The above article is helpful in exposing Kinism-- something I've never heard of. But we also need to acknowledge two things: that the unbelieving world has had some success in battling the segregation that is a part of Kinism and that there seems to be a spiritual Kinism that permeates the those in the Reformed tradition. Yes, the latter practice is not real Kinism. However, there is an unnecessary segregation that we in the Reformed movement often embrace. That spiritual Kinism can be seen every Sunday morning and even on the internet.

The kind of segregation in Kinism which was described in the above article exhibits a control problem. But it doesn't take the extreme of Kinism to see this control problem in religiously conservative Christianity. So while it is easy for many of us religiously conservative Christians to point our fingers at such extremists as those who promote Kinism. But do we have control problems that are exhibited in other areas of our theology? Do we Reformed Christians use our allegiance to our confessions to  unnecessarily segregate ourselves from other Fundamentalists and Evangelicals?

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

April 4

To R. Scott Clark and his 2nd blog article in his helpful series on Kinism. Here he focuses on the CRC response to Kinism. This article appeared in Heidelblog.

There is a lot of good material against Kinism in the above article, but there are two things that require a second look and a step back from.

The first is in the quote below:

'Ground: Kinist theology and practice is neither biblical nor Reformed.'

If a theology is not biblical, why do we also need to say that it is not Reformed? If that is an admission that not all theology is Reformed, then that is acceptable. If that is a statement that is looking for an appropriate level of conformity in the denomination, that is understandable. But if that statement implies that we must be both biblical and Reformed, then we might want to reexamine the pedestal on which we place Reformed Theology.

The second item comes from a a line that Clark makes:

'That is the first time I have ever seen Friedrich Schleiermacher quoted in Synodical minutes. It should probably be the last, but I digress.'

Regardless of why Clark made that statement, his digression is a detriment. Should Reformed denominations only use statements from Reformed Theologians while theologically assessing a given position? If so, then some are in danger of making Reformed Theology a canon for the canon of the Scriptures. And thus they are in danger of replacing the Scriptures with Reformed Theology just as the religious leaders of Jesus's day replaced the Scriptures with their own traditions. 

Does Reformed Theology have everything to teach the other Christian theologies but nothing to learn from them? If so, what we are witnessing is a theological Kinism. But worse than that, we we are witnessing is an unnecessary division in the Church based on arrogance.

Was everything that Schleiermacher taught theologically wrong or, even worse, a heresy? One would have to first prove that everything Schleiermacher taught was merely wrong or a heresy. Has Clark actually attempted to prove everyone of Schleiermacher's teachings wrong? Or has he assumed that everything Schleiermacher has taught was wrong? 

Or maybe he didn't make his statement because of Schleiermacher per se. Maybe Clark is afraid that recognizing Schleiermacher in the way that the CRC did in their report would increase Schleiermacher's influence on that denomination. Such is a fear that stems from a tribal authoritarianism.

One should note that an easy answer to Kinism's use of the Old Testament to support racial segregation is to simply note the change of context that exists between the Old Testament and the New Testament. It is an answer that we could also give when our implementation of New Testament principles differ from how they were implemented in New Testament times.

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

April 6

K.V. Turley and his article describing the wartime and post war effects on the correspondent Michael Herr. Herr wrote Dispatches, which described the wartime experiences of Americans who fought in the Vietnam War. This was posted in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

As war leaves no participant innocent, it has a haunting effect on the correspondents who cover the war in person. Chris Hedges mentions this in his talks based on his book: War Is A Force That Gives Us Meaning. Hedges also describes his own deep hardships after he quit being a war correspondent.

Perhaps the chilling effects that war has on its participants and correspondents is in itself a substantial argument that war should be abolished. The Russell-Einstein Manifesto gives another reason to do the same. With the advent of nuclear weapons, the Manifesto tells us that we have to choose between survival and the continued reliance on war. The Manifesto is realistic in its expectations of how acceptable that choice would be to people. That making the right choice demands that we ease our emphasis on national sovereignty. 

Even the with the good "moral" wars, like WW II, war inflicts horrendous, irreparable mental scars on its participants. War correspondents give us an opportunity  to vicariously learn about the horrors of war. But they too pay an exorbitant price to provide this opportunity for us.

 

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For February 1, 2023

Jan 26

To Heidelblog and their blogpost that references a Heidelblog resource page with references meant to totally discredit the 1619 Project. 

https://heidelblog.net/2023/01/new-resource-page-resources-on-the-1619-project/

Actual Heidelblog Reference Page:

https://heidelblog.net/1619-project/

The above criticisms of the 1619 Project lack precision in its criticisms in an attempt to discredit the whole work. 

For example, Sean Wilentz, who is in the article that criticizes the project from the Left, offered specific criticisms of the 1619 Project in an effort to keep the whole project from being discredited. In other words, he didn't reject the whole project or the project overall. He saw a significant amount of value in the project.

One of the points of contention from the 1619 Project was the claim that the Revolutionary War was fought in order to protect the institution of slavery from being axed by British rule. And though such a claim is an overstatement, it is not without evidence. For while American elites who led the campaign to breakaway from the British Empire did not mention the protection of slavery as a reason for the Revolution, the newspapers at that time did frame a statement made in a particular British court ruling as a threat to the institution of slavery.

As for the National Association of Scholars, its name sounds like a neutral voice but in reality it is a political conservative advocacy group similar to the American College of Pediatricians. Thus, the neutral sounding name that suggests objectivity for the National Association of Scholars which is far from the purpose of that group.

I could go on, but here is the point. Like with Critical Theory and Critical Race Theory, some conservatives have targeted the 1619 Project to be completely discredited rather than to identify its contributions and errors to our understanding of history. The treatment of the 1619 Project by those conservatives provide examples of black-white thinking, which is a kind of thinking that we see in authoritarianism. And, if indeed, the analysis of the 1619 Project by these conservatives is from an authoritarian viewpoint, then the goal of this kind of conservative analysis of the 1619 Project is to gain control over enough people so as to  silence the Project.

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

Jan 27

To Pat Buchanan and the Imaginative Conservative blog that reposted a Buchanan article that was first posted in 2012. 

Just some loose thoughts here. 

First, conservatives don't have to impose their values to conserve their traditions and principles. But according to the above article, imposing their values on the rest of the people defines success for them.

As for Russell Kirk being a traditionalist, I say this to traditionalists from all ideological perspectives. Traditionalism is the other side of the coin from Narcissism. Both isms artificially elevate a set of time periods above all other time periods to the extent that it seems they believe that their chosen set of time periods has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them.

Buchanan's comments on the Civil Rights Revolution lack awareness. While he is quick to praise Martin Luther King Jr, much of what he also condemns was part of King's mission in life. In his interview with Xander Vanocur 11 months before his death, King defined the period of the passage of the '64 and '65 Civil and Voting Rights Acts as a struggle for dignity. King goes on to say that what he was working toward at the time of the interview was true equality for Blacks which was to be measured through the equality of results (see  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xsbt3a7K-8   ). 

Is Buchanan aware that King listed as the triplets of evil: racism, economic exploitation, and militarism? Is he aware that King said that to take down racism, we must also eradicate the other two evils?

In terms of what is bankrupting this nation, isn't it government spending on goods and services provided by corporations either in defense, pharmaceuticals, private prisons, and other goods and services. These items are provided by the same corporations that pay lobbyists to earn favor for their employers in the laws passed by our government.

As for the Vietnam War, what we used to justify our presence there, the Domino Theory, proved to be false. In fact, our involvement in Vietnam began around the time when the US rejected a democratic process that would determine whether the two Vietnams would be reunited. And the end of the Vietnam War showed that the War was always about reunification.

And what did Reagan revive? It was a belief in our nation but what is that belief based on? After all, the US has often interfered in the internal affairs of other nations including overthrowing left-leaning democracies and replacing them with dictatorships (for some examples see Iran in 1953, Guatemala in 1954, Greece in 1967, and Chile in 1973). Millions of civilians died in Vietnam because of our weapons and our intervention in that nation. Systemic racism in the US has survived the work of the Civil Rights Movement. And for the past several decades, wealth and income disparities have continued to increase between the classes and the races in this nation. Reagan's war against unions and embracing of neoliberal capitalism has contributed to those growing disparities.

Yes, some conservative values and practices have fallen out of favor for much of the nation. But if conservatives hold on to those values and practices, how is it that they have failed even when others have not? How have they failed unless conservatives judge their success by their imposition of their values and practices on others in this nation?

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

Jan 30

To Heidelblog and Dorothy Sayers for the part of Sayers's address that was quoted in a heidelblog post about Christianity vs paganism. 

Dorothy Sayers's full address can be found at:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/6ah7lgde0rrsd7m/sayerscreed.pdf?dl=0

One should only accept Sayers's claim that Christian and pagan are in a 'life-and-death' struggle if Christendom is Christianity. And the last time I checked multiple sources on this, including Heidelblog (see  https://heidelblog.net/2022/06/christendom-was-a-renewal-of-the-old-testament-theocracy/  AND   https://heidelblog.net/2021/11/christ-the-only-way-doctrinal-confusion-and-a-twofold-kingdom/     ). Christendom is not Christianity. Instead, Christendom is both caused by and causes confusion on the relationship between the Church and State. And thus the presence of heathendom does not put Christian and pagan in a dire battle with each other.

And so with the main claim of  Sayers's address resting on equating of Christendom with Christianity, I am confused why the Sayer's address is quoted from  here. After all, if Christendom is not identical with Christianity, how can we say that the replacing of Christendom with heathendom puts Christian in a 'life-and-death' struggle with pagan?

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

To Joseph Pearce and the reposting of his article on what was tragic in the Old South. His article presented a challenge to an opinion written by a Tennessee girl who denounced the South's history and its heritage. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

If the South's only major flaw was slavery, then was the Federal government overstepping its role, or unjustly attacking subsidiarity, in outlawing Jim Crow laws? Inquiring social justice warriors want to know.

There are a couple of problems with Pearce's article here. The first, of course, was limiting the South's sins to that of slavery. That is a problem because what drove or enabled slavery goes without criticism: the belief in white supremacy. And it was that belief that caused Jim Crow laws and culture to follow what was an all too brief respite from the racism in the South known as Reconstruction. 

But the mere existence of either slavery or Jim Crow shows the problem with putting the principle of subsidiarity on too high a pedestal. We can't afford to have local rights, whether they be parental rights, church rights, state rights or whatever else rights be independent from evaluation by universal values and principles. We can't allow the individual to violate the equal rights of others.

Another problem with Pearce's analysis here is to call the Federal Government a distant government. When each state has two Senators regardless of its size and each state is divided up into sectors according to its population and has its own representative, we can't call such a government 'distant.' We even have an electoral college that also helps balance out the voting power between urban centers and rural areas. How is that 'distant'?

Here I have to agree with the 'Tennessee girl' Pearce referenced far more than with Pearce. Then again, I am not from the South. But I've seen violations of equal rights in the North as well. We have enough stuff to be ashamed of here too.

 

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For September 14, 2022

 Sept 9

To Joseph Pearce and the reposting of his 2016 article that supports the existence of Great Britain's monarchy. This was reposted in the Imaginary Conservative blog.

It is clear that Pearce likes structure and authority figures, especially those with whom he can agree.  Orbán, whom Pearce likes, liked to wield his authority to favor specific ethnic groups. And in admiring Orbán, Pearce shows that he doesn't have a full understanding of democracy, especially democracy in terms of what Jefferson said in his 1801 Inaugural  Address.

Did Queen Elizabeth make a statement of support for subsidiarity? Subsidiarity, btw, is a view that limits the work of democracy for any government that is a working democracy. I can understand  why fans of that ideology would believe that is the case. We all would like our beliefs to be praised by authority figures. But her words are unconvincing as well as the context of her statements are not included. Also, there is no contradiction between wanting an active government involved in the lives of its people and appreciating the acts of kindness carried out by individuals. Why must we think that we have to choose one or the other?

As for the monarchy, the real determinant of its continued value is whether there is a net social/political profit that emerges from the tradeoffs that come from maintaining the monarchy. And whether there is such a net profit will always be contingent on the character of the current monarch.

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

Sept 13

To Joseph Mussomeli and the reposting of his 2018 article about 9/11 in which he complained that we have yet to reach closure. His complaints also included criticisms of those who are self-righteous on the left and the right and how we never learned what we needed to learn from the attacks. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

There are two points to make about Mussomeli's article on needing closure for 9/11 and its victims. The first point is that despite Mussomeli's refreshing approach about how America contributed to those attacks and that they were not inevitable, Mussomeli shakes his own self-righteous finger at many on the left and the right by insisting that he alone does things right in understanding 9/11. For the most part, the Left isn't out to excuse crime, but to point out that we are not above committing those crimes--our support for and contributions to the first 9-11 event is evidence to that claim.

As for the approach taken by many on the right. The curtailing of liberty that followed 9-11 was an understandable response to how the our increase technology makes all of us both more powerful and vulnerable at the same time. It's not that I agreed with the increased of unwarranted surveillance. It is that it was an understandable response..

Mussomeli lamented over the fact that we have yet reached closure on 9/11 unlike we have on Vietnam. But the way we reached closure on Vietnam, with new crises and enemies, both contributed to the events leading up to 9/11 and, as  part of his legitimate criticism of the right pointed out,  visited  violence on people who were not our enemies.  This is especially true of Reagan's policies in Latin America where, in El Salvador, those policies contributed to the creation of the MS-13 gang.

it's not that Mussomeli's article doesn't make any good points. As he has pointed out, we have bungled our response to 9/11. Instead of learning from and thus understanding why we were attacked, we responded in a way where we repeated some of the same mistakes that contributed to the attacks in the first place. And in seeking to understand the attacks, we can't afford to justify them. We are not safer now than before because we have not learned what we needed to learn from those attacks. 

But Mussomeli draws too hard of a line between his understanding of 9/11 and the responses from the left and right about which he claimed were self-righteous.

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

Around Aug 22

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

August 24

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

August 25

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

August 27

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

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

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

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

August 27

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For August 17, 2022

 August 9

To the Heidelblog and Alejandra Molina for the portion of Molina's article quoted in a Heidelblog post about the conflict between a small private college in Washington State and the state's AG over hiring conditions that possible discriminates against those in the LGBT community. 

Alejandra Molina's article can be found at:

    https://julieroys.com/seattle-pacific-university-sues-washington-state-probe-lgbtq-exclusion/

What is interesting about what the Heidelblog did not quote from the article was the student reaction to the university and its leaders. Certainly not all, but some of the students, along with others, protested the school's code for employees because they believed that it was used to discriminate against the LGBT community.

The student reaction helps show that Clark's title for the article above really does not do justice to the story. The issue here is can a religious employer that offers mixed, meaning religious and non-religious, services to the general public set religious requirements for its employees. When we look at the story of the college in question in this way we easily see that it isn't the civil liberties of the university that is being  called into question; it is about the civil rights of potential employees that is the issue.

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

August 16

To Joseph Pearce and his article that praises Romanticism especially because of its reaction to the Enlightenment. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

Why are we leapfrogging over the Enlightenment as if it had nothing to teach us? And with Romanticism's emphasis on individualism and feeling, why are some, not Pearce, blaming the Enlightenment for today's what some have called 'excessive individualism'?

Superstition and legitimate religion were very much intertwined before the Enlightenment. And even before the Enlightenment, reason and observation were important in discovering Heliocentrism, which was widely and adamantly denounced by Roman and Reformation Church leaders back then.

The problem here is that of reductionism. We have much to learn from the Enlightenment. But the Enlightenment doesn't have everything to teach us. The Enlightenmentt has provided some guidelines that have helped in protecting us against some erroneous religious teachings and statements of faith. The Enlightenment, however, has recently become a favorite scapegoat among some of today's authoritarian religious teachers because of how it challenged superstitions and religion. The Enlightenment has become a target because of how it has challenged the authority by some religious teachers. And that only shows that those teachers try too hard to denounce the Enlightenment are engaged in a turf war  with it. We see that turf war today when some religious teachers try to denounce a great deal of what the social sciences are telling us about ourselves.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For April 6, 2022

 March 29

To R. Scott Clark and C.S. Lewis for Clark's blogpost that quotes C.S. Lews  as he wrote about democracy in education and its effects. This appeared in Heidelblog.

Some don't really understand what egalitarianism is all about. While others don't understand the present time because they have removed its context, which is the past, from how they interpret the present time. It is important to keep the context for the present in mind when interpreting it because that context will tell us what to accept or modify in the present and what to discard.

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

To Michael Young and his article that gives a harsh crituqe of Kristin Kobes Du Mez's book: Jesus and John Wayne. This appeared in the American Reformer blog.

Criticism regarding religiously conservative Christianity has more often than not become a contest between those whose arguments are deductively arrived at vs those whose arguments are based on inductive investigations. The problem for the former group is that they fail to recognize that conclusions arrived at deductively become suspect when they are challenged by the results of inductive investigations. And that is what appears to be the contest in the above review of Du Mez's book, Jesus and John Wayne--I personally like to add 'The Baptist' at the end of the title of the book because of the wife's first attempt to find the book.

One problem with the above review is that the reference to 'Evangelicalism' can be ambiguous. That is because Evangelicalism is sometimes represented by a certain set of beliefs while at other times it is represented by its people. The same can be said of Christianity.  And if Du Mez is not taking issue the Evangelical Theology, especially that which is concerned with the Godhead and Soteriology, it is concerned with its people and its theology that concerns itself with how we are to carry out the 2nd Table of the Law as the Church. 

Now it seems to me that while we religiously conservative Christians must never budge on theology concerning the Godhead and Soteriology, we should be open to hearing criticisms about how the Church has either taught about our relationships with others or how it has treated them. For it is the in criticisms about the latter that most of the criticisms leveled toward the Church can be found. 

But Young's response is both authoritarian and unnecessarily defensive.  His response is authoritarian because it seeks to discredit, by association, Du Mez's claims rather than to deal with them rationally on a case by case basis--again, when conclusions arrived at deductively are challenged by inductive investigations, something is amiss. 

Another aspect of Young's response that is authoritarian is that it employs a great deal of black-white thinking. In particular, Young sees nothing of value in Post Modernism even though Post Modernism has been rightly complaining about abuses committed by those who feel entitled to commit them because of their exclusive claims to knowing the truth. And it is those exclusive claims to truth that have enabled many a leader to abuse or exploit others--something Du Mez has been trying to point out.

Acknowledging the truths that Du Mez has happened on doesn't imply that all of her claims are correct no more than citing the weaknesses of Post Modernism implies that it has nothing of value to offer. And just because Post Modernism points out that everything is written in and interpreted by its own context, that doesn't imply that there is no absolute truth.

Young exhibits another flaw that so many of us religiously conservative Christians seem to have in abundance. That flaw is that we tend to try to deduce what all of reality must be rather than learn some reality by experience.

So Du Mez has pointed out some serious flaws in the Church regarding how we treat others. Why should that bother us when our faith revolves around what we believe about the Godhead and our reliance on Christ for the forgiveness of our sins. But such bothers Young and my guess is that Young is experiencing a tribal anxiety because some of his past heroes and horizontal theologies are being challenged and have been found wanting. That doesn't imply that everything he has been taught is false.

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

April 1

To Joseph Pearce and his article that challenges the progressive notion that conservatives are on the wrong side of history. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative Blog.

Besides the gross misrepresentation of progressives as being so monolithic, we should note that we don't have to be approaching some desired utopia to realize when someone is on the wrong side of history on a given issue. For example, we know that those who supported slavery in past were on the wrong side of history. And yet, we are far from any of the dreams dancing around in the heads of progressives.

A number of people whom many conservatives would regard as progressive don't believe that comfort will rid us of  crime and problems. Martin Luther King Jr. didn't believe that. He didn't measure progress by how many new comforts we have but by the quality of our relationships with others. Chris Hedges doesn't see our society or the world progressing toward some absolute or relative utopia. Rather, he has a very pessimistic view of where the world is going. Noam Chomsky automatically dismisses any notion of achieving a utopia. 

And though I don't deserve to be included in the above mix, I lean toward the real left politically but also hold to the 5 basic tenets of Christian Fundamentalism. I remember discussing with a friend how our society has made progress in some areas but has suffered set backs in other areas.

The above article seems to have been written to paint progressives as having nothing to contribute to society. Of course, the above article complains when conservatives are so portrayed. In either case, it is arrogance to believe that we need not listen to the views of others. That because there is no ideology that is omniscient, we all have things to learn from each other. And thus ideological tribalism is harmful because it is based on an obvious false presumptuous assumption.

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

To Chris Gordon and his blogpost on using the Confessions, here he is speaking about the Reformed Confessions, as an aid in pursuing sanctification. This appeared in the Abounding Grace Radio blog.

I struggle with the above article because I believe that our Reformed Confessions encompass too wide a scope of subjects. As a result we can easily develop an ever growing dependency on the confessions that can compete with our dependency on the Scriptures. 

Another problem with using confessions that have such a large scope of subjects is that it unnecessarily divides not only given movements, like the Reformed churches, but the Church itself. Tribalism sets in afterwards and with tribalism can come Christians persecuting other Christians because of the disparities in the standard beliefs that each set of Christians hold too.

But perhaps the biggest problem that can come with a high dependence on the confessions is that once we rely too heavily on the confessions to understand the Scriptures, the confessions become a canon above the canon where the confessions make up the first canon and the Scriptures make up the second canon.

If our confessions did not cover such a wide scope of material, we could better distinguish what are the essential beliefs to those who call themselves Reformed  without being unnecessarily divisive and without putting one's preferred set of confessions on too high a pedestal.

Mark 7 should effectively warn us against putting any set of confessions, a.k.a., traditions, on too high a pedestal. Will we let Mark 7 speak to us effectively?

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For December 8, 2021

 Nov 17

To R. Scott Clark and his blog article that quotes Carl Trueman's article on how the new approach to gender identity makes Nietzsche look like a prophet because of what he said about language and our perception of reality. This appeared in the Heidelblog.

Conservatives often rely too heavily on selected parts of the past to understand and respond to the present. Regarding the issue of gender identity and biology, both those conservatives and some who are seeking to gender identify themselves as no one has identified themselves before represent two sides of the same coin. While both want to conflate a biological construct with a social construct, they also want to minimize one of those constructs. Conservatives like Trueman want to conflate the two constructs in a way so that one's gender identity is identical to ones biological identity while some in the LGBT community want to do the converse. The problem is that how can one conflate what is physical, or objective, with one that is social and, in the end, subjective? And what complicates the problem is that the social construct identity has, as a source of input, the biological construct.

The reason why we have two opposing sides approaching the relationship between the biological construct and the social construct differently in the same way is because both are applying forms of all-or-nothing thinking to the problem. On the one hand, Trueman's conservative authoritarianism employs a black-white world view. In this case, one is either male or female. And one's gender identity can only be determined by one's unaltered biologically sex otherwise one is throwing out that factor.

For at least part of the Trans portion of the LGBT community, one's gender identity can be used to deny the reality of one's unaltered biological sex. Again, all-or-nothing thinking is being employed only this time, it is in response to a desire to address long-standing social injustices forced on Transexuals. All-or-nothing thinking is often employed when addressing long-standing social injustices because not only is their a desire undo and fix those past and present injustices, there is also a desire to prevent all future injustices. And in doing so, there is a fear that people will not be able to distinguish between practices and ways speaking that have been accidentally associated with those injustices from those practices and ways speaking that have actually enabled those injustices. In other words, what we are seeing in some who are trying to stop and repair both past and present social injustices along with preventing future injustices is similar to a phobic reaction.

Ours is not the first culture to have seen gender identity issues. Some Native American tribes have, at least in the past, recognized up to 5 different genders. And though their gender identity issues don't always align with the gender identity issues we see in our society, those tribes honored those with such gender identity issues as people who have overcome something. We need to realize that our unaltered biological sexual identity can play a role in our gender identity but it is only a role. And just because one's biological sexual identity might not carry the day in determining one's gender identity, it doesn't mean that the two have been severed. It just means that other factors played a stronger role in determining the gender identity of a given person.

If we eliminate or even reduce the all-or-nothing thinking both sides employ here, we could start down the road where what both sides think will be a just solution  will also not deny the reality of one's biological sex or the reality of one's gender identity. We will realize that though our unaltered biological sexual identity and our gender identity is neither equal nor disjoint. That society's gender issues are not making Nietzsche into the prophet that Trueman thinks he is becoming.

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

Nov 24

To David Deavel and his article on the lies society is telling itself about gender identity, systemic racism and such. This appeared in the Imaginative conservative blog.

Is it odd that Deavel is very selective in the lies he lists? He doesn't mention the denial of climate change, the denial of the pandemic or the conspiracy theories the revolve around the pandemic and the vaccines, nor does he mention the stolen election lies.

In addition he glosses over some of the lies he reports. For example, he oversimplifies the gender identity and the denial of systemic racism. CRT has given us the opportunity to distinguish the racism faced by Blacks in this nation from the racial prejudice everyone both has toward others and suffers from. The racism that Blacks face also includes racist oppression from society in how it perceives things and from our nation's institutions. Both how society interprets things and those institutions favor whites and is oppressive, in varying degrees, to Blacks and others. When we see oppressed people oppressing attacking others, what we are witnessing, to borrow a phrase from a fellow activist and friend,  is that oppressed group learning more from their oppressors than from the experience of being oppressed (see  https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0310/S00067.htm  ). 

Regarding gender identity issues, we should note that while gender identity is a social construct, one's biological sex is a physical construct. Thus to conflate the two in order to override one's biological sex or to deny real struggles some have with gender identity are equally wrong. We should note here that some Native American tribes recognized, and even honored, up to five different genders.

I could go on but in short, conservatives struggle with accepting realities that either point to past conservative failure or future conservative impotence. That is not to say that conservatism has neither contributed in the past nor is unable to contribute in the future. Rather, that is to say that conservatism is not omniscient and thus has both significantly contributed to past problems and is unable, by itself, to adequately respond to future problems.

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

Nov 28

To R. Scott Clark and Abigail Shrier on Clark's blogpost that quotes Shrier as claiming that California teachers are being told to recruit public school kids into the LGBT community. This appeared in Heidelblog.

Abigail Shrier's article can be found at:

    https://abigailshrier.substack.com/p/how-activist-teachers-recruit-kids

One of the biggest crazes followed by bloggers is to quote from unvetted news sources as if the stories they report are facts regardless of the context in which some statements are made. The above article by Clark serves as a case in point. 

While Shrier, the author of the article Clark is quoting above, states that she is reporting on an event based on audio sent to her, we don't get to hear that audio, we only get to hear what she claims the audio said. Furthermore, a review of her book Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters seems to have some factual problems and inadequate research (see  https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/political-minds/202012/new-book-irreversible-damage-is-full-misinformation   ).

And in a Clark article on the case in Finland regarding a form MP facing criminal charges over what she wrote about homosexuality, Clark himself shades the facts and clearly fails to objectively write about all that was involved in the case.

So why quote from an unvetted source? Perhaps it is because that source reported something that Clark wants to believe. I am not saying that what was claimed in the article is not true. I am saying that we have no way of confirming the story reported by Shrier.

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

Nov 29

To R. Scott Clark and Joy Pullman, whose article he quotes in his blog article on on how the criminal charges on Päivi Räsänen in Finland for for possible hate speech because of her pamphlet on homosexuality. This appeared in Heidelblog.

Joy Pullman's article can be found at:

https://thefederalist.com/2021/11/23/in-case-with-global-implications-finland-puts-christians-on-trial-for-their-faith/

Päivi Räsänen's booklet on homosexuality can be found at:

https://www.lhpk.fi/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Male-and-female-He-created-them.pdf

One has to wonder why Joy Pullman spins this story the way she does and why Clark quotes her. Päivi Räsänen's commenting  on homosexuality goes way beyond what the Scriptures say about it. Her pamphlet on it says the following (see  https://www.lhpk.fi/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Male-and-female-He-created-them.pdf   ):

Ultimately, the issue is one of whether homosexuality is a neutral state of being or a negative developmental disorder from the person's own viewpoint. If the latter option is the case, advocating for homosexual “rights” further harms these. In addition, advocating for homosexual “rights” promotes such a rupture in the values of society that does not at all support human growth towards balanced marital relationships...

The inclination to homosexuality as such is not a characteristic comparable to mental health issues or physical ailments. Instead, the scientific material unequivocally proves that homosexuality is a disorder of psycho-sexual development. Those who claim that homosexuality is a natural “healthy” variety of sexuality nullify the evidentiary value found in family background studies for political reasons. Due to pressure from homosexual activists, political objectives have overridden scientific facts.

Going beyond the current science to claim that science calls homosexuality a disorder, to claim that to advocate for homosexual rights is harmful to these [unclear what 'these' refers to],  is a threat to society, and is a denial of science. And yet, Pullman claims that Päivi Räsänen is being persecuted for her religious and theological statements. Such a claim is not just false, it is disingenuous in the light of what Päivi Räsänen wrote.

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

Dec 1

To Joseph Pearce and his article on how the persecution of the Roman Church during the French Revolution caused those in England to show sympathy and support for many in the Church. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative.

Why is it that the atrocities committed against the Roman Church by those leading the French Revolution are reported without any context. Not that that context would justify the atrocities, but it would provide an understanding of those atrocities that could spare us the repeating of history. We should note that before the Revolution, the Church sided with the aristocracy in passing laws that kept giving more power to those at top and taking more hard-earned wealth from the peasant class in France. 

This theme of the Church siding with wealth and power has since been repeated too many times with similar enough, though certainly not identical, results in the pre-revolutionary times of 2 other nations: Russia  and Spain. Here we should note that in Russia, it was the Orthodox Church that sided with the Tsar and the Capitalists who were causing great hardships for the Russian people. Similarly, in Spain, the Church sided with wealth and power both before and after its revolution and thus was too closely associated with  oppressive powers so that many saw the Church as being part of the problem.

We are seeing at least a partial replay of that here as the dominant branch of the Church, evangelicals, have aligned themselves with power and wealth by supporting Republican candidates, in particular, who follow Trump. The Church is already seen as being anti-science with some of its other stands, in particular with those stands on vaccines and the pandemic along with its stands on climate change.

The lesson from the French Revolution for the Church should be to be careful with whom and for what we associate the Church or the reputation of the Gospel can be  significantly tarnished and the Church can suffer unnecessary persecutions. That message applies to us individual Christians as well as to the Church because we so often fail to follow God in both how we exercise self-control and treat others.

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

Dec 2

To W. Robert Godfrey and his church school lesson on how the rejection of Christendom has influenced the world we now live in. This appeared on Abounding Grace Radio.

https://agradio.org/whats-going-on-right-now-sex-race-politics-power-with-dr-w-robert-godfrey-5

I found this lecture to be problematic. It is so because its view of history and the conflict between freedom and nature demonstrated a very narrow view of history. What was mentioned merely in passing, which is Christianity being defined by the actions of Christians, does not give adequate weight to reasons why people sought to replace Christendom.

Besides the fact that we see no justification from the New Testament for establishing Christendom, by not giving adequate weight to the failures of Christianity, which is, again, being defined by the actions of Christians, the new religion, as Godfrey describes it, of freedom in contrast to nature forgets that the main conflicts were over the Church siding with wealth and power.

If we take the French Revolution for example, was the brutal rejection of the Church because those who were seeking to overthrow the rule of the aristocracy were rejecting nature? If so, then wouldn't that imply that the rule of the aristocracy was justified? Or was the rejection of the Church because the Church had sided with wealth in power? Isn't it understandable, though not justified, to see that violent rejection of the Church as being the result of the Church's enabling of and support for oppression by those with wealth and power?

When Marx and Lenin described religion as being the 'opiate of the people,' was that because they were rejecting nature or was it because they saw that Christianity, as represented by the dominant branch of the Church then and there, was at least passively supporting wealth and power by refusing to speak out in behalf of the workers and others who greatly suffered because of the economic conditions forced on the people by those with wealth and power? And what should we say about the pre-revolutionary times of Spain?

Here in America, how much of Christianity supported white supremacy via slavery, Jim Crow, and the still remaining systemic racism? How is it that so many Christians felt entitled to take land from Native Americans? And that doesn't include the foreign wars we fought. Was their support of white supremacy and denial of freedom to people of color because they were in tune with nature?

Or look at the conquest of South and Central America by the Spanish who acted, in part, in the name of the Church? Look at the European imperialism and colonialism that spread throughout the world. Look at how many in the Church supported the oppression of workers during the Industrial Age.

So how is it that it was the conflict between freedom and nature that drove the overthrow of Christendom?

Finally, Godfrey's discussion on transgenderism neglects to mention that some Native American tribes recognized up to 5 genders? How is it that Godfrey reduces nature to what is visible on the outside without considering what nature is saying on the inside to those people? Is it really freedom that is driving transgenderism or is gender identity more complex than being determined just by one's biological sex? After all, isn't one's biological sex a physical construct while gender identity is a social construct?

Godfrey's analysis of what is going on here and now especially with regards to the overthrow of Christendom simply needs a wider perspective than what can be seen by Christian Traditionalists. And with that must come a fuller appreciation of the long history of failures of Christianity with Christianity then being defined by the actions and behaviors of Christians.

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

Dec 3

To John Hornet and his article that calls Biden's infrastructure bills Marxist and contrasts that with what Christianity calls for. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

https://theimaginativeconservative.org/2021/11/marxist-worldview-behind-spending-bill-john-horvat.html

Horvat not only misunderstands the purpose of the infrastructure spending bills, he completely misunderstands Marxism and thus wrongly associates the infrastructure bills with Marxism.

Marxism is first about the redistribution of power. Without that, who's spending what on whom and/or what is unrelated. Marx wanted to see a total transfer of power from the Bourgeoisie to the Proletariat. That transfer of power was to be both political and in the workplace. Unless that transfer of power occurs, the Bourgeoisie would continue to see labor power as a commodity and thus those who supplied that labor power as disposable objects for profit for the benefit of the Bourgeoisie.  That has subjected workers to massive abuse and exploitation. And while Marx was completely correct in that analysis and wanting a transfer of power to the proletariat, he was wrong in wanting the '<b>total</b>' nature of that transfer.

Also, Marxism doesn't have a monopoly on materialism; other systems, like our very own Capitalism, also lay claim to materialism. Thus to claim that Biden's infrastructure bills are Marxist without a thorough  examination is to use "Marxism' as a pejorative label.

But what are the infrastructure bills about? Are they utopian in vision or do they come from a realism. After all, it is realism that says that part of maintaining the economy is to maintain and even update the nation's infrastructure. In addition, to brush aside the material needs of the people by crying 'Marxism,' including Marx's utopian goals, is to bluntly ignore the material needs of many people  who have been economically marginalized by our current economic system. To borrow and adapt a situation described in one of the epistles, to brush aside the material needs of those in need in the way Hornet does in the above article is to see a person in need and say to them: '<b>be warm by pulling yourself up by your bootstraps or by dying and going to heaven</b>.' Trying to provide for people's basic needs is not utopian; rather, it is compassionate realism. Only the privileged can engage in the Marie-Antoinettse-speak that is suggested by Horvat's  'Christian' view of things.

There is a reasonable reason why Hornet writes against  Biden's infrastructure bills. That reasonable reason revolves around who is to pay for Biden's infrastructure bills. Are they to be paid for by increasing the deficit or by increasing taxes on the wealthy. Considering that the wealthy don't seem to mind increases in the deficit if that means that they get to pay less and less in taxes, a reduction in operating costs, or increased business with the federal government,  We see that when unfunded wars and spikes in the defense budget benefits the Military Industrial Complex, when Medicare is refused the opportunity to negotiate with the Pharmaceutical companies, or when taxes and regulations are cut on big  business. So where are Horvat's concerns about the deficit when that occurs?

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

Dec 6

To Gene Veith and his article distinguishing the conservative approach to human rights from the progressive approach to human rights. This appeared in the Cranach blog on pathos.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/geneveith/2021/12/do-rights-limit-or-empower-the-government/

Unfortunately, exclusive-or, or black-white thinking is deeply woven in Veith's article. For according to Veith, rights are about either limiting gov't or giving people entitlements, but not some kind of combination of both. It is basically the light beer commercial approach to human rights.

The problem with the conservative view of rights is overwhelmingly obvious, what the Federal gov't is forbidden to do to its people, at least the powerful private sector elites and, perhaps, even regional or local gov'ts are allowed to do. So in essence, there is no freedom of speech, religion, assembly or the press so long as the Federal gov't isn't the party that is infringing on those freedoms. For our rights are not about how we are deserve to be treated by others, our rights are purely about what limits the federal gov't can put on us. That is why the first 10 amendments are more popularly known as the Bill of Limits. For so as long as the Federal gov't doesn't infringe in those areas, then there is no foul.

Of course, that principle is not consistently carried out by conservatives and that is shown by their interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. For now, neither the state nor local gov'ts are allowed to limit the right to bear arms. In fact, if that approach is taken literally, private sector businesses should not have the ability to prohibit the carrying of any kind guns or weapons on their properties. So look out shopping malls, here they, that is guns, come. Maybe I will do all of my shopping through amazon. Freedom of religion laws also show the inconsistency to this approach.

Of course, the real problem with the conservative approach to rights is that it is reductionistic. Though they call what the amendments talk about 'rights,' or what we owe others, they are not rights at all. They are not what people owed because they are people. And that is fairly consistent with part of the mindset of the writers of The Constitution. Why? It is because that document was written in response to widespread dissent over economic conditions and Shays Rebellion by those who felt threatened in those times: the then financial elites of America. And, ironically, The Constitution, for all of the limits it put on the federal gov't, strengthened to federal gov't's ability to respond and suppress insurrection and rebellions. In addition, The Constitution originally distanced the Senate from any popular pressure from the vast minority who were allowed to vote.

So what good is the right to life, which is not in The Constitution, when economic conditions don't lend themselves to people being able to make a living for themselves and their families? And why aren't we considering the background of the writers of The Constitution when talking about rights here? Most of those involved were slaveholders and bondholders. Most were financial elites at the time. Do we see why they wanted limits on the federal gov't?

Both the historical context of The Constitution and today's events make it clear that some conservative approaches to human rights limits only what the federal gov't can do but seem to allow or even promote the notion of local gov'ts or private sector elites ignoring our rights and ruling over us. And to think that such conservatives balk at the mention that conservatism has a penchant for authoritarianism.

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

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For March 25, 2020

March 18
To Joseph Pearce and his blogpost that blames the Coronavirus pandemic on progressives for what he sees as their implementation of globalism. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog

The virus has spread for multiple reasons. One is our global connections. To blame globalism here is like blaming one's car for breaking. After all, when there is no car, it can't break--but then again, it can't help us either. So some globalism is a necessity.  In addition, another reason for the spread of the virus is what was happening within the boundaries of some nations. Thus we can't scapegoat globalism for the pandemic.

The main problem with the spread of the virus  is alluded to too concretely in the article because Pearce was too busy blaming progressives. The main problem is having unnecessary black-white views of the world. Black-white thinking can only see globalism as something that swallows national sovereignty or it can only see  national sovereignty as something that ignores both international cooperation and the international rule of law. We should note that people from all ideologies employ such thinking, it isn't just progressives. The antonym to such thinking can be seen in Martin Luther King's Jr. comparison of capitalism with communism. He didn't pick one side or the other despite his sharp criticisms of Soviet Union communism as well as Marx. Rather he saw legitimacy and peril on both sides. He saw that life was both individual and and social whereas capitalism and communism each saw life as being only one of those traits.

If anything, it is neither globalism or nationalism--or even progressives--that should receive the focus here. It is our tendency to unnecessarily employ black-white thinking when interpreting problems and their solutions which should be challenged with how we think of globalism and nationalism as working examples. rather than progressives and globalism per se.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

March 20

To Kyle Grow, a Westminster Seminary student, and his guest blogpost about the necessity of good works from the perspective of the Heidelberg Catechism and Ursinus’s writings on the necessity of good works.. his appeared in R. Scott Clark’s Heidelblog.

Besides the fact that the writer is spending more time exegeting Reformed traditional writings, in particular those of Ursinus, than the Scriptures, the issue of elevating those writings is an illustration of why Traditionalists provide a mirror image of Narcissists. Both elevate designated time periods over all others as if to say that those in those chosen time period(s) have everything to teach and nothing to learn from the rest. For Traditionalists, one or more past time periods are elevated over all other time periods. And then this elevation is promoted in such a way so that its "influence" (a.k.a., control) over our thinking and behaviors is solidified. This shows the penchant Traditionalists have for authoritarianism. And verbal illustrations of that authoritarianism is easily found in many of the sources for those traditions, such as in Calvin and Luther, when they deal with dissent.

Narcissists elevate the present over the past in ways that say that their heroes have everything to teach those in the past and nothing to learn from them. They assume that they have nothing to learn from the past. As a result, there is no value in learning from the past. It is the present that holds the ultimate in human learning. Of course how could one prove that claim without fairly comparing what is said today with the past?

So it isn't the mere quoting of our traditions that is wrong, it is the exclusive quoting of them  that shows how Traditionalists are more similar to Narcissists than they care to admit. It is from that perspective that I think that the article could have made its desired point much more strongly if it dared to use references from the present in addition to particular circles from the past. For one has to wonder whether Kyle Grow's  focus in the article is on the subject of the necessity of good works from a Scriptural point of view or is it on the traditions and the people who provided those traditions. And if his focus is on the latter, what makes this work less man-centered than the present culture about which Grow is complaining about?

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For August 28, 2019

Aug 27

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost quote of his article that criticizes the San Francisco Board of Supervisors for passing a non-binding resolution that changes how they have relabeled those on parole, those who have finished their criminal sentences, and juvenile delinquents. Clark laments that labels now used could be replaced by labels that are too soft and show that the Board is redefining sin. This appeared in Heidelblog and the Amazing Grace Radio website.
 
Also see
https://www.agradio.org/god-does-not-re-define-sin-or-righteousness.html

Though it is obvious that almost every crime is an instance of sin, what the San Francisco Board of Supervisors are trying to address is crime, not sin. To be specific, they are referring to how we should label those who have criminal records. And they are addressing that because they want to aid those who have paid their debt to society, those in society, and juvenile delinquents to succeed in society. And since labels have been used to inhibit people from living normal lives in society, here we could refer to labels used by bigots, the Board of Directors want to change those labels. The Board of Directors doesn't want those who have paid their debt to society to serve life sentences with overly harsh labels. They want to increase the odds that those who have had run-ins with the law will not return to committing crimes.

If what the Board of Directors advocated was addressing sin, then they would change the labels used on both those who have always kept the law and those who have not. And sinning is what those who have never been convicted of a crime have in common with those who have.
In addition, all crimes occur in a context. The life of the criminal before he/she commits a crime is a substantial part of the context of their crime. To deny that is to assert that the individual is solely responsible for a given crime. And to attribute to the individual sole responsibility for committing a crime is to imply the moral superiority of those who have never committed crimes over those who have and such is the real denial of sin that appears in the above article as well as a denial of reality.

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

To Joseph Pearce and his blogpost about what makes a good education. In the article he claimed that a good education must revolve around Christ. Therefore, secular education can never provide a good education while Christian education can. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

The above article apparently ranks secular education below Christian education because while the former does not  revolve its studies around Christ, the latter does  But history and the present beg to differ as to which side offers a good education.
We might start with the debate over heliocentricism vs. geocentrism. While a few outside the Church, not just the Roman Church, said that the earth revolves around the sun, those whose education was centered on Christ disagreed. Now we know that the Church was wrong. But that brings up the following question: What else has the Church been wrong on?

The Roman Church was wrong to support the Nazis simply  out of opposition to the Communists. In the pre-revolutionary times in France, Russia, and Spain, the dominant branch of the Church supported those with wealth and power. Where was truth then?

Then came the debate on evolution. While the Church initially tried to reject everything about evolution, we found that such a rejection was wrong. So is accepting everything about evolution as well. And now that climate change has become a hot topic, we find a substantial part of the Church trying to deny what science has said about our world. That we now have man-induced climate change and our survival depends on our willingness to change.
Why we don't want to change is that adjusting for climate change implies that we significantly  change both our way of life and our way of doing business. And too many in the Church have tried to deny the science behind climate change because they have sided with wealth and power and too many with wealth and power don't want to change the business-wise good thing they have going.
Because of the associations made above between a good education and Christ, the above article is telling us that a good education must be a Christian education. But history shows that to be not necessarily true since the Church has had too many other loyalties to sometimes care about what is truth.

And there is something else that History teaches that many in the Church might disagree with. The Church does not always effective teach people how to be good. In fact, Romans 2  points out that the judgmental religious person can be put to shame as the unbeliever who follows his/her conscience can outperform them in doing good.

We could go to American history and see how many in the Church believed in and promoted white supremacy whether it was manifest in the guise of slavery or Jim Crow.
And in addition to that, Church history with its authoritarian leaders, intolerance of others, and religious wars has shown that quite often, the Church is the last place we should consider to go to in order to learn how to be good.