Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For February 1, 2017

Jan 26

To Tim Keller and his blogpost article on people preferring chosen faiths over the churches of their fathers. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.

Certainly, the Church has, at times, challenged the status quo in some ways. But I fail to see the evidence that it has done this across the board. This is especially true when it comes to economics and politics. Regarding economics, religiously conservative Christianity has more often than not supported the rule of wealth and that often comes with supporting tyranny. One only needs to note the prerevolutionary times of France, Spain, and Russia along with the coups in in Guatemala (1954) and Chile (1973) to see a positive correlation between religiously conservative Christianity and support for wealth and the acceptance of tyranny. Then we should note that religiously conservative Protestants in America have aligned themselves with private sector wealth for a while. This can be seen in their voting patterns especially with the election of Donald Trump.

While religiously conservative Christians have come around in greater and greater numbers to confront racism, it wasn't always that way. But it is more in vogue now. And for that part of the status quo, what Keller writes about the Church challenging the status quo has some degree of truth to it. However, there is no challenge to the economic structures on which the status quo in America rests by large numbers of religiously conservative Christians. So now, conservative Protestants in America are doing what their brothers and sisters have done in the Orthodox and Roman churches in other parts of the world.

As Keller isolates the variable for church growth to chosen faith over inherited faith, as the two swap places, then we should expect a vacillation in growth between established protestant denominations and the less liturgical evangelicalism and pentacostal denominations as time goes on.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jan 27

To Kyle Hanby and his blogpost that reviews an article by Samuel Gregg on the history of the progressive movement. This appeared in the Acton blog.

Certainly progressives have their dark places in history. But how does that distinguish them from other groups? Don't all groups have their own skeletons in the closet?

But also, though stated, there is a lack of emphasis distinguishing today's progressives from yesteryear. This allows for people to conflate the two.

And finally, there should be a distinction made between the Left and progressives. For we should note that the Left has had their share complaints about progressives as well. And those complaints started with then President Wilson's jailing of Eugene Debs for his opposition to  the US entering WW I. In the meantime, the Left has also complained about how progressives, like conservatives, preferred elite-centered rule and how progressives have abandoned representing the working class.

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

To Rev Ben Johnson and his blogpost that defends high CEO pay because it gives CEOs incentive to work harder. This appeared in the Acton blog.

If we want to look at disincentives to work, we should look at the exorbitantly large salaries and severance packages CEOs are offered before they start working. Regardless of performance, CEOs are so well paid that any additional pay related to performance begins to become meaningless or is meaningful only in terms of some CEOs keeping up with other CEOs. In the meantime, if the defense for unlimited CEO pay was applied to all workers, we wouldn't need a minimum wage. But we need a minimum wage because businesses can't always offer pay incentive for all workers because of what is paid to CEOs and investors. If all workers were given pay incentives, the overhead costs would take away from CEO pay the investors' desired ROI.

This article is nothing more than a rationalization for maintaining or even increasing the disparity between the highest paid employees and the lowest paid employees. We should note that CEOs often make hundreds of percent more pay than the lowest paid employee. In the meantime, what the lowest paid employees do often brings in the actual cash into the business. Food service companies, for example, are an excellent example where the lowest paid employees are the ones whose work brings money into the company through their labor but are some of the lowest paid of employees.

It seems that this article wants to deny the reality that many low paid workers live through because the sky is the limit for the highest paid employees and investors. And it seems that this article celebrates what the scriptures warn against: the love of money.

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

Jan 28

To Stephen Turley and his blogpost claiming that there are “alternative facts.” This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

The jeering response to 'alternative facts' is the result of an accumulation of times when Trump and his campaign have denied what was recorded and observable. Whether it is Trump's demeaning comments made about and even to women along with his claim that no one respects women more than he does or his criticisms about the intelligence community with similar claims about how he regards them. Then he speaks quite a bit about himself while addressing the intelligence community in front of the wall that remembers those agents who were killed in the line of  duty.

What we should notice while observing Trump is how not only does he deny what is observable, but that he too often claims to excel beyond all others in either a character or personal trait or in how he acts toward others as our nation has done about itself too. We might compare that bragging with traits we see in narcissism (see https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/evolution-the-self/201311/6-signs-narcissism-you-may-not-know-about  ). Or Trump's aggression toward those who disagree with him as an authority figure could be compared with what we see in authoritarianism (see  https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sideways-view/201502/the-mind-the-authoritarian ).

It isn't that Trump is the only authoritarian in today's political scene; it is that he and his party have have a tremendous amount of governmental power while displaying too many narcissistic and authoritarian traits for comfort. And what goes for Trump also goes for some of his apologists as they suffer from collective narcissism and authoritarianism. These traits rule out both listening to those who see things differently and collaborating with others. But I guess when one demonizes those from other groups, there is no need to listen to or collaborate with them.

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

Jan 29

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost noting that page Assyrians regarded abortion to be murder. This appeared in Heidelblog.

Having argued for the pro-life position on social media a number of times, I realize that we have do more than just say that abortion is murder. We have to show why that is the case. And while Pro-Choice supporters will focus on who has the right to talk the human status of a a pregnant woman's unborn, I found it useful to respond by trying to focus on the criteria we use to define what is human life. For in focusing on the criteria alone, one could legitimately answer that all of us should be involved in the discussion of what is human life but that discussion involves all of us.

In addition, to allow the pregnant woman who does not want to be pregnant and bear a child to be the sole person who determines what is the human status of the unborn inside her, I point out that there exists a conflict of interest for the pregnant women to decide since what she may want can be at odds with the result of determining the human status of her unborn.

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

Jan 30

To Joe Carter and his blogpost that provides some overall information on Trump’s ban on immigrants and refugees who come from certain nations. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.

And yet the nations involved in the ban were not the nations from which those in some terrorist attacks on the US have come. Not on the list are the nations from which the 9/11 attackers came nor the foreign born San Bernardino shooter. As for whether Muslims were targeted by the ban, we might ask if Trump had banned Israelis from entering the US, would that would be considered a ban on Jews from entering our country?

There is no problem with reviewing previous immigration and refugee limits. But one does not need to ban people from so many Muslim nations to do so. And though I disagree with the ban Obama established in 2011, it was sparked by the discovery  of 2 Al Qaeda members who emigrated to the US from the nation banned, Iraq. Was there any  such discovery on Trump's part of people who had entered our country?

There is one more point to make. Most of the nations listed in Trump's ban are nations that have been on the receiving end of US military attacks. Should we consider whether there is a link between our foreign policies and terrorism?

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For December 14, 2016

Dec 6

To R. Scott Clark and his short blogpost quote from Todd Pruitt who dismissed concerns over the tone used when Christians argue over the Trinity. This appeared in Heidelblog.

But the concern over tone succeeds in one area: concern over Christians bearing the fruit of the Spirit. We should note that the alternative to bearing the fruit of the Spirit is to produce the works of the flesh. And a question about our past is whether we will be passive authoritarians when reviewing how the first reformers fought over doctrine or will we be willing to objectively look and criticize not that they fought, but how they fought?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dec 8

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost that contained a short video clip of an Admiral comparing the troops they were honoring on Pearl Harbor Day with Colin Kaepernick’s taking a knee during the playing of the national anthem. This appeared in Heidelblog.

I am sure that what the Admiral said struck a deep emotional chord in conservative authoritarian types. What the Admiral failed to add is that none of the service men and women they were honoring publicly criticized the President either. Does that mean that we civilians should not publicly criticize our President?

What I believe many conservatives are really afraid of doing is to admit that the country and flag they love so dearly has not meant the same to all people of color as it has to them. Our country and flag has certainly not meant the same to many Native Americans as has to those conservatives. Neither has our nation and flag meant the same to all Blacks as it has to those conservatives. But since the Admiral is noting the difference between the service men and women he was honoring and Colin Kaepernick, we should note a similarity between the two. Just as it took courage to stand and fight against the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor 75 years ago, it took courage for Kaepernick to take a stand by taking a knee for the sake of those Blacks who still suffer significantly from the racism that continues to plague our nation. It would be much easier, and thus not require any courage, for Kaepernick to hide his convictions by conforming and standing for the national anthem. But he didn't and just like staying and fighting left our troops at Pearl Harbor vulnerable to the Japanese attack, so did Kaepernick's taking a knee left himself vulnerable to public scorn. And he continues to do that.

And we should note that when we are required to stand and salute the flag in some way, shape, or form at the playing of the national anthem or face scorn, then we are participating in a religious ceremony. The religion is patriotism and the god is our collective selves. And we should remember that authoritarian types are sensitive and become aggressive toward those who do not worship the same gods they do. Rather than pray in a closet, they prefer to wear their religion on their sleeves. But, and Christians should know this best, patriotism is a false religion. And we have often practiced or condoned some of the greatest injustices in history in the name of patriotism. We should also note that patriotism makes polytheists out of Christians--that is if consumerism hasn't done that already.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dec 10

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost quoting of Carl Trueman who stated that those who are followers of the Reformation should imitate the polemic style of the Reformers. This appeared in Heidelblog.

We should note something else about the Reformers if we wish to be their real followers. They were anti-Semites some of who worked so that the Jews would be punished by society for their unbelief. In addition, some sought to persecute and sometimes even kill Anabaptists. Witches and heretics were persecuted, prosecuted and executed as were adulterers. Should we pass laws that punish people for failing to attend church on Sundays?

When we strive to employ 'powerfully worded polemics,' as the Reformers did, are we bearing the fruit of the Spirit or are we seeking to embrace the same kind of authoritarian personality types that some of the Reformers had/suffered from? Is this seeking to emulate the Reformers in how they conducted polemics merely an attempt to rationalize the undoing of the shackles of self-restraint and conscience? And if so, are we asking if we should thus become Christianized versions of Donald Trump when he throws caution to the wind when answering his opponents?

So if we wish to be followers of the Reformation, should we seek to emulate how the Reformers treated people including what was listed above, or should we examine their actions, including the way they engaged in polemics, and use the Scriptures to judge them? Do all of the actions of the Reformers become canon law for us and thus equate what they did with what is taught in the Scriptures or are the Scriptures the only canon we use so that we would just both the Reformers and ourselves?

Remember that how we treat fellow believers is how we treat those for whom Christ died. We should also note how the Pharisees treated people in Jesus' day and compare that with how the Reformers treated people lest we replicate the sins of the Reformers--that is if they committed sins. 

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

To Mark Tooley and his blogpost that calls Evangelicals to develop a ‘public theology’ in the face of 2016 Presidential campaign. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition.

There are many good observations here regarding what appealed to the different groups. And the warning against political hubris is always important. But why must we Christians be forever aligned with the Republican Party? Yes, we need a public theology. But why assume that the Republican Party is seeking the common good when it surpasses the Democratic Party in serving the avarice and ambitions of those with wealth and power?

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

Dec 11

To Pat Buchanan and his blogpost on what the Trump election ushers in. He particularly focuses on the rejection of what science says about climate change and a new embracing of national identity the revolves around preserving wealth and demographics. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative.

The most telling part of Buchanan's article here says:

Their worry is not that the rising waters of the Med will swamp the Riviera, but that tens of millions of Arabs, Muslims and Africans may be coming across to swamp Europe, and that millions of Mexicans may cross the Rio Grande to swamp the USA.

Call them climate deniers or climate skeptics, but they see the establishment as running the Big Con to effect a transfer of wealth and power away from the people—and to themselves. Across the West, establishments have lost credibility. The proliferation of minority parties, tearing off pieces of the traditional ruling parties, points to a growing distrust in ruling regimes and a return to identifying with the nation and tribe whence one came.

A concomitant of this is a growing disbelief in egalitarianism and in the equality of all races, creeds, nations, cultures and peoples. The Supreme Court may say all religions are equal and all must be treated equally. But do Americans believe Christianity and Islam are equal? How could they, when Christians claim their faith has as its founder the Son of God and God himself?

We should list the areas of concern and disinterest. The areas of concern include a mass influx of people of color and the loss of wealth by those who live in the richest nations in the world. What is of disinterest is the scientific view of climate change, the evidence of which is more than adequate for over 95% of the world's scientists and its effects can be seen by untrained observers. So Buchanan complains that the conservatives who don't want to lose their wealth or see a significant change in the racial demographics of the nation but will ignore the warnings of science on climate change are not counted as intellectuals? In addition, what follows these concerns and loss of interest is a rejection of the equality of the races as well as creeds, nations, and cultures.

Before commenting, let's make one correction here. Americans never believed in the equality of nations. Whether they be liberals or conservatives, American political leaders, as well as vast majority of the people, believe in American Exceptionalism. Manifest destiny was built on American Exceptionalism and American Exceptionalism back then was an exercise in violent racism. And our politicians, whether liberal or conservative, have always put America first. They have just done so from different perspectives.
What causes despair here is that what follows the kind of concern for controlling wealth and who lives in our neighborhood as well as the rejection of what science says on climate change are not expressed as lamentations and with the blues. If we time warp Buchanan some 50 to 100 years in the future, would we see him showing no dismay at European immigration into the US while grieving over the immigration of people of color of other nations while he shows no concern for America's indigenous people? At this point, has Buchanan lost what the Scriptures teach about the love of wealth and how in Christ there is no Greek or Jew and that all people are made in the image of God? Doesn't Buchanan see that comes with this growing tribalism is an ever growing passionate embrace of moral relativity? And all of this is to be accepted in order for him to cling ever more tightly to what is needed to preserve his idea of America. And if Pat was to make a movie on the above narrative, he would call it Liberalism Must Die.

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

Dec 12

To K.A. Ellis and her blogpost about the need for Christians to transcend the loyalty they have to the groups they belong to in order to be fair in judging others and consistent in promoting causes and values. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.

It would be beneficial to understand what we are being called to transcend here. It is called tribalism. It occurs on a continuum as our loyalty to any group increases. The more that loyalty increases, the more it takes precedence over our commitment to absolute moral values and principles. The end result is that we gradually embrace a moral relativity that says what is right and wrong depends on who does what to whom.

We should also consider whether we are being asked to transcend authoritarianism because tribalism employs a kind of authoritarianism. Tribalism involves group authoritarianism where disagreeing with or even criticizing a group bring the same results as disagreeing with or criticizing a hero or authority figure. Here black-white thinking is involved because any disagreement or criticism is seen as total rejection or an aggressive attack on that person and all of that person's ideas. Thus, a call to transcendence includes a call to use nuance.

If we can see how we must transcend tribalism and authoritarianism, then some of the brilliant lines written by Ellis will make more sense. My favorite line is:

In other words, the seemingly opposed parties of “family values” and “social justice” tend to apply concern only to their defining issues. One would expect the same conservative Christians concerned over the global rise of Marxist views and methods to also speak up against the global rise of Alt-Right extremism, considering the similar historical record of both ideologies. One would expect progressive Christian voices to do the same in reverse.

And though that is my favorite part of the article, I should note that it is a bit unfair to Marxist views since Marxism is far from being a monolith. I say that as someone who has is a Marxist but disagrees with some of what both Marx and some of his followers say. And that makes me wonder if there are any who feel an affinity to the Alt-Right who could say something similar about their group and themselves. For here we should note that the use of labels encourages the use of Black-White thinking.

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

Dec 13

To Kyle Hanby and his blogpost that criticizes the tax breaks that Carrier is receiving to keep jobs in America as cronyism. This appeared in the Acton blog.


There are bigger problem with the Carrier deal than it fitting someone's definition of crony capitalism. Those problems have to do with business's social responsibilities and, in particular, the tax burden. The less businesses pay in taxes, the more the tax burden is shifted to private citizens especially the workers. And the problem here is that those who benefit most from tax funded services are the owners because they are the ones who profit the most from their business. But in reducing what they must taxes, we are either increasing deficits and/or making those who have less in financial resources pay for goods and services that help owners profit from their business.
What is missed in automatically calling subsidies and tax breaks 'cronyism' is determining whether there is favoritism. The above use of the term 'cronyism' is from a "free" enterprise perspective just as much as from Sanders' position, the deal with Carrier is not saving enough jobs or from Ryan's position that it is good to save those jobs. Free Enterprise means freedom from government control and some include with freedom from taxes. But that free enterprise, when compelled under the threat that companies will move their business operations, is free for the enterprise but forced on the public. Such is a form of extortion. And this is the problem with the analysis above. Just as the shifting burden is not included in analyzing the Carrier deal, looking at the effects on the general public of reducing or eliminating business's social responsibilities and public accountability that come through government controls including taxes is not included when talking about free enterprise.

Are there times when subsidies and tax breaks are not instances of cronyism? If such measures primarily serve the general public rather than the private good of selected individuals, yes. What is missed above is the necessity of favoritism in any subsidies or tax breaks that are implemented. In fact, without sufficient government controls over wages, the free enterprise aspect of inadequate minimum wage requirements necessitates the use of tax funded payroll subsidies through government assistance programs. And when this is employed primarily for the private good of owners, we have free enterprise and cronyism working hand-in-hand.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For December 7, 2016

Nov 30

To Mike Edmonson and his blogpost on Evangelicalism’s 4 unique perspectives on politics. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website

Christianity does not revolve around our own uniqueness, it revolves around the uniqueness of Christ and the Gospel. To focus on our own uniqueness merely imitates those from any other group where tribalism is strong. To show this, all we need to consider is the concept of American Exceptionalism and how people from other nations have also seen their own nations as being exceptional.

Another way of showing that our uniqueness is not unique is to look at each of the 4 perspectives on politics and show that they are not unique. Take the first perspective, which is our governmental perspective, for example:

Although elections are important, as believers we uniquely understand that elections are not ultimate.

Sorry but Howard Zinn made an activist career of putting elections and their leaders in their place. Anarchism and bottom-up forms of Socialism also regard elections as not being ultimate.

On the other hand, the belief that elections are ultimate in that we depend too much on our elected leaders to manage the government while we tend to our own business is a mark of embracing an authoritarian relationship with the government. And guess which institution is one of the greatest teachers on authoritarianism is. It is the Church where most of our relationships with others and God use authority figures as a center part of each relationship.

Take the second perspective, which is our moral perspective, as another example:

Wealthy business-owning American citizens baptized in Christ, for example, must deeply consider the practical wellbeing of the undocumented migrant worker and refugee also baptized in Christ. Christian civil engagement is not fundamentally self-interested.

Hate to bust Edmondson's bubble here but Socialists have him beat. For Socialists are not just concerned for the well-being of Christian migrant workers and refugees, they are concerned for all migrant workers and refugees. What Edomondson seems unaware of is that he is replacing self-interest with tribal interest. And what group, where tribalism is present, is not concerned with all of its members?

As for the third perspective which is our perspective on pain:

One of the most significant distinctions we have as God’s people is our compassion for the distressed. Deuteronomy 10:18 says God “executes justice for the fatherless and the widow, and loves the sojourner, giving him food and clothing” (see also Exod. 22:22–23; Deut. 27:19; 2 Chron. 19:7; Ps. 68:5; and Ps. 146:9). Throughout Scripture, the Lord makes himself known through his practical care and concern for the most vulnerable and distressed

Here we need to compare how those in a Christian nation, especially Christians who tend to be politically conservative, with those from other nations. Until its Civil War, Syria was one of the leading nations in caring for refugees. Ironically here, most of the refugees whom Syrians took care of became refugees as a result of America's invasion of Iraq. Currently Jordan is one of the world's leaders in taking in and caring for refugees. As for Christian America, we only need to look at its political conservatives, who have more than their fair share of religiously conservative Christians, and their position on taking in refugees. That is because their position is not very good and this is especially evident by the support conservative Christians gave to Donald Trump in the election. There is no need here to mention Trump's views on immigration or the Republican Party's opposition to societal safety nets.

As for the forth perspective, if the beliefs expressed there were so strongly held, why did the majority of religiously conservative Christians vote for a candidate like Donald Trump? Issues like controlling immigration, changing the Supreme Court, and wanting to make America great again were reasons that greatly influence Christian voters.

Again, pointing our uniqueness as a way of proving Christianity to either ourselves or others is problematic. It is flawed because as people, we are not always as unique as we perceive ourselves to be or should  be. And once our lack of uniqueness is outed, our credibility as witnesses for Christ is greatly damaged.


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

To Jason Baxter and his blogpost about what the humanities can contribute to the modern world in the light of how our politicians are trying to make education more of a tech school experience. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

Every time I read a conservative reference to the founding fathers which describes them as trying to limit government's power, I wonder if such conservatives have heard of decontextualization. That is because The Constitution was written with the intention of strengthening government power so that the Federal government could, in the future, better respond future insurrections. And the point of being better prepared to handle future insurrections was to maintain the status quo for the sake of the bondholders and the landowners and slaveholders where wealth was consolidated at that time. The then current insurrection that prompted the writing of that document was Shays Rebellion.  And all one has to do to realize that The Constitution was written to strengthen the federal government's power is to look up all of the references made to the militia. For the militia was to be armed and trained with funds from Congress and was to be under the command of the President. And one of the state purposes of the militia was to put down insurrections.

Furthermore, with the powers granted to the Senate, we should note how Senators originally received their office. They were appointed by their respective state legislators. That, along with their term in office, made Senators pretty much immune to popular opinion and with good reason. In arguing for the length of a Senator's term, it was Madison who said that the purpose of government was to 'protect the minority of the opulent from the majority.'

Along with the fact that only White, male, property owners could vote when The Constitution was ratified, we see a government that is as not limited as conservatives want to portray it. In fact, since The Constitution was written to preserve the status quo for the sake of America's own elites, Baxter's statement that Rubio and Walker are closer to Clinton than to our nation's founding fathers is a bit more problematic than Baxter realizes. For in that Walker, Rubio, and Clinton are striving to preserve a status quo that serves those with wealth and power, they are all in fact following in the footsteps of the majority of those who wrote The Constitution.

Thus, their, that is Walker, Rubio, and Clinton, wanting education to serve the welfare of the money-interests is in line with the intentions of our founding fathers. And so there is a certain irony when Baxter uses our nation's founding fathers to challenge the current deemphasis on the humanities in education. Baxter is completely correct in challenging the current emphasis on technology. He just does so from the wrong basis.

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

Dec 3

To Greg Forster and his blogpost that describes both America’s signs of death and its signs for hope. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.

I heartily agree with much, though not all,  of the description of the problem. The solution, however, is problematic. But there is also a problem with the description of the problem. The problem with the description of the problem is that it doesn't tie together the similarities between what Hillary was offering and what Trump was offering.  Those similarities could be described with two labels: neoliberalism and neoconservatism.  Yes, their versions of both were different, but the general direction was the same.  With neoliberalism, both wanted to cut big businesses' social responsibilities and give them free reign in society. Hillary wanted to do that on the global scene with open markets and free trade; Trump wanted to do that on the domestic scene by reducing taxes and regulations. This somewhat illustrates why their versions of neoliberalism are different. While the Repubs want an express train to corporate rule, the Dems want a local train that offers amenities. But in the end, they destination is the same. After all, how different is Trump's promise to reduce regulations from trade agreements like the TPP that allow corporations to sue governments for any financial losses incurred by the laws a government passes? And yet, open markets would  rely on trade agreements like the TPP. And both Hilary and Trump have expressed the same concern over these agreements: it is American jobs not this corporate control. Plus, we also have to realize that with the presence of foreign investors, we really don't have any true American big businesses anymore

As for their shared neoconservative leanings, the only real difference between Hillary's and Trump's view of America's leadership in the world is that Trump wants America's allies to pay protection money for its military services and presence.  Plus we also have to ask ourselves why a free world needs a leader? For if the free world has a leader, is it truly free?

Despite missing their similarities, the  identification of battle between technocrats vs tribalists has much merit. But we also have to realize that patriotism is an exercise in tribalism as well. So if we are going to complain about Trump's economic nationalism, which is something not necessarily mentioned here, or his other forms of tribalism we have to complain about our military tribalism as expressed in patriotism as well. And we need to accurately define tribalism in the context of the world we live in. Tribalism is when group loyalty is so high that it trumps, no pun intended,  any commitment to  morals and absolute values. And tribalism can be based on what's listed above as well as ideology and economic class. Thus, we could say that Hillary's favoring of technocrats was a form of tribalism.

The solution resented is problematic for two reasons. First, the Church has, since the time of Constantine, generally stood with and supported wealth and power. Yes, there have been some intramural battles between wealth and power where the Church was split, but it still has, for the most part, stood with wealth and power.  This was true prior to the French, Spanish, and Russian Revolutions as well as  many other modern revolutions. It is most certainly true for the conservative Church in modern America. After all, the conservative Church in modern America was slow to even recognize our nation's problem with racism. And it wasn't the conservative Church that took the lead in battling racism. We should note that King was no conservative Christian theologian. The conservative Church in America, under the banner of patriotism, has been even slower in recognizing the immorality of many of America's wars. And where does the conservative Church stand in relation to unions and workers' relationship with employers? The conservative Church  predominantly supports small gov't and low taxes and few regulations and all of that favors those with wealth. And the conservative Church is not a big supporter of social safety nets because it believes that the Church should be in charge of providing relief and help, not the government.

Or we could go back to what was written in a report called The Crisis of Democracy where the Church is listed, along with the family, schools, and the military as institutions whose job was to teach people how to fit into society and take orders from those with authority. Here it would be helpful to note that that report was the liberal view of the role of the Church which was in response to the radical exercises of democracy during the 1960s. The The Crisis of Democracy called those radical exercises in democracy an 'excess of democracy.'

But it isn't just our history that makes the proposed solution problematic. What the above solution proposes is that the Church must have a place of supremacy in society that is based on the freedom of religion. And this is done by having society look to the Church for its temporal salvation. In such a scheme, where does the LGBT community fit in? And how about those whose suffering is prolonged by the Church's slowness in recognizing their problems just like the conservative Church was slow in recognizing our nation's problem with racism? And how can we call for a public discipleship while the Church shares society with others as equals? And if it doesn't share society with others as equals, then what other position than a place of supremacy does the Church want in society?

Yes, we need to share the Gospel to all. But we have to both acknowledge our past failures and look at how we can share society with all sorts of unbelievers as equals so that if a large number of people become converted, they will not be a part of marginalizing some group like the Church has for all America's history.


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

Dec 4

To Kyle Hanby and his blogpost that cites an article by Samuel Gregg which claims that protectionism is bad for us in the long run. This appears in the Acton blog.

Link for the article cited: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2016/1201/Can-economic-nationalism-keep-more-jobs-in-US

Just as location is everything in real estate, so labels are in persuasive articles.The 'economic nationalism' and 'free trade' labels serve as such examples. We should note that economic nationalism can mean economic self-rule. We should also note that if free trade is not popularly accepted, it becomes forced trade with the free part describing how those who benefit the most experience it.

We should also note that economic globalism has produced more than the alleged effect of lifting more people out abject poverty. It has caused a loss of many manufacturing and even service jobs in America causing a glut of people applying for low skilled labor jobs. That glut means less in wages for many people which is why over a billion dollars goes into subsidizing corporate payrolls via government assistance for the working poor. We should also note that economic globalization has involved the trafficking of people and to sweatshop factories. In addition, in the two nations that have allegedly seen the biggest decrease in poverty, which are China and India, we have seen slight to significant increases in slavery. In the mean time, Jeff Halper notes that the wealth disparity between nations has sharply increased.

Certainly any kind of self-rule that is based in some kind of tribalism is not good for anyone. But the reliance on the rule of economic elites as opposed to self-rule produces even worse results in the long run. For the rule of economic elites which we see in today's economic globalism not only increases wealth disparity in and between nations, in many of the nations which have embraced this kind of globalism, it destroys democracies and all of that occurs for the love of wealth. So why is a Christian blog encouraging a system that revolves around the love of wealth and the weakening of national sovereignty?

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

Dec 6

To Joe Carter and his blogpost on profits, wealth, and well-defined property rights. This appeared in the Acton blog.

We should first note that the Scriptures don't label money as being intrinsically evil; but they do call the love money the 'root of all kinds of evil.'

But second, what is said above about property rights is pretty much contradicted by Martin Luther King Jr. when he spoke against the Vietnam War:

I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin the shift from a "thing-oriented" society to a "person-oriented" society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.

So while well-defined property rights are a key to the common good according to the article above, King states that while property rights and other things are more important than people, then the triplets of 'racism, materialism, and militarism' will forever plague us. We should note that well-defined property rights does not imply just property rights. A question that would be involved in determining just property rights would be this: Did all of James Madison's wealth belong to him seeing that much of it was the product of slave labor? We might ask the same when it comes to corporations that pay poverty wages to workers here and/or use workers from sweatshop factories abroad. We might also ask, why, if there is this economy of mutuality, do we have a growing wealth disparity within many nations as well as between nations?
 

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For September 21, 2016

Sept 19

To Bruce Fronen and his blogpost on whether the mainstream media is trying to control Public Opinion. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative.

It seems that the real, but unexplored, issue here is what is causing the polarization in our nation. That the media and government have played a role in this are legitimate concerns that merit further investigation. In fact, Manufacturing Consent, by Chomsky and Herman, attempted to objectively determine whether the opinion of masses were being directed. That the government had put resources into controlling opinions seems to be a historical fact. And that there is physical evidence indicating that the media uses filters and has realistic motives for controlling public opinion should move us to at least consider the possibility that public opinion is being at least partially controlled.

But, again, what is up with the ongoing polarization of Americans? Here we should note that part of polarization is an intolerance for other views. And one cause for such intolerance is authoritarianism whether the authority figures consist of charismatic leaders, ideologies, or groups. Those who are passive authoritarian have trouble tolerating a lack of submission to their heroes. And here we should note a charge often made by the Left about today's educational system. That our educational system's first goal is to produce compliance and conformity. And a heavy hand is sometimes wielded against those who fail to submit. If this is difficult to believe, consider the different offenses that can cause children to not just be removed from the classroom, but to even be arrested. One such example was when a child was arrested and charged with a misdemeanor offense for burping in class (see http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2011/12/student-arrested-for-burping-during-class/  and  http://thefreethoughtproject.com/child-arrested-burping-police-state/  ). Such shows authoritarianism and tells us that the smallest, however natural, offense is potentially punishable by our justice system. It also tells us how fragile the position some authority figures in public education see themselves having.

The growing intolerance for the views of dissent is a possible result of the growing authoritarianism we have seen in our society. The increase of that authoritarianism saw a significant spike a while ago with our President's response to the 9/11 atrocities. And what is driving that authoritarianism is the desire of key groups in our nation to control others rather than to cooperate with them.

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

Sept 20

To Joe Carter and his blogpost on 5 facts about The Constitution. This appeared in the Acton blog.

There is at least one of the above facts that needs correction or modification.  In addition, there are some other facts that need to be included. Point or fact #3 is difficult to find  the documentation for. Yates' notes on the Constitutional debates never indicate a quota in terms of the number of troops nor does The Constitution. That doesn't imply that a quota was being considered. But we do know that the only limitation for a standing army is the 2 year term of its funding. A standing army cannot be funded for more than two years. In addition, it was the Militia, under the command of the President and whose funding is provided by Congress that should be used to repel invasions as well as put down insurrections.

And the putting down of insurrections leads us to a fact not included in the above list. That fact is that The Constitution was written as a response to widespread dissent and Shays Rebellion. Thus, The Constitution was written to strengthen the Federal Government so that it could better respond to future rebellions. And on further examination, what we find is that The Constitution was written to help preserve the position of America's financial elites in society. The events of the time as well as statements made about the militia point to this, so do both the structure provided for the Senate as well as documents like Henry Knox's  letter to George Washington about the then current discontent support this point. And it was James Madison who described government's job of protecting the rich from democracy after talking about opposing the opening of election to all classes of people.

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

To Kyle Hanby and his blogpost on how, according to an article by Dylan Pahman, our current approach to industrialization and free trade is the best answer to the Pope’s concern over climate change. For, according to Pahman, it is in our economic approach that we can best meet challenges to the environment while lifting people out of poverty.  This appeared in the Acton blog.

One of the problems with this article is that it deals too much with vague references. The same applies to the reference immediately cited. For example, how has the world economy grown? Well, that depends on where in the world one is. In America, our economy has shifted from a manufacturing based economy to a financial one. Thus growing a financial economy will have less of a physical impact on the environment than a growth in a manufacturing based economy. And where we see poverty being reduced, that is reduced from a standard based on around $1.35 per day, we see an increase in manufacturing. But how much poverty has one escaped when one is living on a little bit more than the bare minimum? In addition, we might want to ask what the economic impact on other parts of the world have been with the growth of industrialization in the areas where poverty is being reduced the most.

We could measure the social changes that have occurred with the growth of industrialization in nations like China, but such is not the subject of the article above. What is the subject is using a study on human footprint where industrialization is increasing dramatically to answer the Pope's concern with climate change. According to the cited article, as the world's population and economy have grown 23% and 153% respectively, the human footprint has only gown 9%. But if we note the title of the article Pahman cites for his data, the human footprint measured in terms of terrestrial effects only. The impact on air quality as well as changes in the atmosphere are not included as part of measuring the human footprint. Thus, the question becomes this: What good is the information Pahman is citing in answering the Pope's concern with climate change? For the name of the article Pahman is Sixteen Years Of Change In The Global Terrestrial Human Footprint And Implications For Biodiversity Conservation. And again, the Pope was saying how climate change is a sin. Thus how can the study that Pahman cites answer the Pope's concern with climate change?

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For August 10, 2016

As I read some of the blocked comments below, I am reminded of how I need to better edit my comments that I try to post. But they are what they are.


Aug 8

To R. Scott Clark and the first of a multil-part blogpost podcast on the Muslim Brotherhood and the danger it poses to our democracy. This appeared in Heidelblog.

I guess we are entering an updated version of McCarthyism. We should note how our past war against Communism served us. Yes, the Soviet Union collapsed. But some not so funny things happened on the way there. Coups in nations like Iran ('53), Guatemala ('54), and Chile ('73), all in the name of anti-communism were used to usher in dictators who reacted brutally to dissent. The US supported Osama Bin Laden, despite his terrorism, because he was fighting against a Soviet approved, secular government. The US military actually conducted terrorist attacks on civilian targets after its Revolution. And the US was condemned by the World Court for its actions and supported actions, which involved terrorist tactics,  in Nicaragua during the 1980s. 

And on a side note, the US supported Saddam Hussein even to the extent of providing his nation with materials for WMDs up until Iraq invaded Kuwait. Then after destroying Iraq's infrastructure in the first Persian Gulf War. the sanctions that it forced through the UN and imposed were responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children.

Returning from the side note, we should never forget how we contributed to the deaths of perhaps millions of people in Vietnam in the name of anti-Communism.

So now we have a new boogyman to fear. And yes, there are some groups from Islam that do pose a threat. And mentioning such groups can be helpful. But more importantly, looking how our nation's policies contribute to the recruiting for such groups rely on is much more important. We will see if that occurs here. For if we want to say that such groups pose a threat to our democracy here, how is it that, because our government has been supporting business-friendly dictators over there, we should not be seen as a threat by the people and nations over there?

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

To Christopher Nelson and his blogpost that states that there is no student debt crisis. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

Whether there is a crisis or not sometimes depends on whether it is your neighbor who has the problem, or you. The problem with the student debt crisis is that it is real. It was one of the contributing factors to the starting of Occupy Wall Street. Plenty of students had no job prospects that paid enough to match the debt they took on--and they took on that debt with the understanding higher paying jobs would be the result of going to school. Also, one could cite example afte example graduates who had to postpone the starting of families and buying of homes to repay student debt.

However, a lot of that is anecdotal. What is real are the statistics of those who default the most or the aggregate amount owed along with the aggregate amount owed on student debt vs the number of lendees (see http://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2015/04/just-released-press-briefing-on-student-loan-borrowing-and-repayment-trends-2015.html#.VkkRTyvMLs4nts/mediaadvisory/2015/Student-Loan-Press-Briefing-Presentation.pdf ). Also, those in the lower class suffer the most but one should also look at the age ranges of those who are still paying their debts. That age is rising and that means that such people limited in terms of spending on current needs as well as preparing for the future.

Again, whether the student debt crisis is a crisis is being answered by some  by whether their neighbor is struggling or whether they are. Considering that millions are involved, that is plenty of neighbors who are either being hit with the crisis or face it in the future.

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

Aug 9

To Kyle Hanby and his blogpost on globalization and free trade. This appeared in the Acton blog.

Kyle Hanby made a similar mistake on free trade in a previous article. He looks at it as it affects people now and claims that its opposite privileges a few. If Hanby would study how tariffs have been used in the past, he would discover that nations have used tariffs to build up their own economic sectors. The current use of free trade then has become a way of 'kicking away the ladder,' as some explain it. That means that the mechanisms used by the industrial nations to develope their own industries in the past is being denied use for developing nations by these same industrial nations.

Hanby should also learn about what happens when nations join free trade agreements and organizations. What happens is that a part of national sovereignty, and this applies to a people's democracy when a nation relies on democratic processes, is lost to corporations. The TPP for example allows for foreign and multinational corporations to sue governments over laws that these corporations says causes them to lose profits; but corporations cannot return the favor. In addition, when a corporation sues a government, such as Canadian mining company has sued Costa Rica over its decision to prohibit the mining for gold in its nation because of environmental reasons, the case is adjudicated by a trade agreement's tribunal, not the courts of that land. Here we should note how the WTO threatened the US with $1 billion dollars in trade sanctions over a US law demanding that the origin of meat packaged to be bought at stores be labeled.

Unfortunately, those who are pusing free trade agreements now are neglecting to look at the issue either historically or in terms of national sovereignty.

 

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

To Joe Carter and his blogpost on freedom, especially economic freedom. This appeared in the Acton blog

The problem with the article above and the article which it cites is that freedom is applied solely to the individual, not to a group, not to society. Thus society, in principle according to these two articles, is not free to make laws that govern how the markets interact with and treat those in society. We call this group freedom exercised by a given society democracy.

Of course, governments are never portrayed by markets as being representatives of the people. Rather, those who favor limited government and free markets portray all governments as alien entities that have their own interests aside from the interests of the people. And In practice, this often turns out to be the case. This occurs where citizens are not seriously involved in monitoring and speaking out to their governments. Thus, there is a burden that comes with any working democracy: that burden is putting in the time and energy into being seriously involved.

However, we should note the flip side of not letting democracies set rules for the market. The flip side is that all of this individual economic freedom, when summed up, equals consolidated wealth, and thus power, for private sector elites. And thus political power in the nation no longer rests with its elected leaders, it rests with those who have made the most money. And such does not equate to either freedom for all or even humility by a few.

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

To Joseph Pearce and his blogpost on abortion in the Black Lives Matter issue. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

Despite the faulty description of Planned Parenthood today, one of the most pertinent issues involved in the abortion of Black babies is economics. The average Black person has far less wealth than the average White person and the disparity is growing. So in addition to Black Lives Matter, in a different way, we can can say regard abortion that economic class matters. And so if we want to address the abortion issue that exists in the Black community, we need to address the wealth disparity that exists between the two races.

Likewise, regarding crime, one needs to look at the correlations and possible cause and effect relationships between wealth, or the lack thereof, and violent crime.

 

Comments Which Conservative Block From Their Blogs For July 27, 2016

July 20

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost calling for an end to the alliance between the Presbyterian and Reformed denominations and the Republican Party especially when it comes to praying at the convention. This appeared in Heidelblog.

I agree with much of what is written here, but I have a question. Should we also do away with the alliance between religiously conservative Christianity, including those who are Reformed, and conservative political ideology? That idea certainly doesn't prohibit Reformed Christians from holding to politically conservative ideas. But the idea does say that Reformed Christians can also hold to non conservative ideas and ideologies as well.

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

July 23

To Denny Burk and his blogpost on whether Trump is on the side of social conservatives. This appeared in Denny Burk’s blog.

I think what is worse than believing that Trump is Christian is to believe that Social Conservatism is Christian. Yes, it has Christian elements such as opposing abortion.  But it is also two-faced in that it portrays itself as being for religious liberty while opposing same-sex marriage and promoting school prayer.

In addition, it takes an unbalanced view on the 2nd Amendment and its interpretation of that amendment decontextualizes the right to bear arms. The emphasis on strong national defense ignores America's imperialism and becomes very presumptive of America's role in the world.

In addition, in the name of free markets, social conservatism has advocated for the cutting of social responsibilities for businesses.

What could be observed here is that for most issues, social conservatism aligns itself with business interests whether it is with the interests of weapons manufacturers and the military industrial complex to the reduction of welfare obligations and the denial of business's fault in the lack of economic opportunities available for certain people.

Yes, I understand why some religiously conservative Christians have bought into social conservatism. But what is both troubling and puzzling is the insistence by some that social conservatism is Christian and that those ideologies and groups to the left are anti-Christian.




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

July 25

To Joe Carter and his blogpost that contains a video presentation on economics by South Korean Economist Ha-joon Chang. This appeared in the Acton blog.

The video here is a welcomed change from the usual presentations on economics. That the presenter stated we should look valid points in the nine major economic theories puts Economics into the science category in which it belongs. Economics is, after all, a behavioral science. And the problem some people have when listening to any other theory but their own is that they often speak and act as if economics is a natural science. And even in natural science, we have had changing approaches to studying the physical world.  In addition, the presenter talked about topics that some schools of economics includes and others do not such as personal identity, happiness, and democracy. We could add environmental impact as a topic that should be included in the study of economics but is most often not.

Finally, that this person invites people to form their own economic views and be willing to challenge the experts is partially taught by Marx with his proletariat dictatorship. Only because Marx viewed the proletariat as having a monopoly on truth and values while seeing the bourgeoisie having a monopoly on selfishness and sin, he was only partially correct. Neither the proletariat nor the bourgeoisie have a monopoly on either virtue or vice.

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

To Kyle Hanby and his blogpost that describes protectionism as being harmful. This appeared on the Acton blog.

What this article seems to ignore is that the push for free trade on nations that are trying to develop their  economies or certain sectors of it is from nations that used protectionism to develop their own economies. Ha-Joon Chang, an economist whose video presentation on why anyone could have valid insights into economics which was the focal point of a Joe Carter blogpost on the Acton blog notes the following (see https://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/162/27898.html ):

They argue that free trade is how all developed countries have become rich, and criticise the developing countries for refusing to adopt this successful formula for economic development.

This is far from the truth. When they were developing countries, those countries now developed followed few of the policies they now recommend to others, and especially free trade. And nowhere is this discrepancy between historical reality and myth greater than in Britain and the United States, the two countries supposed to have reached the summit of the world economy through free markets and free trade.

He then goes on to list and describe areas in which both the Great Britain and the US used protectionism to build their economies. He mentions how Britain used protectionism to develop its wool manufacturing, for example, and also for corn. Other industries also benefited from protectionism. According to Chang, Britain exceeded its European neighbors in using protectionism. Likewise, he notes that the US employed one of the highest tariffs perhaps more than any other nation from 1830 to around 1945. In addition, the oceans themselves became natural tools of protectionism due to the cost of shipping. He mentions other parts of protectionism in the US which are quite interesting.

Today, the forcing of free trade on undeveloped nations by developing nations is really forced trade where fledgling industries and business from these nations are forced to compete with well established industries and businesses from developed nations. The result is that too many of the fledgling industries and businesses fail thus making nations with developing economies subservient to the demands of developed nations. But also, forcing free trade on developing nations robs the developing nations of the same mechanisms to develop used by many of today's established nations.

I'm afraid that the view of protectionism described above is that is both economically myopic and historically blind.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

July 26

To Bruce Frohnen and his blogpost about how college is a place full of liberal indoctrination of students. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

Having taught at state schools, my experiences do not match those of Frohnen. Conservatism was well represented on campus by the number of conservative faculty members. Free speech was respected provided that it was respectful. And though while I started my career as a political conservative and eventually turned out to be an actual political leftist, as opposed to a liberal, but with  conservative religious beliefs, I felt the scorn from both sides.

The conservative-non conservative faculty ratio was, in my teaching experience, highly affected by major in which a faculty member taught. Engineers and business teachers tend to be strongly conservative though there were some exceptions. The majors I taught in contained a mixed bag of conservatives and non conservatives.

Considering that Frohnen seems to be offended by the presence of liberals and leftists, whom he seems unable to distinguish, his portrayal of Zinn's claim of bias misses the point of the claim. The point of his claim is that in history, one cannot escape being biased and it does come out in the selection of material one thinks is important. Thus, Zinn's admission is one of occupational honesty rather than deliberateness and prejudice.

But the biggest objection to college by my former colleagues has not been touched on in this article. Our main objection is that college has merely become just another business who mission is to create more cogs for the system. Why college is a business bothered us is because students became customers and consumers rather than people who were in search of an education. And as customers and consumers, they also became merely numbers for the sake of the profitability of the school. And thus lower admission standards were needed to garner enough customers and thus we had too many kids who were unprepared for college in all sorts of ways and who blamed faculty for their own lack of preparation. Such is the biggest problem the schools I taught in were displaying.
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To Joe Carter and his blogpost video where John Norberg claims that when we buy goods from China, we are feeding ourselves because much of that money goes to workers who contributed to those good here. This appeared in the Acton blog.

No, contrary to the claims made in the video, trade with nations like China and Mexico where more money leave the nation than comes in is not feeding us. And no, it is not necessarily the nations with which we have trade deficits which are killing us, it is the corporations and their investors that are killing us. For much of the money that goes into buying products overseas just doesn't go to  the workers, some of whom are working in sweatshop conditions in other nations, it goes to investors. And it is investors, especially the more wealthy ones, around whom our nation's economy is revolving. In addition, the primary labor force for many of the products we buy as a result of trade are not workers from the US.

So while the video answers Trump's concerns, it neglects to mention the concerns of those on the Left. But the speaker makes one valid point, the trade does feed us. For Reaganomics tells us that when we enrich the rich, they feed us. However, what is not mentioned is that they feed us table scraps of both food and freedom.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For July 6, 2016

July 2

To Albert Mohler and his blogpost that was a reaction piece to Mika Edmonson's article comparing Blacks Lives Matter to the Civil Rights Movement of the past. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website

There are two points to be made here. The first point is that while Mohler points out the distinctions Edmondon made between the Civil Rights Movement of the 60s and the Black Lives Matter movement, he neglected to point out the similarities between the two. According to Edmondson, the similarities were the tactics used, the near-term goals, and the rejection of social passivity.

The second point is a criticism of Edmonson's recognition of who belonged to the CIvil Rights Movement. For while Edmondson forcussed on King and the SLC, other groups were involved too such as SNCC, NAACP, the Black Panthers, Malcolm X, those who riioted and others. All of them worked for Civil Rights and are part of the Civil RIghts Movement.

All of this points to is the bar we set for individuals and groups who would be recognized as valid challengers to the status quo reflects our resistance to change. Quite often we set the bar unreasonably high so that unless those challenging the status quo appear as saints, we often reserve the right to discount what they have to say and what they are trying to do. All we have to do is look at the Palestinian struggle for life against Israel's Occupation as an example. Since the Palestinian struggle for freedom is marred by the use of violence, many of us have sided with the Occupation despite its brutality and the injustices that are carried out. The same applies here.

The  Civil Rights Movement encompassed a variety of groups, some of which would be difficult for us to discredit while others were not. But if our tendency is to first discredit those who are seeking to change the status quo in order to relieve some suffering and injustice, then we are acting just like those who resisted even the best parts of Civil Rights Movement. 

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

To Joe Carter and his blogpost on a court ruling that struck down a pro-life law passed in Indiana. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website

What today's abortion issue brings up are the faults of those on both sides of the issue. Of course, the one side has promoted the position that the determination of what is human life worthy of rigths can be a subjective judgment depending on the group that life infringes on. Roe V. Wade must be overturned and Federal law correctly defining what human life is should be written.

On the other hand, many pro-life supporters use the abortion issue to play the role of the pharisee from the two men praying. For while they point to their opponents' sin of not caring for human life in the womb, they fail to see how America's policieis, both foreign and domestic, share the same lack of concern for human life regardless of the location of that life. Policies that impoverish regions where people live or that involve violence cause hardships and death. To not at least question those policies and the violence is to show the same lack of concern for human life that they accuse pro-choice supporters of having.

 

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

To Kyle Hanby and his blogpost on Capitalism, Cronyism, and Socialism. This appeared in the Acton blog.

The first problem with this article is that both socialism and capitalism are spoken of as monoliths. Though undoubtedly, Hanby is thinking of Socialist examples like the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, North Korea, and possibly Venezuala as not being heroic. And his view of not seeing them as heroic is probably based on comparing them with the West, and the United States of the 20th century in particular. 

But what is often missed in those comparisons is context and I say this as not being a fan of the political outcomes of most of these nations. What Hanby misses is the context of those revolutions. Whether you are talking about the severe suffering that took place in totalitarian regimes that preceded the revolutions in Soviet Union, Cuba, and partly in China, one has to look at the revolutions as heroic. What is missed in all of that are the hardships some of the "socialist" nations have had endure from other nations, some of them Capitalist, that 20th century US did not have to endure. For example, after winning the Revolution, the Russian gov't had to fight against counterrevolutionaries and that also included having to fight against several western nations that joined the fight. In addition, America's significant losses during WW II are almost insignificant compared to Russia's losses. That America emerged from WW II as a superpower was due in part to the location of the theaters in which it fought in WW II. Russsia lost tens of thousands of villages and tens of millions of people because of Germany's invasion. In addition, it was forced into an arms race which it didn't want by the United States. That arms race contributed to growing the authoritarianism and economic problems experienced by Russia were contributed to by Western actions.

Now we should note what happened to Cuba. We essentially fought a terrorist war against Cuba attacking civilan targets and later on enforcing an embargo.

In Venezuela, there is evidence that we supported the attempted coup of 2002 and historical precedents that say that their current eonomic problems might have been created partially by other nations. After all, before the 1973 coup in Chile, we attempted to destabilize the nation as Britain did after Mossadegh started to nationalize oil resources in Iran. We also supported terrorist attacks, for which we were convicted, Nicaragua in order to influence their elections.

So the aftermath of many socialist revolutions have not worked out, but we should note that most of those revoutions were against dictators before the revolutions only to be met with hostile policies by the United States.

There are examples where Socialism did not result in tyranny and offered economic promise but it was prevented from meeting that promise because it savagely attacked afterwards by others in a number of nations, especially by Capitalists. Such examples include the Paris Commune, The Spanish Revolution, Chile in the early 70s, Iran in the early 50s, and Nicaragua in the 1980s. And what was found with some of those examples along with Venezuela is that there were those who were helped, in particular, some of the poor.

The claim of today's capitalists is that their system has contributed more to human flourishing than any other system in history. But what is overlooked in that claim is that the bar they had to meet to make that claim includes increasing the number of people who were living on more than around $1.35 per day--not a very high bar at all. Try living in a western nation on that. Another problem is that the two nations where the largest number of people who have been lifted out of abject poverty by global capitalism are the two nations that have the most slaves in the world: India and China. And the number of those enslaved there is either stagnant or increasing.

But the biggest problem Hanby has in making his case here is that while on one hand, Capitalism measures itself solely by its materiistic results. On the other hand, Hanby says that a combination of free-market Capitalism and moral values is what helps people. Here, we should note that the moral values Hanby says are needed are hostile to materialism and vice-versa. In addition, free-markets reject the imposition of moral values. As a result, we have a global economic system that is increasing wealth disparity in many nations. But not only that, it invites conflicts, it also is significantly contributing to the destruction of our environment

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

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost that reposted the Declaration of Independence. This appeared in the Heidelblog.

I think that we sometimes become too easily enamored by the wrong set of actions. For example, we are in awe of how our founding fathers regarded and treated themselves by declaring that all men are created equal. But if we judged their words and actions by how they regarded and treated others, would we come to the same conclusion? Here, we should note Frederick Douglass's  speech on what the 4th of July meant to slaves (see http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/what-to-the-slave-is-the-fourth-of-july/  ):

What, to the American slave, is your 4th of July? I answer: a day that reveals to him, more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim. To him, your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty, an unholy license; your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sounds of rejoicing are empty and heartless; your denunciations of tyrants, brass fronted impudence; your shouts of liberty and equality, hollow mockery; your prayers and hymns, your sermons and thanksgivings, with all your religious parade, and solemnity, are, to him, mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy — a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages. There is not a nation on the earth guilty of practices, more shocking and bloody, than are the people of these United States, at this very hour.

Go where you may, search where you will, roam through all the monarchies and despotisms of the old world, travel through South America, search out every abuse, and when you have found the last, lay your facts by the side of the everyday practices of this nation, and you will say with me, that, for revolting barbarity and shameless hypocrisy, America reigns without a rival.

Yes, slavery is now illegal here though that has not been completely eradicated in our nation. Also, we should note that the above words seemed not include the plight of Native Americans. Finally, we should note that there are others who have received and still do receive injustice after injustice as a result of our domestic and foreign policies. So while we celebrate ourselves and our founding fathers for what was written and done in history, we might rephrase Douglass's question of what Independence Day meant to the slaves of his time to the following: What does our Independence Day mean to today's marginalized and vulnerable who are the victims of our domestic and foreign policies? For it is their numbers that give the best indication of how much we really believe in the statement,  'all men are created equal.'

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

July 3

To Caroline Roberts and her blogpost on how Socialism has and will bring economic destruction. This appeared in Acton's blog.

What best indicates the fear Conservatives have of Socialism is demonstrated by what regimes they label as being socialist. This article provides no exception to the rule since the Nazi economics was described as being socialist and is used to counter the renewed interest in Socialism in our society. Why the interest in Socialism? It is because the failure of our economy both with the collapse of 2008 as well as the disparity that existed in the recovery from that collapse and the wealth disparity that exists in general. In addition,  supporters of our current economic system view the mere recognition of climate change as a threat to our economic well-being. In addition, our economic system is uncomfortably symbolized by the society from the Hunger Games movies. In that movie, there was the Capitol where life was good and the Districts where people lived in economic subsevience to the wants and whims of those living in the Capitol. What has made people more aware of the similarities here is that we are creating more and more domestic districts. This was one of the reasons why Occupy Wall Street took off in 2011.

The Nazis could, in no even remotely reasonable way, be labeled as Socialists from the Marxist tradition. And that shows the first error of how socialism is described in this article. For here, Caroline Roberts talks of Socialism as a monolith even though neither Socilaism nor Capitalism are monliths. Libertarian Socialism, for example, is a kind that is neither described nor mentioned. In fact, there is no Marxist related Socialism described or mentioned in the article above. Rather, what the Nazis tried to install is treated as if it was the epitome of Socialism

Another problem with the above article is that it is suggested that Socialism was the Nazis' problem. Here we should note that Hitler did lift the nation out of its economic woes. What reintroduced those economic woes was the losing of the war. And, btw, it was nationalism that caused Nazi hubris to result in the utter destruction of the nation. That Gregg, the person whom Roberts cites, would attribute to one variable the post war economic timeline of Germany shows an inadequate understanding of economics as well as an opportunistic attitude. Why didn't the German economic take off right after the war? Such should be a rhetorical question.

The next problem is that Roberts, following Gregg, made the Nazi economy the epitome of what happens when you have Socialism. If Roberts and Gregg are following the principle of universality here, then they should not mind if people used the overthrow of Allende and the installation of Pinochet's reign of terror as a predictor of what happens when you force free markets onto a nation. Chile is still trying to recover from that 1973 coup and its after effecs.

We might want to note that perhaps our economy has more similarities with Nazi Germany's economy than any socialist economy has. After all, Hitler's policies were supported by industry leaders, not workers. In a real socialist economy, workers would have control. And here we should note that present day Germany employs some Socialist mechanisms here because in all companies that have 2,000 or more workers, workers get a substantial amount of direct representation on the board of directors.

In short, what is labeled as socialism in the above article doesn't even remotely resemble it as it comes from the Marxist tradition. Thus, one has to ask what is Roberts really writing about.

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

To Joe Carter and his blogpost entitled Is The Declaration Of Independence A 'Christian Document'? which was really about how only social conservatives literally believe in the line that declares 'all men are created equal.' This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website

This seems to be one of those bait-and-switch articles. That is that it uses the title to draw in those whose focus would be on the Declaration of Independence while surprising them by spending too much time on building a pedestal for social conservatives on which to stand. So in essence, this article is more of a marketing tool to sell social conservatism.

The question is this: Do social conservatives deserve the pedestal provided for them by this article? This pedestal is the claim that only social conservatives literally believe that 'all men are created equal'? One only needs to examine both the present and the past to answer the question. To believe those words to be literally true would include not having an opinion on equality for women. But suppose we include women in the mix. Have or do social conservatives literally believe that all men are created equal? Let's test that by looking at what they have and currently support. 

When we go back to the days of the Civil Rights Movement, we at least find an absence of support for it from social conservatives. The reaction from social conservatives to the movement ranged from apathy to opposition. And there was a belief among at least some social conservatives that Whites should maintain a privileged place of supremacy over Blacks in society. Some opposed the movement because they feared that civil liberties would be violated by laws that acquiesced to the demands of the Movement. Here we should note the difference between civil liberties and civil rights. The former stressed liberatiranism and freedom from gov't coercion while the latter stressed the need for gov't intervention to prevent racially-based oppression from the private sector. 

In response the claim that social conservatives either opposed or were apathetic to the Civil Rights Movement, many conservatives would point to the suppport Republican lawmakers gave to Civil RIghts legislation. But consider the following. First, not all Republican lawmakers were social conservatives. Second, voting on Civl Rights legislation was determined more by location than party affiliation so that the highest correlation for lawmakers who supported Civil Rights legislation was for those lawmakers who represented northern states.  Third, after the passage of Civil Rights legislation, we saw a great migration  of Southern Democrats over to the Republican Party as a backlash to President's Johnson's support of the Civil Rights and Voting Rigths Acts.

We might also ask how social conservatives feel about LGBT rights today. Do social conservatives support or oppose those state laws that allow people to be fired because of their sexual orientation? Do social conservatives support the legalization of same-sex marriage? Are social conservatives supporting or opposing the current wave of anti-LGBT laws? 

Finally, we might ask social conservatives how they feel about our foreign wars and interventsions. Why ask about that? Because their belief in the equality of all men could be, at least partially, measured in their concern for the welfare of non-white civilians and whether it rivals their concern for the safety of American citizens and American troops.

When we address these three tests that would measure the claims that social conservatives literally believe that all people are created equal, we find that the pedestal built for social conservatives in this article is unwarranted. Thus Carter's claim that only social conservatives literally believe the words 'all men are created equal' seems to have insufficient grounds.