America As A Nation Is Much Older Than America Is As A Democracy

Europe and North America are facing a battle between Democracy with equality vs authoritarianism with hierarchy. Today's conservative populous groups favor the latter. 

The more groups that are recognized as having equal rights in society in a given nation, the more that nation is leaning toward Democracy with equality. The more that a nation operates by giving preferential treatment to a given set of group(s) based on ethnicity, economic class, and/or ideology, the more that country embraces authoritarianism with hierarchy. What muddies the waters here is how groups that promote authoritarianism with hierarchy are treated.

Why is equality a requirement for a democracy? Jeff Halper explains on pg 74 of his book An Israeli In Palestine: Resisting Dispossession, Redeeming Israel when comparing ethnocracy with democracy

'An ethnocracy is the opposite of a democracy, although it might incorporate some elements of democracy such as universal citizenship and elections. It arises when one particular group—the Jews in Israel, the Russians in Russia, the Protestants in pre-1972 Northern Ireland,  the whites in apartheid South Africa,  the Shi’ite Muslims of Iran, the Malay of Malaysia and, if they had their way, the white Christian fundamentalist in the US—seizes control of the government and the armed forces in order to enforce a regime of exclusive privilege over other groups in what is in fact a multi-ethic or multi-religious society. Ethnocracy, or ethno-nationalism, privileges ethnos over demos. whereby one’s ethnic affiliation, be it defined by race, descent, religion, language or national origin, takes precedence over citizenship in determining to whom a country actually “belongs.” Israel is referred to explicitly by its political leaders as a “Jewish Democracy.”

Thomas Jefferson put it a little bit differently by saying what a democracy becomes when the majority does not respect the equal rights of the minority in his 1801 Inaugural Address

'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'

In other words, unless minority groups are recognized and treated as having equal rights, you have groups that do not have an equal share of the nation as well as oppression.

The more consistently we apply the inclusion of equality with democracy, the more we are compelled to relabel what the U.S has been for most of its existence. Until lately, America has been a nation that is not a democracy. And the more that political conservatives answer back that we were created to be a republic, the more they show that they do not understand the different forms that a democracy can take and that they are in favor of hierarchy provided that they are the ones with the power over all others. So considering that, should we be surprised at the support that my fellow politically conservative evangelicals have shown Trump and how they will be reluctant to withdraw that support even though they feel a building tension inside? 

Could we say that America was a democracy from 1787 to 1865? Blacks, Native Americans, and women could better answer that question. Could we say that America was a democracy from the start of  Reconstruction  to the 1920s? Blacks, Women, and Native Americans could better answer that question. Could we say that America was a democracy from the 1920s through the rest of Jim Crow? Blacks and women could better answer that question. Has America become a democracy since the days of the Civil Rights Movement? Blacks and the LGBT community could better answer that question--btw the LGBT community could answer all of the previous questions too. If you don't count the dominance that the wealthy have had over our government, we have been, ethnically speaking, coming closer to becoming a democracy than we ever had in the history of our nation. And that is because more and more groups were having their equal rights recognized by their governments and by more and more people in society.

And so America's transition to Democracy with equality has been very slow and long journey as it has been in much of the rest of the world. Before that, authoritarianism with hierarchy has ruled the day. And so perhaps we should not be surprised when we see groups throughout Europe and North America vying to reestablish authority with hierarchy. Once that has been reestablished, it is goodbye to democracy.

One of the keys to Trump's populism was the Obergefell Decision. Why? It is because it was after that SCOTUS decision when many of my fellow religiously conservative Christians were galvanized in fighting with their backs against the wall a culture war of their own making. The final spark that sustained the religiously conservative Christian initiated culture war was the emergence of the Trans community from the margins of society. And so the expansion of LGBT rights energized religiously conservative Christian to continue the culture wars. Without equal rights being recognized for the LGBT community, Trump might not have had enough ammunition to fan the flames and exploit the culture wars.

Our return back to the past, to authoritarianism with hierarchy, was well marketed by the Trump campaign. That kind of authoritarianism was sold as being ethnically based by demonizing DEI--religion is an ethnicity. And though the concerns of those who hated DEI have been initially based on religion, our actual return to authoritarianism is primarily economic class based--as the Trump Presidency has shown. In other words, what we are seeing is further cementing of a classocracy, Oligarchy in our case, wearing ethnocratic clothing. In other words we just experienced a partial bait and switch. And so we have begun our journey to become like Russia. Today's Russia is an oligarchy with a strongman leader and has a religious façade.

And so as we lose our democracy, let's remember that democracy was never really entrenched in America. And that is because, just as it is in the world, America's base has always been looking to dominate whether that pertains to dominating domestically or globally. What we are seeing today is tragic. It is like seeing a child die and so we are now robbed from seeing what that child would become if they were given an opportunity to fully mature.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For June 14, 2023

 June 8

To R. Scott Clark and his blog article that rightfully criticizes Stephen Wolfe's view of Christian Nationalism and Kevin DeYoung's view of cultural Christianity. He also commented on Marxism. This appeared in Heidelblog.

I fully agree with Clark when he oppose Wolfe's Christian Nationalism and questions DeYoung's cultural Christianity. He provides sound reasons for his disagreements with them. But when he argues for Natural Law, which in other posts he has claimed is summarized by the 2nd Table of the Law, isn't Clark also vying for some sort of cultural Christianity? For in using the 2nd Table of the Law as a summary for Natural Law, he is promoting a Christian understanding of Natural Law.

When describing how we should react to the LGBT rights, Clark doesn't seem to fully notice that nature might be giving us mixed messages. For same-sex behavior (SSB) has been observed in 1,500 species of animals where SSB has produced positive result for at least some of those species. Clark doesn't include that when he also talks about how attributing homosexuality to genetic or biological causes have failed. In addition, there are physiological factors that contribute to gender dysphoria of which Clark seems unaware. And so it seems that Clark's attribution of these conditions to fallen nature refers to our sinful nature. Thus, we are dealing with a Christian theological understanding of the physical world which would be imposed on those from the LGBT community. And because it is a theological understanding, that understanding is incomplete because even scientists are not sure of all of the physical factors involved in either homosexuality and gender dysphoria. Resisting or opposing the equality for the LGBT community based on a Christian understanding of natural law promotes an imposition of Christian morals on the LGBT community in society. And so his use of natural law here would put him in the same league as those who call for a cultural Christianity.

Finally American conservative Christian theologians must realize that commenting on Marx and Marxism is not in their wheelhouse. Why? It is because they can only interpret Marx and Marxism from an antithetical capitalist viewpoint. That makes it difficult for them to identify a real Marxist regime. And Clark seems content on not relying on any Marxists for input. For if he read Gorbachev, he would acknowledge that authoritarian regimes that the Soviet Union starting with Stalin, Red China, North Korea and so forth were never Marxists to begin with. If he used Chomsky or the left Marxists of Lenin's time, he would also exclude Lenin's regime as being Marxist. 

It is good that Clark rejects Wolfe's Christian Nationalism and that he questions DeYoung's cultural Christianity. But he is unaware of the similarities that his own position has with at least the cultural Christianity of transformationalists like DeYoung. And one of the reasons for Clark's lack of awareness is his sources for the above topics are inadequate.

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

June 13

David Deavel and his reposted article that uses an article called Woke Capitalism Is Capitalism as an introduction to determine whether Capitalism is woke. Though Deavel answers in the negative, the information he uses to answer the question is wholly inadequate. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

To determine whether Capitalism is woke, one only needs to consider its history in this country. For example, our labor history, and even the present, does not show that Capitalism is woke. Our labor history is full of blood and violence by capitalists who, in an effort to maximize profits, treated workers horribly until they were forced to do otherwise. Under Capitalism, businesses used to employed children in, what for them were, dangerous settings. They overworked their employees while underpaying them, and they used violence and the law to silence dissent. See, Capitalism's stakeholders consist of more than just the consumers.

Throughout the history of American Capitalism, businesses have polluted the environment and have tried to escape  accountability for doing so. Under Capitalism, corporationss have offshored jobs regardless of how it affected its employees and their communities. And they did so in order to maximize profits. Under Capitalism, corporations have sought to garner government business with the military industrial complex, the pharmaceutical industrial complex, and the prison industrial complex, just the name some examples, in order to maximize profits. Under Capitalism, corporations have used lobbyists to gain favors with government officials in order to reduce or eliminate both their taxes and regulations governing how they will treat employees and customers. And they do so in order to maximize profits.

The above list is a partial list of corporate activities that are anti-woke, rather than woke. How is it that Capitalism can be considered woke? Is it because they are now using their power in order to promote equality for the LGBT community? Here, we need to look at what is being protested. Again, we should remember how businesses once used their power to comply and even promote Jim Crow laws and culture. We should remember how before a recent court decision, homosexuals did not have any legal protection from harassment at work or even dismissal from their jobs in the majority of states. 

The problem with the above article in answering the question of whether Capitalism is woke is that its scope of corporate activities used in answering the question is very small. In addition,  the above article seems to reduce Capitalism solely to what it offers consumers. The stakeholders of Capitalism include far more groups of people than just a business's customers. We could even count the environment as a stakeholder of Capitalism. And the above article left out the basic motivation and ethic that is promoted and practiced under Capitalism: the maximization of profits. Does that sound woke to you? 

In the above article, it's not Deavel's answer that is the problem, it is his method. His method is totally inadequate to adequately answer the question.

To Apologize Or Not To Apologize, That Is ...

 This week's review will be a little bit different from most reviews. In most reviews, we look at part of or a whole article written by a person. But in this article, we are reviewing a report on an event. The description of the event is brief, but the event and what was said is rather complex.

The event is that the Church of England has apologized for its treatment of those in the LGBT community. Certainly apologies to the LGBT community by all religiously conservative Christians, such as myself, are well overdo. But at the same time, we have to be specific as to what we are apologizing for from what we should remain firm on regarding the sexual mores that should exist in the Church.

As reported by the Religion News Service (click here for the article), in a report to be released later, the Church of England apologizes to the LGBT community for its, what seems to be, direct interaction with those in the LGBT community.  The Church of England apologizes to the LGBT community for how it has acted with coldness and its homophobic reactions to those who came to the Church. At the same time, the Church of England was firm on its views that marriage should be a heterosexual union. And so the Church offered somewhat of a compromise in terms of what it would offer to the LGBT community. That compromise includes a celebration of a same-sex wedding but only after such an event occurred in a civil ceremony.

There is good, bad, and missing in this apology. Yes, the Church of England, and most, if not every Bible-believing church must apologize to the LGBT community for its treatment of them. But what should we apologize for? Like what the Church of England did, we should apologize for being cold and homophobic. We should also apologize for being cruel and hateful. But unlike the apology from the Church of England, our apology should revolve around how the LGBT community has been treated in society. We should apologize for that because the Church has provided the main impetus for how society has regarded and treated the LGBT community. It was during the time of Christendom in the West that western nations made laws that punished and marginalized those in the LGBT community. Our treatment of the LGBT community has been very harsh. 

In short, we religiously conservative Christians have refused to stand shoulder to shoulder with those from the LGBT community as equal partners in society. And that refusal to do so also indicates a certain ugly self-righteousness on our part. By refusing to distinguish the laws that should govern the Church from those that govern society, we have arrogantly imposed our sexual mores on those from the LGBT community. And for all of that, we should be in a continual state of repentance as well as being apologetic.

The internal scars that we have forced on many of those from the LGBT community have been prolific and profound. And it is quite natural for our victims to be so deeply harmed that they struggle to distinguish the rules by which the Church must govern its members from the rules we imposed on those who didn't share our beliefs. This is evident when they see Church rules regarding sex as threatening as they see the laws our government had previously passed. 

There is another group of those who fail to distinguish those two distinct set of rules. The other group consists of those of us religiously conservative Christians who, like some in the LGBT community, cannot distinguish Church rules for its members from the laws we should have in society. But not only have we failed to distinguish between those two sets of rules, we have been belligerently oblivious to the harm that imposing our rules on those who choose not to share our beliefs has done.

We, however, cannot apologize for what is in the Scriptures. We cannot apologize for calls to repent from sexual immorality, whether it be homosexual or heterosexual immorality, in our evangelism or in the rules that determine whether one is a member in good standing in the Church. The Scriptures are clear on this matter. 

Some of us also might need to apologize to those in the LGBT community for how we have shared what the Scriptures say about sexuality in our evangelism or our enforcement of God's Word in the Church.

The apology by the Church of England reported in the article cited above both fails to go far enough and goes too far. There are far more actions and attitudes to apologize for to those in the LGBT community than described in this article. At the same time, the Church of England, if it wishes to remain true to the Scriptures, should not have services that celebrate same-sex weddings even though they were civil ceremonies. We should fully support the allowance for same-sex marriages in society, we cannot promote full equality for the LGBT community with supporting same-sex marriage society. But we cannot support such marriages in the Church. That is because the Church is the place where the Gospel should be preached and God's Word should be taught. The Church must not become a mutual self-help group that encourages its members to follow God in each in their own way and according to their own beliefs when those ways and beliefs go against the Scriptures.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blog For January 4, 2023

 Dec 15

To Heidelblog and Anthony Esolen regarding Esolen's article and the part of that article that was quoted in Heidelblog on the alleged effects of the Obergefell decision on the attitudes and behaviors of our young people regarding sexual orientation and transgenderism.

Anthony Esolen's full article can be found at:

    https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2022/11/26/the-trainwreck-of-white-collar-sympathy/

So according to the logic employed by Anthony Esolen, we should reverse the Establishment Clause from the First Amendment because that would normalize Islam, Hinduism, and other religions including Satanism. That is if we are to employ Esolen's logic.

At the same time, what isn't covered by his article is the abuse that the LGBT community has had to endure because being seen as unnatural or perverted has given the government and society permission to marginalize that community for centuries. But we who are normal or who are considered to be natural in our affection don't know anything aboutthe effects of that marginalization. And  because we haven't lived through and with the effects of marginalization, the experiences of those who have been marginalized are nothing more than abstract concepts and so  those effects are not meaningful for us.

And when in nature, around 1,500 species exhibit same-sex behavior (SSB), why are we so insistent on using the law to impose our religious views on unbelievers?

Finally, at the same time, Esolen does not account for the effects of being marginalized. Effects like being clinically depressed, becoming suicidal, or being persecuted, beaten, or murdered for being perceived as a threat to society because one is unnatural. And so he looks to scapegoat the Obergefell decision for a host of effects on kids. Yes, there are some reactions in transgenderism and the support for it that have gone too far. But such is natural when a long-standing social injustice is being addressed.

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

Dec 22

To Heidelblog and Todd Pruitt for the part of Pruitt's article that expressed agreement with the Nashville Statement on human sexuality.

Todd Pruitt's full article:

    https://cbmw.org/2022/11/16/why-i-changed-my-mind-on-the-nashville-statement/

The Nashville Statement:

    https://cbmw.org/nashville-statement

I struggle with a couple of articles that are in the Nashville Statement. I struggle with some of them because they are made as absolute statements regardless of context. 

For example, does Article 10 imply that Christians cannot support a person's legal right to engage in same-sex marriage or transgenderism in society? We certainly cannot support same-sex marriage or transgenderism in the Church. And our evangelism must call on those who would engage in homosexual immorality or transgenderism to repent. But if we support a person's legal right to practice religious faiths other than the Christian faith, why can't we support a person's legal right to be joined in a same-sex marriage or to seek a change in gender?

Likewise, the validity of Article 7 depends on the context in which it is used. When speaking about our new life in Christ, certainly identifying as a homosexual is at odds with that new life. However, if our new life in Christ becomes our only identity, then we can no longer identify with the tax collector from the parable of the two men praying. Can we only identify with that tax collector once, or can those who struggle with SSA identify as being homosexual as their own personal way of saying that they are like the tax collector from that parable who is in need of God's mercy in contrast with the Pharisee who not only sees no need to beg for mercy. And that Pharisee also thanks God that he is not a sinner like the tax collector. The same principle applies to Article 13 as it pertains to gender dysphoria.

We should note that in Article 12, our sinful desires must be put to death on a daily basis. Also we should note that, as James 2 says, we stumble in many ways. And we simply don't know enough about what causes SSA or gender dysphoria, in addition that many of us struggle with having sinful heterosexual desires, to say that for each Christian who is SSA that their battle in resisting  SSA is a past battle that they have won.

The Nashville State has good points to make, but it is not inerrant. And requiring too strict an adherence to it could cause some of us to hurt or even sabotage the efforts of fellow believers who are struggling with internal battles that we can't relate to even though we have our own battles to deal with.

Finally, when we reduce the new moral revolution to sexual issues, it reveals part of who we are to the world. The new moral revolution has several concerns, many of them involve social justice issues. The protests after the murder of George Floyd illustrated that. The concern about climate change and the ongoing battle to secure full equality for those in the LGBT community are concerns of the new moral revolution as well. Certainly, we as Christians should lament over the increased promiscuity and the other forms of sexual immorality that we see around us. But there are other moral issues that are just as important, if not more so, with which society is dealing. And while society has been making positive advances in working to resolve some moral issues, there are some losing battles with other moral issues.

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

Jan 3

To Heidelblog and Kaylee White for the part of White's article quoted by Heidelblog. Her article claims that current government is trying to hide its disdain for religious Americans.

Kaylee White's full article can be found at:

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/restoring-america/faith-freedom-self-reliance/303-creative-colorado-tries-to-hide-disdain-for-religious-americans

The reasoning in the question referred to in the excerpt above is neither radical nor new. It is the same reasoning applied to restore equality to previously marginalized groups. That because of past or current marginalization, some groups are protected while other groups are not. And who is objecting to such reasoning? Could it be those who wish to continue the old status quo? Could it be those who wish to move the LGBT community back to the margins of society?

Besides, it isn't speech that is being targeted here. Rather, it is access to the free market that is the issue. The issue here is about stopping  part of what was happened during Jim Crow from being exercised against LGBT community. To say the focus is free speech is misleading.

From the beginning, the legalization of same-sex marriage has been challenged by religiously conservative Christian leaders and influencers because these Christians claimed that such legalization would infringe on the freedoms of Christians. In reality, it has never been our freedoms that has been our concern. Instead, it was the fear that our ability to promote the marginalization of the LGBT community in society would be infringed on. And what we seem to struggle with recognizing is that the more we insist on marginalizing the LGBT community in society, the more we confirm what Critical Theory and Post Modernism make of religion in general and thus of Christianity in particular. And that unnecessarily harms the reputation of the Gospel.

In addition, the kind of complaint lodged in White's article forgets the historical context of designating the LGBT community as a group in need of protection. For none of what us Christians suffering from in the efforts to protect the LGBT community compares with the suffering that many of us or our ancestors have imposed on the LGBT community for centuries.

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

To Bradley Birzer and his article that attempts to define conservatism in a way that makes it the ultimate ism or approach to thinking and living. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

The above article is just another attempt to make conservatism all that its followers want it to be. And so Birzer is starting to make conservatism into a naturalistic religion by which its followers can claim to be exceptional to those who are not conservatives. According To Birzer, conservatism is the ultimate ideal. But because of that, conservatism deals with the immanence-transcendence that we also attribute to God. And that is part of what makes conservatism a religion.

Another part of what makes conservatism a naturalistic religion is that it has a monopoly on truth where truth can be found. And that, according to Birzer, distinguishes it from liberalism, socialism, and corporatism. According to Birzer, it seems that we have everything to learn from conservatism and nothing to learn from any other isms. Besides making its followers arrogant, that would make conservatism the sole proprietor of truth and that causes theological problems for those religious faiths that are based on revelation. That is because being the sole proprietor would make conservatism the judge of all revelation. 

But there is also a problem according to Birzer. That is t how can we conserve what we did not practice? Note how Birzer states that 'true conservatism' is rarely understood or practiced. And if one neither understands nor practices conservatism, how can one judge the other isms?

There is one other characteristic that makes conservatism into a naturalistic religion. That characteristic is the forever attempt to define conservatism in a way that makes it the be all and end all of how to live and think. That forever attempt to make conservatism omniscient also contributes to making conservatism a naturalistic religion.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For August 3, 2022

July 27

To R. Scott Clark and his short article that describes the CDC webpage for those in the LGBTQ community as a taxpayer supported recruitment page for the LGBTQ community. This appeared in Heidelblog

Providing an information webpage that addresses LGBTQ health issues qualifies as recruiting? Or is the above mentioned CDC webpage about LGBTQ health issues being used as a wedge issue by those who would like to manipulate public opinion and work to marginalize the the LGBTQ community?

Clark should visit that page and tell us if he was ever recruited before implying wrongdoing. After all, the Commandment that prohibits bearing false witness against one's neighbors demands that we are careful about what we say about others.

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

August 1

To Rosaria Butterfield and her talk about the lies that the current age is tell us Christians about sexual orientation and gender identity. This was posted in Heidelblog.

Rosaria Butterfield, who is a champion for Biblical sexual values for some religiously conservative Christians simply because of her lesbian past and previously held self-described radical views, spoke on Christianity and both sexual identity and gender orientation. Her talk starts at around the 43 minute mark. Though I agree with many of her views on what constitutes Biblical sexual values, I struggle with what is suggested and even implied by what she says about Christianity and both sexual orientation and gender identity.

First, what is implied by Butterfield's statement that we have codified lies into laws when talking about the legalization of same-sex marriage? Does Butterfield wish to imply that our laws must only be based on the Scriptures? If so, then there goes the freedom of religion, speech, press, and assembly. If so, then religiously conservative Christianity has set itself as an arch enemy of Democracy. For even if she doesn't intend to say so, Butterfield is implying the need for theonomy. For the laws we have are sometimes based on worldly ideas from people who have traded in what they know about God for lies. That is because society is made up of believers and unbelievers. And the only way to escape those lies is to base all of our laws solely on the Scriptures.

We might ask Butterfield whether she wants us to return to the good old days when homosexual acts were criminalized and  homosexuals could be harassed on or fired from their jobs because of the sexual orientation. If that is what she wants, then she knows much more about heteronormativity than she seems to admit to. I assume here that she opposes the legalization of violence against people because of their sexual orientation even though that was a part of the good old days of heteronomativity. But Butterfield gives a strong impression that those in the LGBT community should not be treated as equals in society. In fact, she gives a strong impression that those in the LGBT community should be harshly marginalized by society. Of course, being harshly marginalized by society is not how she came to faith in Christ.

We must also address what Butterfield says about nature. Why? Because we need to distinguish between nature as God designed it from nature in its current fallen state. We know that nature is in a fallen state because the Bible tells us so. But we can also determine that from observation because homosexuality is practiced in hundreds, if not over 1,000, species--in reality it is bisexuality that is practiced--in contrast to how God designed nature for His creatures. The existence of those who are intersex is also proof that nature was already fallen because nature's original design from Genesis 1 and 2 says that God made us male and female. And though only a small percentage of people are born intersex, we cannot pretend that they do not exist because they are so few. They are people like the rest of us. So while we can see from the Scriptures and nature God's design for us, fallen nature is giving us some opposing opinions.

And so despite what nature tells us on the outside about someone, we really don't know what nature is telling them on the inside. And so we shouldn't assume what nature is telling each person on the inside. Therefore, we should not assume how much one's biological sex influencing a person about their gender identity. At the same time, Butterfield is correct and the LGBT community is wrong in conflating gender identity, which is psychological, with biological sex, which is physical.

Also, what did the SF gay choir want to do to our children according to what they sang as shown in the video? Wasn't it clearly stated that they want to teach them to tolerate those in the LGBT community? They weren't singing about seducing children. In addition, couldn't every para church youth ministry make the same claim that they are coming for our children even though they are coming to teach religion?

The struggle we religiously conservative Christians have is to distinguish what we can't allow and must say in our evangelism and to each other in our churches about sex from what we can allow in and must support in society. To not make that distinction is to imply that the duty for Christians is to base our nation's laws only on the Scriptures. And even there, do the New Testament Scriptures teach us by word or example to impose Biblical sexual mores on society?

Also, repentance is essential. But  we can easily fall into the trap of perfectionism by expecting Christians to fully repent of all their sins. I don't think Butterfield believes that we Christians fully repent of all of our sins. But she does seem to believe that all Christians who struggle with homosexuality and/or gender dysphoria can fully repent of that particular sin.

As we listen to Butterfield speak, which starts around 43 minutes into the video and please listen to her, look to see if there is a certain rigidity in Butterfield's current thinking in her talking about sexual orientation and gender identity. Because if there is such a rigidity, then perhaps Butterfield is employing the same kind of thinking now which she used when she was a lesbian and was a professor with radical views. And thus the only reason why her views are different now, despite using the same kind of thinking, is because she is using a different starting point and different set of assumptions, some that are Scriptural and some that are not.

 

Pronouncing Judgments While Pretending To Be God

It happens with almost every disaster. Except for Hurricane Irma, which has just tragically pummeled islands in the Caribbean and now Florida, almost every natural and man-made disaster has been used by some of my fellow religiously conservative Christians to selectively preach repentance to America. And by selectively I mean that the LGBT community has been blamed for some disaster and challenged to repent. There are a number of disasters for which the LGBT community has been blamed (click here for list). Most prominent on that list are hurricanes. And the most reasonable answer for why those hurricanes caused the damage is because of climate change. And yet, the LGBT community was blamed.

The day this post is being written is an appropriate day for mentioning the above is because today is 9/11. And we should note that some religiously conservative Christians, including Jerry Falwell, blamed the 9/11 atrocities on the LGBT community. They, like their counterparts today, believed that God made a deal with America to protect it from harm because of America's religious beginnings. And so as we stray from our religious past, we venture out of God's protection for America. We should note that such a belief has no Biblical justification.

While so many families in our nation are currently suffering from catastrophic losses due to rains and floods in the South and to fire in the Northwest, there are two horrible things that are going on when some of my fellow religiously conservative Christians scapegoat the LGBT community for these disasters. First, they are employing what Chris Hedges has been saying they employ: 'magical thinking.' In order to confirm their theology and maintain their manipulative hold on people, these religiously conservative Christians are associating two things that are not in anyway related: natural disasters and the sexual orientations and practices by certain people. But because they claim to represent God, they have proven that our natural disasters and the sexual orientations and practices of certain people are related.

Even on a biblical level, such an association should not be used. For when one of God's people could identify the cause for a disaster, it was because of God's revelation and how He spoke to people back then. But such is not the case now. So those who are claiming that God is visiting natural disasters on us because of the LGBT community have no Biblical support for doing so. That lack of Biblical support isn't because the Bible doesn't speak against homosexuality, it does. It is because God doesn't speak to us the same way now as he did during the Old Testament times and the times of the Apostles.

The second horrible thing that is going on here is that because some religiously conservative Christians are scapegoating that community for the disasters hitting our nation, they are calling for judgment on this community. But, ironically speaking, it isn't God's judgment they are calling for, it is people's judgment. They want people to punish the LGBT community for the disasters that hit our nation. And hopefully, on their part, that punishment will move those in the LGBT community to repent. Ar least that is how the logic should work. But one has to wonder, with the vile ways in which some religiously conservative Christians speak about the LGBT community, whether some religiously conservative Christians just want to see those in that community to suffer because of their hatred for them.

 A significant amount of our nation is suffering from natural disasters. Our first concern when such disasters hit are the people who are suffering. That should be our first concern. If we are to have a second concern, then that should be about what, logically speaking, appears to be the cause of the disasters. Logically speaking, the cause of the disasters we are seeing is climate change. It is not certain that these hurricanes were stronger because of climate change and that the fires in the Northwest are because of climate change. But that is where the evidence points to. And so if we are going to repent in response to these disasters, our repentance should be over our contributions to climate change.

In addition, it isn't that hurricanes shouldn't remind us to call out to God for help. And it isn't that the Bible doesn't speak against homosexuality. It is though that those who blame our natural disasters on the LGBT community are revealing what is in their own hearts rather than why God allowed the hurricane to come. And what is in their hearts is a hatred for those they are commanded to love and to share the Gospel with. Thus, those who blame our nation's disasters on the LGBT community are among the first who should be repenting here.

On Religious Liberty And Religious Myopia

John Stonestreet (click here for bio) has just written an article for CNS on religious liberty and limited government. His concern is that both are vanishing and they are interrelated (click here for the article). Religious liberty, according to Stonestreet, limits our government in terms of what it can demand from us. And now, that liberty is being sorely tested in a number of areas from Christian pharmacists being required to carry abortifacients to Christian counselors being told that they must help same-sex couple prepare for marriage to Christian pregnancy centers being required to share information on abortion centers to Christian business owners being forced to provide goods and services to same-sex weddings to county clerks who were told to provide marriage applications to same-sex couples.. According to Stonestreet, the consciences of many a Christian worker are bullied by government. And the reason, according to Stonestreet, is because many do not understand religious liberty.

In all of this, there are things missing from Stonestreet's discussion. One of the things missing is that any consideration on religious liberty should be taken on an instance by instance basis. For it seems that according to Stonestreet, all of these individual instances are wrongful violations of religious liberty.

What is also missing from Stonestreet's discussion are past instances where religious liberty was used to defend abusive and discriminatory actions. For example, the discrimination that was prevalent during the Jim Crow era was defended by some on the basis people's Christian and Biblical beliefs. Here we might want to check what kind of parallels exist between the prejudice that was on display against Blacks during Jim Crow and any possible prejudice that religiously conservative Christians may want to exhibit today against those in the LGBT community.

What is also missing is any mention of the effects that the insistence on religious liberties will have on the rights, including religious rights, of other such as those from the LGBT community. There is no mention that what is often viewed as a infringement on the religious rights of Christians in this post Obergefell v. Hodges decision are possible collision of rights between religiously conservative Christians and those from the LGBT community. For when comes to these issues over Christians having their religious liberties being infringed on, in most cases it is due to their being involved with either those from the LGBT community or their events like wedding ceremonies. Likewise, when it it comes to Christian pharmacies providing abortifacients, we need to consider whether their claimed right not to provide them collides with the rights of those seeking such medicine.

Also what is not mentioned in Stonestreet's article is any mention about a broader context in which these possible infringements on religious liberties take place. These take place in a Capitalists economic system where the provisions of goods and services are provided by the private sector. That means that if the private sector denies goods and services to a group, that group is deprived of those goods and services. And that can happen because if one provider can legally prohibit providing goods and services to a group, then the potential is there for others from the private sector to also deny that group goods and services. And thus members from that group can suffer from a partial or even full deprivation of goods and services depending on their location.

What is also missing from Stonestreet's article here are the past concerns expressed by some religiously conservative Christians over homosexuality and same-sex marriage. In short, one of the fears is that homosexuality will be viewed in society as being normal (click here and there). What is rarely mentioned but strongly implied then is that many religiously conservative Christians want society to view homosexuality as abnormal and deviant. Some appeal to natural law in making their argument. But there is a problem with such an appeal. That problem is that homosexuality is practiced in 1,500 species (click here).

What is finally not mentioned, especially with regard to the LGBT community, is that we see a pendulum swing in the direction of favoring LGBT rights over religious rights. And how far that pendulum swing goes depends on how far religiously conservative Christians pushed the pendulum when it was in their favor. And it was in their favor for centuries in this nation against recognizing the rights of the LGBT community including the criminalizing homosexual acts.

This article is not saying that there are no current infringements on religious liberties today. Logically speaking, the prohibition to same-sex marriage based on Christian theology was an infringement on the religious liberties of those who did not agree with that theology. And there have been infringements on the religious liberties of religiously conservative Christians such as those who have been dismissed from their jobs for stating their convictions even though their statements had nothing to do with their job performances. 

As for the rest the alleged instances of religious liberties being violated, we need to judge them on a case by case basis. But we need to do so from a much broader context than what Stonestreet has worked with here. For what Stonestreet has done is to talk about religious liberties only from the perspective of religiously conservative Christians. He has failed to mention other issues and concerns such as the ones that have been mentioned here.





And it seems that what has caused the controversy of religious liberty is the legalization of same-sex marriage.

ONIM For October 20, 2014

Christian News

• Mark Driscoll Resigns From Mars Hill Church -- Religion News Service
• Distorted Love: The Toll Of Our Christian Theology On The LGBT Community -- Huffington Post
• All Aboard The USS Persecution Complex -- The Daily Beast
• Hopes Rising That Asia Bibi's Death Sentence Will Be Lifted -- Christian Today (UK)
• Mexican Priests Are 'Most Persecuted In The World' -- Christian Today (UK)
• New Figures Reveal Massive Decline In Religious Affiliation -- Christian Today (UK)
• Was Driscoll's Board A Problem? -- Christianity Today
• Houston Drops Sermons From Subpoenas -- Christianity Today
• Catholic Bishops At Synod On Family Rejects Gay-Friendly Policy Change; Undecided On Cohabiting And Remarried Members -- The Christian Post
• Anger, Privilege, And Invisible Justice: What Cain And Able Have To Do With Ferguson -- Religion Dispatches
• Congregants Flee Traditional Churches, But This Former Pastor Rejoices -- Religion News Service
• Why We Need A Cultural Theology -- Political Jesus

World News

• Fox News Appalled That Harvard Students Think The US Is A Threat To World Peace -- Ring Of Fire
• Horror Of Kobani -- The Independent
• Pentagon: Global Warming Will Change How US Military Trains And Goes To War -- The Guardian
• Jean Tirole Wins Nobel In Economics For Work On Regulation -- New York Times
• Supreme Court Stops Parts Of Texas Abortion Law -- Huffington Post
• Mora County Commission Votes To Keep Drilling Ban -- Santa Fe New Mexican
• Utah State University Threatened With School Shooting Over Sarkeesian Appearance -- Polygon
• Pipeline Remains Shut After Spill In Louisiana On Monday -- Wall Street Journal
• The "Eye Popping" Cost Of Cancer Drugs -- CBS News
• C.I.A. Study Of Covert Aid Fueled Skepticism About Helping Syrian Rebels -- New York Times
• Amber Vinson Identified As 2nd Dallas Hospital Worker To Contract Ebola -- Huffington Post
• Video Of Climate Change And Greenland -- Upworthy.Com
• Mexico's Missing Students: Were 43 Targeted By Cartel-Linked Police Targeted For Their Activism -- Democracy Now
• More Pro-Russian Far Right Conferences In Europe -- EuroMaidan
• Mexico Universities Call Strike In Solidarity With Missing Students -- Aljazeera
• Philadelphia Teachers Hit By Latest Cuts -- New York Times
• Welsh Council Embargoes Israel Over Gaza "Savageness" -- Electronic Intifada
• You Thought California's Drought Could Not Get Any Worse? Enter Fracking -- Mother Jones
• Now The UN Is Intervening In Detroit's Water Conflict -- The Guardian
• Court Overturns Marissa Alexander's 20-Year Sentence For Warning Shot At Abusive Husband -- The Pittsburg Courier
• Report: Senate Report On CIA Will Sidestep Look At Bush 'Torture Team' -- Common Dreams

Pick(s) Of The Litter

• Chomsky: Business Elites Are Waging A Brutal Class War In America -- Alternet
• "Dear White People" Is The College Movie Of Our Times -- Salon
• Anita Sarkeesian On GamerGate: 'We Have A Problem And We're Going To Fix This' -- Rolling Stone
  
  

Saying The Wrong Thing For Almost All Of The Right Reasons

Trauma can have many effects on people. It can cause phobias. A child who is bitten by a dog could become afraid of all dogs. And what is easy to observe here is that that trauma has inhibited the child from telling the difference between dogs that are friendly and dogs that could be threatening.

Some of us have experienced a phobia after the horrendous attacks of 9/11. Some of us reacted with a fear of some from the Middle East or of Muslims. In some, that fear grew to hatred that led to attacks. And like the child who loses the ability to distinguish between a friendly dog and a dangerous dog after being bit, some Americans have become xenophobic to certain groups.

It is with this knowledge that we should attempt to understand the recent statements on homophobia (see BBC article) by Bishop Desmond Tutu. The most alarming statements that came Bishop Tutu are as follows, 

I would refuse to go to a homophobic heaven. No, I would say sorry, I mean I would much rather go to the other place

and

I would not worship a God who is homophobic and that is how deeply I feel about this.

To us religious conservatives, rejecting these statements is a slam-dunk, a no-brainer because we know what the Bible says about homosexuality and we know what it says about God and eternal life. However, how should we regard the person who made these statements? Also, in so easily denouncing these statements, are we missing some grains of truth which could be hidden deep inside these statements? To answer these questions, we must look at the context of the statements made. The first part of the context is to look at the Bishop Tutu, the man who made these statements. And the second part of the context is to look at the people he is defending. And in both cases, we should look to see if trauma has played a role in blurring distinctions.

Bishop Tutu grew up and lived under horrible racist conditions in South Africa for decades. The apartheid system sought to separate the races, Black, Colored, and White, and to separate nonWhites from wealth and power. Blacks and Colored, with the Colored consisting of people who were of mixed races, had land stolen from them and were often placed on unproductive land called "homelands" which plunged many into poverty. In addition, they were stripped of their South African citizenship though they were ruled over by the South African government. Both Blacks and Colored faced constant humiliation, police repression, torture and even murder by death squads. Dissent was harshly punished and sometimes met with deadly violence. There was resistance which sometimes included violence. 

Despite these horrors, Bishop Tutu headed the Truth And Reconciliation Commission after Apartheid. This commission sought to peacefully resolve the conflicts and hatred that came because of the atrocities. Since then, Bishop Tutu has spoken out or has been active against other instances of racism in places including Zimbabwe, the Solomon Islands, Israel and Palestine, and China. He has been harshly condemned by some for some of his work such as his criticisms of Israel's actions against the Palestinians. 

Lately, Bishop Tutu has been working for equality for gays. Approximately one-third of the nations in the world make homosexuality a crime and there are some countries that punish it by death. Though homosexuality is legal in his own country of South Africa,  some in the LGBT community there have been harassed, assaulted, sexually assaulted, and even murdered. Since Bishop Tutu rightfully equates this persecution with racism, it seems that he might attribute homosexuality to physical causes.

What we should note here is that we who have lived as privileged people haven't a clue when it comes to understanding the atrocities that Bishop Tutu has had to endure, resist and work through in his life. When he is defending gays, he is defending people, some of whom are oppressed, and working for equality. And what I would add here regarding those who have criticized his statements on preferring hell to a homophobic heaven is that they have neither mentioned nor criticized the horrible atrocities being committed against some in the LGBT community. How is it that people offering a "Christian" analysis on Tutu's not so good choice for eternity are so quiet about the persecution and even murdering others which he is reacting to? How? 

Just as Tutu could not be more wrong in saying that he would prefer "the other place" to a  homophobic heaven, he could not be more right in both opposing the brutal abuse some in the LGBT community have to live through as well as working for equality for gays. And Tutu could not be more correct than when he equates persecution of those in the LGBT community with the racism he has so heroically opposed in South Africa and other places. 

So with all that he has lived through and all the good that he has done, can we understand why he confuses man's inhumane acts of homophobia with God's judgment on sinners? Is it possible that Tutu would not have made his statements if Christians had not so harshly persecuted those in the LGBT community or had not remained silent about the severe abuse some of them must live through? In other words, are Tutu's current sentiments and confusion a reflection on some of us Christians?

Tutu's startling statements are not new, they have been said before. Consider what the Indian chief Hatuey from Haiti said before he was to be burned at the stake by Spanish "Christians." This chief sought refuge in Cuba because of the Spanish atrocities in Haiti and the surrounding islands which, according to Bartolomé  de Las Casas, a contemporary of Columbus and an eye witness to the Spanish violence in Haiti, killed millions of Indians. Being tied to the stake in preparation for his execution, a priest told Hatuey what he must believe in order to go to heaven. Hatuey asked the priest if all Christians went to heaven. The priest said yes. Hatuey then told the priest that he preferred to go to the other place.

References

1. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-23464694
2. http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/i-would-not-worship-a-homophobic-god-tutu/story-fni0xqll-1226686648794
3. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3yxFzs73Ss
4. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2PEfZvthxg
5. http://www.history.com/topics/apartheid
6. http://www-cs-students.stanford.edu/~cale/cs201/apartheid.hist.html
7. http://www.history.com/topics/apartheid
8. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desmond_Tutu
9. Voices of a People's History of the United States, by Howard Zinn and Anthony Arnove, pg 35-41