Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For June 15, 2022

 June 3

To Heidelblog and Scott R. Swain for Heidelblog's partial quoting of Swain's article on the importance that tradition plays to faith. This was posted in Heidelblog.

Swain's original article can be found at:

    https://www.scottrswain.com/2022/05/12/on-tradition/

We want the transmission of the faith to be relevant without changing the core of the faith. The question is, where do we get that core from?

Certainly the Scriptures are our first and ultimate source. But traditions can be helpful provided that they are not put on too high a pedestal and that we understand where our traditions might be more influenced by the times and culture of those whose writing became our traditions than on the Scriptures.

For us Reformed people, we have to acknowledge that there are parts of our traditions that carry different priorities. For example, what our traditions describe the Godhead and soteriology are more important to pay attention to than what the parts of those traditions that talk about how we relate to society or each other. For if we put all of the parts of our traditions on the same footing, either we will easily compromise the most basic and essential parts of our traditions or we risk putting our traditions on such a high pedestal that they compete with the Scriptures for importance. And if we rely too much on our traditions to understand the Scriptures, the Scriptures themselves become subject to the man-made canon of our traditions. 

One other point should be made here. If we put too much emphasis on our traditions, and thus putting them on too high a pedestal, we will  fall prey to an authoritarianism that makes us vulnerable to relying too much on human authorities rather than properly submitting to the authority structures God has placed over us.

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

June 7

To R. Scott Clark and his article that tries to partially criticize winsomeness in discussions about the faith. Here, winsomeness is called a synonym of being nice. This appeared in Heidelblog.

Authoritarians don't like to be nice, neither do those who lack self-control. Donald Trump is an epitome of anti-winsomeness, but one doesn't have to be a Trump to cross the line in how we respond to people. Here we are not talking about watering down the truths we confess, we are talking about how we confess those truths before others.

In Galatians 6, Paul tells us to be gentle in how we correct fellow believers who have fallen into sin. One reason for being gentle is that we too could easily fall into sin. And if we are called to be gentle with those who have fallen into sin, how is it that we have the license to be aggressive with or even hostile toward those in our Christian intramural debates or in defending what we believe before unbelievers? After all, gentleness and self-control are part of the fruit of the Spirit.

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

June 8

To Heidelblog and Carl Trueman for the Heidelblog post that quotes a part of Trueman's article that speaks against Pride Month for the LGBT community. Thie appeared in Heidelblog.

Carl Trueman's full article can be found at:

    https://wng.org/opinions/welcome-to-pride-month-christian-1654083759

When, in the article cited, Trueman wants to separate what the government allows people to do in the privacy of their own bedrooms from Pride month, he is forgetting 1 facet of marginalization: that which is practiced by society.

Pride Month is, in part, about equality for those in the LGBT community in society. So if the state doesn't criminalize the LGBT community but society is free to punish those from the LGBT community, what has been gained by the LGBT community? In fact, isn't this part of the objections to the legalization of same-sex marriage by many fellow religiously conservative Christianas? That if same-sex marriage is legal, then it is regarded, in society, as being equal to heterosexual marriage.

Should Christians participate in Pride Month? I don't believe so. That is because we shouldn't be celebrating sin. But should we agree with the need for the public recognition of Pride Month? Yes, that is if we believe that those in the LGBT community should enjoy full equality in society. And we can't separate the issue of full equality from Pride Month though Pride Month says more than that.

It's odd that Trueman's article favorably compares opposition to racism with opposing Pride Month. After all, the former opposes bigotry while the latter celebrates and promotes bigotry.

We need neither the state nor society to confront the LGBT community. Rather, the preaching of the Gospel and Church discipline for those who persist in sexual immorality is all we need in speaking against the sins practiced by the LGBT community. For us to enlist society or the state to further challenge the LGBT community will not only display a presumption of self-righteousness on our part, it will cause those in the LGBT community, and perhaps others, to see the Church's oppression before they hear the Church's evangelism.

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

June 11

To the Heidelblog and Aaron Rent for Reno's article that was partially quoted in the Heidelblog post. In particular, the comment below addresses the title of this Heidelblog article. This post appeared in Heidelblog.

Aaron Reno's full article can be found at:

https://aaronrenn.substack.com/p/the-three-worlds-of-evangelicalism-7fc?s=w

Post Modernism has certainly led the charge in determining how Christianity is perceived in our nation today. But Post Modernism was not targeting Christianity per se as it was targeting all groups that claimed to have an exclusive possession of the truth. Also, Post Modernism's reaction was result based. Under Christianity, especially white,  religiously conservative Christianity, many groups had been sorely oppressed and marginalized in America. And that is a truth that we white religiously conservative Christianity has yet to come to full grips with both intellectually and emotionally. That Is why we have failed to adequately acknowledge and appreciate the fallible attempts by those promoting CRT, those in BLM, and those in LGBT community to tell us how we have, and still try to, oppressed and marginalize others. Since their attempts are fallible, they are wrong in some of the things they are saying. But the gist of what they are saying about us is correct.

Our, that is those who are white, religiously conservative Christians, marginalization is nothing compared with the marginalization that we put others through. And yet, we are very focused on our current state in society.  And we should note that that white, religiously conservative Christianity is not really marginalized in the whole nation like minorities and the LGBT community had been. There are large areas of the nation where such Christianity still holds sway.

Another way to express the last two paragraphs is that we white, religiously conservative Christians have been spoiled by the past so that we are tending to magnify and marginalization we are suffering today. And our magnification of our current marginalization is just another cause for us to lose credibility as witnesses for Christ.

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

June 11

To Anthony Costello and his comment in response to a comment of mine about CRT. His comment appeared around June 10th This was part of the conversations that followed his article entitled "Whiteness" And The Splitting Of The Evangelical Mind. That appeared on the Theological Apologetics blog on Patheos.

Anthony,

I simply accommodated to your language. With some of the above, they denied the pandemic, such as a family member who denied it both before and after having Covid. So it doesn't matter got me which word is used. Not treating the pandemic as seriously as it should be costed lives.

I can't believe you asked the question about whether I have read any CRT. That is simply an attempt to discredit me here. How would know about ties between MLK and CRT without being familiar with both? Listen to the Xander Vanocur interview with MLK, which can be found on Youtube, as he made the distinction between his earlier of struggling for dignity and his latter work of struggling for real equality and then read Kimberlé Crenshaw on the equality of outcomes. Or read Anthony Cook on how MLK deconstructed the Christian support for Jim Crow. Or read Derrick Bell on the possibility of racial equality in today's America or Jayne Chong-Soon Lee as she challenges Kwayne Anthony Appiah's take on racism.

Not only that, the AME has determined to make social justice issues part of their sermons--btw, AME is the only African Methodist Church denomination I have found. And I didn't see any denunciation of CRT by that denomination. However, I did see an interesting quote from a Black leader of the Methodist Church regarding CRT (see https://um-insight.net/pers... ):

First and foremost, Critical Race Theory does not teach that ‘some students are inherently good, and others are inherently bad based on their outward appearance.’ Critical Race Theory takes a critical look at racial justice and the roots of racism in the United States. It focuses on systemic and institutional changes and challenges that lead to racism and seeks to uncover the hidden dynamics that have brought us to where we are in this country.

Contrary to promoting racism, as has been suggested, Critical Race Theory examines the role of race in our justice system and the complex interplay between race, and gender and its impact on minorities. Unfortunately, some groups have co-opted the term and twisted it to serve their own agendas. 

Here's the real problem, You're using a model of thought to deduce the extent to which CRT reflects how Blacks experience racism in this country without regard for the history and real life experiences of Blacks in this nation. And by your model of thought, you seem to have concluded that CRT does not reflect to any degree how Blacks have and still do experience racism in this nation.

And in your comments to me, you use name dropping to defend your case.

Your argument is not very sound. We religiously conservative Christian thinkers often are lured into a temptation that we can define anything in or out of existence through deduction.

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

June 12

To Mark Malvasi and his article that criticizes Nikole Hannah-Jones's 1619 project. Malvasi attempts to steer a course that between Jones's 1619 Project and the vision of America held to by the Patriotic Right. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative Blog. 

So Nicole Hannah-Jones's 1619 Project errs more in interpretation than in facts.  And Malvasi wishes to find a Goldilocks position between the approaches of both Jones and Zinn and that of the American Patriotic Right. And thus Malvasi is seeking to do more than just take an edge off of the historical approach taken by Jones and Zinn.

In trying to curb Jones's interpretation of history, he moves the date for when slavery and race became more of a focal point in the US. He also includes that it was Americans who freed the slaves in the Civil War. In addition, he contends that Jones's interpretation of history accounts for neither abolitionists nor the Civil Rights Movement.

But in all of that, Malvasi might just be a bit too selective with the facts. Race was an issue from the beginning of white America's history. After all, land was being forcibly taken from Native Americans almost from the beginning and captured Native Americans as well as Blacks were being traded as slaves by the Puritans in the latter part of the 1630s.

Yes, Americans freed the slaves in the Civil War. But they had to fight their fellow Americans to do so.

As for the Civil Rights Movement, the bulk of the key leaders from that movement were black, and so what was missing in Jones's description of America regarding that? And being an abolitionist did not imply that one believed in equality. In fact, many black abolitionists soon learned that many white abolitionists were still white supremacists.

And yes, America was not alone practicing slavery and promoting white supremacy. But America seems to have ended slavery later than many other nations did. And we are still battling the notion of white supremacy. While other nations eliminated slavery, the US followed slavery with Jim Crow.

Malvasi wants to select a Goldilocks position in talking about racism and slavery in the US. He wants a position that lies between Jones-Zinn and the American Patriotic right. But I have another suggestion. My suggestion is this, America should treat our past history and present practice of racism in the same way that we want Germany to treat its history of Nazism. To do so would indicate how seriously we are taking both our past and present racism. 

Of course the difference between the two situations is that America is still suffering from horrible problems with racism. Nazism has been relegated to being that of a fringe group in Germany today. Unfortunately, racism here is still too much in vogue.

Comments Which Conservative Block From Their Blogs For January19, 2022

Jan 11

To R. Scott Clark and his article that harshly judges the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) for allowing ministers to employ portraits of Christ. Clark believes that this is a violation of the 2nd Commandment forbidding images to be used in worship. This appeared in Heidelblog.

With the pedestal that many Reformed Christian ministers, elders, theologians, and laypeople have placed under the Westminster Confessions and Catechisms and other like documents, we might want to consider whether placing those documents on such a pedestal is itself a violation of the 2nd Commandment. It could be such a violation in the way that the traditions of the Pharisees (see Mark 7) became a substitute for God's Word.

But it's not only that, it is extremely disconcerting to hear the same theologians condemn social justice activists for confusing law and the Gospel when these activists are sometimes trying to mitigate horrific social injustices these theologians also harshly judge the use of musical instruments in the Church as well as those who resort to using or allow others to use images or portraits of Christ. 

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

Jan 12

To Jerry Sayler and his review of a book by Charles Murray on race. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog. 

Though I agree with the writer that Murray relies too much on American individualism in his explanation, to point out the disparities that Murray does between the races without considering, as far as I can tell from the above article,  the roles that other pertinent variables, like economic class, history, and subcultural variables, might play in those measurements and thus conclude certain difference between the races is racial opportunism. Such would make any person who belongs to a racially privileged group a racist of significant degree. Again, that assessment depends on whether Murray has not fairly factored in the variables mentioned in this response.

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

Jan 13

To R. Scott Clark and his blog post that, while reviewing an article that criticized Machen for his racism, seemed to have lessened the significance of sin of that racism because of the times and the place where Machen grew up. This appeared in Heidelblog.

There is problems with Clark's semi-defense of Machen. The first problem is with his treatment of Machen's cultural and family background. Machen did have a family history of members having supported or fought for the Confederates. Machen and family grew up in the South. Machen grew up in a privileged setting both in terms of race and economics. 

And yet, what if we heeded Clark's admonition to not be  anachronistic and applied that those struggling with sexual sins? What if Paul said to the Corinthians who lived in a society where there was rampant sexual immorality, 'try not to commit adultery, but if  you do, then it is understandable'? And yet, that is not how Paul spoke to neither the Corinthians when he said that the sexually immoral will not inherit the Kingdom of God nor to the Romans when he said do not conform to the world.

The other problem with Scott's semi-defense of Machen is that he forgot the context of Machen's need to speak out for racism in his published works. It was during the Jim Crow era. How many times did Machen need to speak out and take a stand for segregation and racism during during that time especially when Machen's focus was on theological issues. And yet, what was Machen willing to say about Warfield, and who knows what he said on the Princeton campus, when Warfield wanted to integrate the Princeton dorms? And if we want to bypass Machen, there is always the issue of slavery and the beliefs and/or practices of Jonathan Edwards and George Whitfield to contend with. Yes, Clark condemned Machen for his racism. But does he do that in the same way that he condemns side-B Christians? How serious, in Clark's view, is the sin of racism in comparison to sexual immorality?

Clark misses what is to be learned from Machen's example of racism because he is too busy understanding Machen's racism so that Machen doesn't lose his authority to speak to us today. On a side note, that brings up the issue of partiality on Clark's part.  But the lesson is this, we Christians are vulnerable to serious sins and yet, because of God's rich grace and mercy, we are still bound to Christ. And once we realize that, we can show what can be learned from the parable of the man whose great debt was forgiven much but he could not forgive another person of a small debt We should add that we could never forgive others of more and greater sins than what God has forgiven us of.

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

Jan 18

To Mark Malvasi and his article on liberalism in government has maintained the racism and poverty that still plagues this nation. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

Mulvasi's attack on liberalism, not to be confused with the liberalism of the Democratic Party,  while citing Martin Luther King Jr is self-sabotaging. The problem is that his citing of King is very selective and very small. And thus he ends up criticizing some of what King promoted.

But before addressing that, there is another issue to consider. It is Mulvasi's statement on biological support for racial differences that is the problem:

If there is no biological support for racial differences, then there is no biological justification for racial inequality.

Here we might ask why must differences imply inequality, in general, the the superiority of one group over the other in particular. For the real problem with the belief in superiority is that it results in one group feeling entitled to rule over others regardless if the differences are in race, religions and ideologies, language, economic classes, ethnicities or other factors. In reality, it is one group's feeling entitled to rule over others that is the basic cause of continued racism.

While Mulvasi criticizes Democratic liberal ill-advised attempts on making a government part of the solution to racism, he attributes to King the belief that we all have choices and those choices have consequences.  But King also supported some of the Democratic liberal inspired government programs that Mulvasi condemned. While Mulvasi condemned those programs because of what it did to individual effort, King promoted government intervention through laws that protected people of color from individual acts of prejudice. King also supported the welfare state and even promoted the idea of a guaranteed income. 

While Mulvasi favors, in contrast to government intervention on individuals, 'competitive individualism' and unrestrained enterprise, earlier he complains that Classical Liberals leave the poor at  the mercy of mercy of the market and that the post CIvil War wealthy opposed the redistribution of wealth which was part of Thaddeus Stevens's plans that would have secured 'economic welfare' and  rights for Blacks and whites while promoting 'unrestrained enterprise.

Forgotten is King's statement on property rights:

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.

Forgotten is King's statement on Capitalism when he compared it with Communism. For in <i>Stride Toward Freedom</i> King described Capitalism as having forgotten that life is social while noting that Communism forgot that life is individual. King also promoted government welfare and training programs that were threatened, according to King, by increased spending on the Vietnam War. King actually proposed a guaranteed income for Americans. Also forgotten is King's reliance on laws and programs passed to impeded racism and help those in need.

Finally, while Mulvasi tells us that to eliminate racism and poverty, we must rely on the collective consciousness of Americans and 'competitive individuals and unrestrained enterprise,' the past has seemingly forever overall given members of one race an advantage over those from other races. Thus Mulvasi's solution is like judging a 440 race where some runners start at the beginning, others start at the 110 mark while others start at the 220 mark solely by who finishes in the top places. The result can be nothing more than the maintenance of the status quo. In addition, to rely on America's collective consciousness to eliminate racism forgets not only the headlines of yesteryear, but those of this year as well. Sentimental tribal ties to the past have too well fragmented America's collective consciousness.

It is difficult here to determine whether Mulvasi recognizes that what he proposes is based on a romanticized view of beliefs that have played a significan role in maintaining the racism that we see today.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For March 13, 2019

March 12

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost that complains about social media censoring conservative views such as those about sexuality. This appeared in Heidelblog

The censorship complained about above flows multiple ways. It sometimes strikes conservative views on issues while at other times it strikes leftist views. And it can be very defensive over statements made about Israel. And FB is not the only platform where the censors feel that they can strike at any post with impunity. At least, all of that has been a part of my experiences.

But some of the conservative complaint about how it is treated in social media seems to proceed without any self-awareness. That is especially true regarding LGBT issues. On the one hand, Clark complains about how those who oppose the sexual revolution are negatively portrayed as bigots. At the same time, he seems to be frustrated by the fact that the Millennials who now, according to Clark, seem to be in charge of the censorship, never knew of a time when homosexuality was considered to be immoral and illegal.

That combination causes some to question whether all who who oppose the sexual revolution form a monolith. Is a necessary part of rejecting the sexual revolution entail not just the marginalization of the LGBT community in society, but the opposition to the legalization of homosexual acts.

In one sense, I can't wait for Millennial Christians to take the place the current old guard. For the old guard, because of its past privileged place in society has learned to take much of its privilege status for granted. And thus it feels comfortable while living in denial of the harm it has caused to others.

Perhaps one more inconsistency should be pointed out here. While Clark has on more than one occasion complained about others censoring conservative views, he sees no inconsistency with him feeling very free in censoring comments that merely irritate him. He certainly has the right to censor comments on his blog; after all, it is his blog. But the inconsistency of complaining about others for doing what he himself feels free to do is inconsistent. One wonders whether the real reason for his complaints about conservative views being censored is that he believes that conservative views should receive privileged status over all other views.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To Mark Malvasi and his blogpost progressivism in democracy. In that article, he made the case that only a strong centralized government could keep a strong corporate sector in check. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

Those who say that size is the issue or on which sector, the public or private, we should primarily depend miss the real problems that confront us. Government is like love in that size is not the issue, fidelity is. So when voters vote for representatives whom they hope to ignore until the next election, they are strongly inviting our governmental officials to embrace infidelity.

Likewise, to dis government involvement in the business world and market in the name of individualism and freedom is to forget that the primary interest of business and the market in any capitalist system is to maximize personal profits. It's not that we won't see a number of exceptions to the pursuit of maximizing profits in the business world and market, it is that  the Capitalist economic system directs its participants to pursuing self-interest and profit at the expense of people especially when those people do not contribute to the maximization of profits.

And those dissing governmental intervention in the business world and free market forget that in a working democracy, the government acts as a representative of the people. Thus to limit the government's voice to businesses and the participants in the market is to mute the voice of the people as they speak to businesses and the market.
Power does follow wealth in a Capitalist economic system. So perhaps focusing on changing that basic truth could play a role in the solution. Noting that centralizing power only encourages making the pursuit of self-interest an ethic that becomes more prevalent in society, redistributing power so that those from different economic classes and other groups must learn to listen to each other is at least part of the solution. What could emerge from structures that require people from different economic classes to collaborate and cooperate is the production of more people who learn that they need to pursue the multiple interests of all stakeholders along with self-interest in order to produce both and adequately prosperous and just society. The sticky point here is whether enough people in society will be willing to trade an adequately prosperous economy in order to further social justice for the maximization of personal profits. Our survival here depends on us choosing wisely.

Malvasi's article is helpful but misses the important points made above to varying degrees. In addition, he seems to forget that his claim that Wilson used a strong centralized government to hold businesses in check does not account for the policy decision that increased the profits of many businesses the most during his tenure: it was his support for England and France beforehand and his eventual decision to enter the US into WW I. In defense of that entry, Wilson also used the powers of a strong centralized government to incarcerate many who opposed the war. And one of the biggest beneficiaries of the American entry into the war was American banks who stood to lose a lot of money if England and France lost the war.




 

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For February 13, 2019

February 12

To Jerry Salyer and his blogpost about how Lord Acton, though opposing slavery, believed that the South should have won the Civil War. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

There seems to be a contradiction that exists in Lord Acton's view regarding who should have won the Civil War. For on one hand, Acton opposed slavery and opposed the centralization that came with the Union; on the other hand he thought that the Confederacy, whose society was far more hierarchical than society in the North, should have won. And here we should include that that hierarchy was at least partially based on race. Acton opposed centralization because it stifled communities and individuals. But what did he think occurred in Southern society?

Certainly Whites weren't infringed on by the hierarchical society of the South like Blacks were. Whites had much more freedom of movement with the lowest of the Whites being recognized as superior to Blacks. Blacks had little to no freedom of movement. And their lack of movement was far more telling during Jim Crow than during slavery. Why? It is because while slavery was done away with; after reconstruction, the old Southern hierarchy returned and was going strong. How can one have any admiration for Southern culture, political and otherwise, if it use to be a driving force promoting slavery while one thought slavery was wrong? Should we ask whether Acton's relative blindness to the harm that Southern hierarchy  did to Black communities and individuals after slavery while celebrating what White communities and individuals could enjoy indicates a racism on Acton's part? There is certainly at least one insurmountable contradiction that exists.
If we are going to use centralization as a motif by which we judge who should have won the Civil War, should we not object more to the hierarchy based society of the South, that enabled both slavery and Jim Crow than to the Union? Or did Lord Acton only object to slavery while embracing White Supremacy? Just because hierarchy in Southern states was a couple of steps below the hierarchy that came with the centralization that existed in the Union, there is no sufficient reason for favoring the South over the North--even though the North had plenty of warts itself. Rather, centralization can be judged both as a structure and by how the structure is used. And certainly, though the Union represented a greater centralization of power, its stewardship of power was far more moral than the stewardship of power exercised by individual elites in the Southern states.

My gut feeling is that any centralization of governmental power is opposed by religiously conservative Christians because the latter sees a turf battle between the reach of the government and the reach of the Church. And the inability or unwillingness to see the inherent contradictions of Lord Acton's views illustrates the compromises made by some in that turf battle.

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

To Mark Malvasi and his blogpost that defines America and attributes its sins to individualism.  This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

To attribute the abuses that occur in America to individualism seems to be the Achilles' Heel of the article. After all, like nationalism, individualism implies little. How people will express their individuality is a mystery. For Individualism doesn't tell us the motive for either good or bad behaviors. It simply indicates a freedom to not conform. And here the question must be asked, not to conform to what?

To assume that all our sins were do to individualism,  is to imply that conformity is always righteous. But the reality of the situation is that from the beginning, defining America depends on whom we ask. Should we ask Native Americans who were ethnically cleansed from the land to define America? Or should we ask immigrants who have come to live in America to define America? After all, asking immigrants might be a better choice to ask than those who are born citizens because they came here for a reason and they have something to compare America with.

We could also ask those who were born citizens of America to define America, but there are problems with that. First, their definition of America might be skewed by their lot in life. Second, a person's pride and patriotism might also blind one from giving anything but an answer that invites worship of America.
If we define America by its founders, we cannot eliminate racism from the definition. For most, if not all of our founding fathers were racists and sexists. What was declared to be the God-given rights of all people were actually assumed to belong to white males only. And it took the literal blood and guts of many people to expand recognition of those rights to Blacks and other minority groups and then to women. And currently the LGBT community is working to gain full equality in society--something which the other groups have yet to fully enjoy.

Finally, it isn't individualism that drives us to exploit and abuse others even though one can sometimes point to it as a factor. Rather, it is greed and a sense of entitlement based on the assumption of superiority over others that lies at the root of exploitation and abuse of others. Greed and that sense of entitlement gave our forefathers permission to ethnically cleanse Native Americans from the land and to try to forever treat Blacks and others as being inferior.

In addition, fueled by that sense of entitlement fueled by American exceptionalism has given our leaders permission to rely on the rule of force, rather than the rule of law, to get what they can in the world. We've have consistently replaced democracies with dictatorships. And we have backed other dictatorships provided that they serve our national interests, which is a euphemism for the interests of our nation's largest businesses.

Yes, America has many different definitions, it has no single unified definition. One only needs to read Frederick Douglass's speech on the meaning of the Fourth of July to understand that there is no one definition of America (see http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/douglassjuly4.html   )