Oct 8
To Joe Carter and his blogpost on the Columbian Exchange. That exchange includes the benefits enjoyed by Europe and the suffering and loss of life brought to the natives of the New World by Europeans like Columbus. This appeared in the Acton blog.
It's sad that when listing the parts of the Columbian Exchange, the atrocities committed by Columbus and other Europeans are not mentioned. Atrocities such as mass killings, slavery, and exploiting workers were not mentioned alongside the loss of life from European diseases. How could such an omission exist in a Christian blog written by a Christian?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Allyson Wieringa and her blogpost questioning the call for the government to put Church charities out os business and to raise the minimum wage to $15 per hour. This appeared in the Acton blog.
What is wrong with the government making Church charities not needed? Whose loss is that anyway? And if the Church no longer needs to worry about providing charity because those in need are receiving help elsewhere, then doesn't that mean that the Church can focus more on preaching the Gospel?
Though I can't speak for England, right now, we are in an Ayn Rand coup of the American government. In that coup, those with the most wealth use their wealth to seize power over the government. Then they use that power to continually reduce fulfilling their social responsibilities. As a result, tax burdens are shifted more toward those who have less and that results in sharp increase in deficit spending. The Ayn Rand opportunist try to use their arguments and power to reduce or even eliminate social safety nets even if those safety nets are self-funding and thus do not contribute to the deficit.
We should note here the kind of government in which Ayn Rand's family financially succeeded: the government of the Tsars. And the Tsars were dictators who enforced the belief that to oppose the Tsar is to oppose the nation. That is similar to the declarations made by Lenin and the Bolsheviks with respect to the workers.
One other point must be made here. Though raising the minimum wage is good, it leaves a major issue unaddressed. Seeing that socialism, from a Marxist perspective, relies on the dictatorship of a proletariat democracy, letting the gov't alone to set all increased wages does not empower the workers. Rather, it establishes a particular group of people in government as the vanguard for the workers. And like most vanguards such as Lenin's Bolshevik Party right after the Russian Revolution, they will declare that anyone who opposes them opposes the workers whom they say they represent. And then we are right back where we started from with the Tsars and Lenin. Not that we don't need the government to raise the minimum wage. What we do need is a minimum wage that is high enough to help and low enough to require workers and owners to continue to meet together to see what each side needs and then to start making decisions that benefits both sides.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oct 9
To Thomas Ascik and his blogpost about some Supreme Court decisions on same-sex marriage and laws that addressed inheritance. In that blogpost, DOMA, the Defense Of Marriage Act, is referred to. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.
I want to comment on one part of the article above: the references to DOMA. DOMA stands for the Defense Of Marriage Act. But the name itself is ambiguous. Which or whose marriage is being defended? The answer is simple: no one's marriage is being defended. Instead the desire of same-sex couples to be legally married is being attacked by those who claim to have a monopoly on the definition of marriage. Thus, perhaps we should call DOMA, OBTMAA-- the Offensive By Traditional Marriage Activists Act.
The legalization of same-sex marriage does not threaten any traditional heterosexual marriage. Claims otherwise are based on fears that those moving in to the marital neighborhood will bring down the property values. On the other hand, despite the results of inhibiting monogamous relationships and thus reducing promiscuity in the LGBT community, those opposed to same-sex marriages by other people are threatening the marital prospects for those in the LGBT community. Why do they do that? It is simply because they want to impose their own religious/cultural beliefs on others. That imposition would appear to violate the 1st Amendment regardless of how democratically the legal definition of marriage was determined. Why the imposition? There are a number of reasons one can find when talking to DOMA apologists.
www.flamingfundamentalist.blogspot.com
(Only one person pictured is a Christian Fundamentalist. And so which one pictured is not like the others)
Showing posts with label Minimum Wage. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Minimum Wage. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 10, 2018
Wednesday, March 8, 2017
Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For March 8, 2017
March 1
To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost message to the Millennial Christians and their concerns with Social Justice and how that compared to the concerned baby boomers had during the 60s. This appeared in Heidelblog.
Half thoughts are really presented here in order to push Clark's opinion. We should note that not all on the left believed in utopia. Some believed in just trying to improve what was there. But one of those who did believe in working toward a utopia was Martin Luther King Jr. So how much of his thinking should we discard because of his utopian beliefs?
Another half though is that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is not a social gospel. What should be implied from that statement? Should the Church make no statements or efforts to bring about social justice because the Gospel is not a social gospel? The statement and the question show what has been overlooked about what the Gospel says about social justice. For certainly the Gospel cannot be reduced to bringing social justice. But it is just as much of a mistake to think that the Gospel has nothing to do with social justice either.
For what is the Gospel? It tells us that we can be forgiven of our sins and receive a new life by believing in Jesus. To do that, the Gospel must preach against sins. Certainly, no conservative worth their weight in theology would neglect to tell those who are engaged in sexual sin to repent of such sin. And yet, when it comes to our active participation or silent complicity in societal and state sins, how many conservatives worth their weight in theology would preach that we must repent of supporting such sins?
One difference in the two kinds of sins here is that while personal sins like sexual sins affect just a small group of people, societal and state sins hurt far more people. And those who are involved in such sins need to hear a message saying to stop and change and ask for forgiveness as much as we need to hear the same message regarding our personal sins.
We should also note that when we fail to preach against societal and state sins, we align the Church behind those with wealth. The Church has done that before during the pre revolutionary times in France, Russia, and Spain and has brought dishonor to the Gospel when having done so. Here we should ask whether those with positions of influence in the Church today who suppress people's efforts to preach against wealth and power are acting from the same motivation as Baby Boomers do when they demand a quiet life in the suburbs.
BTW, we should note something about Reagan's stimulation of the economy. That he did it partially through attacking unions. And one only needs to look at wealth disparity in the US to see if it increased or decreased during and after his presidency. We should also look at his foreign policies in particular his support of people like Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, and right-wing armies, paramilitaries, and terrorists who committed gross crimes in Central America. For it seems that what Clark accuses Millennials of doing when they mix social concerns with the Gospel is what some Christian leaders do when they back conservative politics so strongly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 2
To Joe Carter and his blogpost stating that the transgender issue is a public battle for reality where losing brings dire consequences. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.
Certainly reality is an issue in the transgender debate, but it isn't the only issue. Another issue that comes into play is how will we religiously conservative Christians share society with those who have different views of reality than we have? And that question has come into play way before elementary school teachers would have thought about contradicting the idea that sex can occur outside of a monogamous heterosexual relationship. BTW, Carter's claim about what elementary school teachers would not being willing to contradict 50 years ago is just noise. Why? First, because such teachers would not be discussing sex in class 50 years ago. And second, if we are speaking about what teachers believe and would say outside the classroom and school, there is no way to prove this claim.
We could go back to the debate on evolution to see that there are people who view reality differently than we do. Segregation was another such issue that divided people according to how they saw reality. And so the other question comes into play: How will we share society with people who view reality differently than we do? Coexisting as equals is one such option. Certainly we could share society with those who believe in evolution as equals. We could give a voice to both sides in society and school.
But the live and let live approach does not always work and the belief/nonbelief in segregation shows why. To allow those who believe in segregation to have their way, one must impose on the rights of those who don't believe. That is because to allow segregation to hold sway, we must violate the rights of those who don't.
Certainly some Christians feel that their rights and, perhaps, safety are infringed on when they must share a bathroom with those who identify with the other gender than the one they are born with. At the same time, transgender students feel like their rights are violated when they can't use the facilities of the gender they identify with. Yes, we Christians can point to a physical reality. But should we let that physical reality drown out the voices and feelings of those who identify with the other gender? Since we don't really know what is going on in their minds of transgender students, perhaps a much more nuanced approach than the one recommended above or the one insisted on by transgender students should be searched for. After all, taking a more nuanced approach respects the positions of both sides without having to agree with a side. And then we can see whether we have opened the Pandora's box envisioned by the writer of the article.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 7
To Alexander Salter and his blogpost using ethics to support his preference for free trade over protectionism. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.
When the writer introduced the idea of introducing ethical concerns in economics when discussing free trade vs protectionism, I held hope for the article. But the following statement dashed all such hope:
For the ethics put on display for the writer's argument for free trade is nothing more than a bottom-line, ends justify the means argument. But it is more than just that, the actual loss of jobs that actually increases the supply of workers for lower pay jobs is more than just a fear; it is a reality. Let alone, the loss of manufacturing, textile, and now information technology jobs affects more than just a small subset of the people. All of this actually affects a larger percentage of people than the writer either is aware of or willing to admit.
But it is the basic ethic that is unacceptable. What if the general public is benefiting from paying a subset of the population poverty wages, is that ethical? Or what if the general public is benefiting from even slave labor, is that ethical? What we do know is that our general public is benefiting from foreign slave and sweatshop labor? Is such ethical since those people are invisible to us?
In addition, certain assumptions are made about protectionism. For example, Salter declares an absolute truth by begging the question of the statement on which it is made:
When the US and UK used protectionism to develop certain industries, did war result from it? What we do know is that conflict can come from forcing free trade on nations where the leaders of those other nations benefit but the people don't.
One thing is for sure, this article shows a shortsightedness in economics as much as it does in ethics. For not only is a bottom-line ethic espoused that makes the free trade economies of the richest nations resemble the backdrop of what existed in the Hunger Games movie series, the only stakeholders of free trade recognized by this writer are some of the stakeholders of one's own nation. In this sense, it seems that Salter is a nation-first, free trader. And here, the issue isn't whether he should favor protectionism over free-trade. The issue is the ethical argument he uses to support his case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Joe Carter and his blogpost that opposes increasing the minimum wage. This appeared in the Acton blog.
Carter offers a within the system look at the cost of raising the minimum wage. And it is a limited within the system look at that for it only considers the choices faced by those who employ, not by those who are employed in low wage jobs. And because Carter views the minimum wage issue from within the system, he lacks any ability to view the system from the outside, to view the system from any ethical perspective. That is because to view the system from the inside alone ends up with us equating reality with the system and thus any bucking of the system is a denial of reality. And part of that reality is that the wages that Carter insists should not be raised are poverty wages that make employees dependent on gov't assistance to survive. And that means us taxpayers are subsidizing the payrolls of companies that pay poverty wages.
The real concern that any Christian should have over this issue is what is right for all of the participants. Is it right for the employers and business owners to treat and pay employees from a self-interest perspective alone? Doesn't such a perspective cause an employer or business owner to relegate one's employees to that of being disposable objects? And doesn't relegating people to be disposable objects deny the intrinsic value of those employees? And is it Christian for us to only view the plight of employers and business owners without challenging the notion that the decisions of employers and business owners are to be guided by self-interest alone? Is acting from self interest alone the basic ethical principle we learn from the Scriptures? And we can only face questions like these if we are willing to look at the system from the outside the system, rather than from the inside.
Here, Carter aligns himself with employers and business owners. In other words, Carter aligns himself with wealth and he is not alone. Much of conservative Protestantism aligns itself with wealth. And in doing so, these Christians are simply repeating the mistakes made by the Church. For in the pre revolutionary times of France, Russia, and Spain, the predominant branch of the Church in those countries also aligned themselves with wealth and with power. So that when the revolutions came, revolutionaries could only see the Church as being an enemy and this brought great dishonor the Gospel.
As Christians align themselves with either the domestic side of neoliberalism as seen with President Trump's efforts to cut taxes and regulations or the foreign face of neoliberalism as seen in free trade, they align themselves with wealth as the Church has mistakenly done in the past. And while these Christians rant and rail against the personal sins of people, they discredit the Gospel by turning blind eye to the sins of the economic system they have come to embrace and a deaf ear to the cries of the stakeholders of that system who are exploited. They also live in denial of the fact that when those with wealth are allowed to make decisions based on on self interest alone, society becomes more corrupt and its economic system becomes corrosive.
To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost message to the Millennial Christians and their concerns with Social Justice and how that compared to the concerned baby boomers had during the 60s. This appeared in Heidelblog.
Half thoughts are really presented here in order to push Clark's opinion. We should note that not all on the left believed in utopia. Some believed in just trying to improve what was there. But one of those who did believe in working toward a utopia was Martin Luther King Jr. So how much of his thinking should we discard because of his utopian beliefs?
Another half though is that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is not a social gospel. What should be implied from that statement? Should the Church make no statements or efforts to bring about social justice because the Gospel is not a social gospel? The statement and the question show what has been overlooked about what the Gospel says about social justice. For certainly the Gospel cannot be reduced to bringing social justice. But it is just as much of a mistake to think that the Gospel has nothing to do with social justice either.
For what is the Gospel? It tells us that we can be forgiven of our sins and receive a new life by believing in Jesus. To do that, the Gospel must preach against sins. Certainly, no conservative worth their weight in theology would neglect to tell those who are engaged in sexual sin to repent of such sin. And yet, when it comes to our active participation or silent complicity in societal and state sins, how many conservatives worth their weight in theology would preach that we must repent of supporting such sins?
One difference in the two kinds of sins here is that while personal sins like sexual sins affect just a small group of people, societal and state sins hurt far more people. And those who are involved in such sins need to hear a message saying to stop and change and ask for forgiveness as much as we need to hear the same message regarding our personal sins.
We should also note that when we fail to preach against societal and state sins, we align the Church behind those with wealth. The Church has done that before during the pre revolutionary times in France, Russia, and Spain and has brought dishonor to the Gospel when having done so. Here we should ask whether those with positions of influence in the Church today who suppress people's efforts to preach against wealth and power are acting from the same motivation as Baby Boomers do when they demand a quiet life in the suburbs.
BTW, we should note something about Reagan's stimulation of the economy. That he did it partially through attacking unions. And one only needs to look at wealth disparity in the US to see if it increased or decreased during and after his presidency. We should also look at his foreign policies in particular his support of people like Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, and right-wing armies, paramilitaries, and terrorists who committed gross crimes in Central America. For it seems that what Clark accuses Millennials of doing when they mix social concerns with the Gospel is what some Christian leaders do when they back conservative politics so strongly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 2
To Joe Carter and his blogpost stating that the transgender issue is a public battle for reality where losing brings dire consequences. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.
Certainly reality is an issue in the transgender debate, but it isn't the only issue. Another issue that comes into play is how will we religiously conservative Christians share society with those who have different views of reality than we have? And that question has come into play way before elementary school teachers would have thought about contradicting the idea that sex can occur outside of a monogamous heterosexual relationship. BTW, Carter's claim about what elementary school teachers would not being willing to contradict 50 years ago is just noise. Why? First, because such teachers would not be discussing sex in class 50 years ago. And second, if we are speaking about what teachers believe and would say outside the classroom and school, there is no way to prove this claim.
We could go back to the debate on evolution to see that there are people who view reality differently than we do. Segregation was another such issue that divided people according to how they saw reality. And so the other question comes into play: How will we share society with people who view reality differently than we do? Coexisting as equals is one such option. Certainly we could share society with those who believe in evolution as equals. We could give a voice to both sides in society and school.
But the live and let live approach does not always work and the belief/nonbelief in segregation shows why. To allow those who believe in segregation to have their way, one must impose on the rights of those who don't believe. That is because to allow segregation to hold sway, we must violate the rights of those who don't.
Certainly some Christians feel that their rights and, perhaps, safety are infringed on when they must share a bathroom with those who identify with the other gender than the one they are born with. At the same time, transgender students feel like their rights are violated when they can't use the facilities of the gender they identify with. Yes, we Christians can point to a physical reality. But should we let that physical reality drown out the voices and feelings of those who identify with the other gender? Since we don't really know what is going on in their minds of transgender students, perhaps a much more nuanced approach than the one recommended above or the one insisted on by transgender students should be searched for. After all, taking a more nuanced approach respects the positions of both sides without having to agree with a side. And then we can see whether we have opened the Pandora's box envisioned by the writer of the article.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 7
To Alexander Salter and his blogpost using ethics to support his preference for free trade over protectionism. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.
When the writer introduced the idea of introducing ethical concerns in economics when discussing free trade vs protectionism, I held hope for the article. But the following statement dashed all such hope:
I am a free trader. My reasons have nothing to do with economic efficiency. Instead, I rely on a simple maxim—a heuristic, if you will—for what I believe is sound public policy: It is wrong and harmful to prevent benefits accruing to the general public due to fears about the costs borne by a relatively small subset of the public.
For the ethics put on display for the writer's argument for free trade is nothing more than a bottom-line, ends justify the means argument. But it is more than just that, the actual loss of jobs that actually increases the supply of workers for lower pay jobs is more than just a fear; it is a reality. Let alone, the loss of manufacturing, textile, and now information technology jobs affects more than just a small subset of the people. All of this actually affects a larger percentage of people than the writer either is aware of or willing to admit.
But it is the basic ethic that is unacceptable. What if the general public is benefiting from paying a subset of the population poverty wages, is that ethical? Or what if the general public is benefiting from even slave labor, is that ethical? What we do know is that our general public is benefiting from foreign slave and sweatshop labor? Is such ethical since those people are invisible to us?
In addition, certain assumptions are made about protectionism. For example, Salter declares an absolute truth by begging the question of the statement on which it is made:
There are a host of other reasons to oppose protectionism. Peace between nations is one. A quote attributed to Bastiat goes, “When goods don’t cross borders, soldiers will.”
When the US and UK used protectionism to develop certain industries, did war result from it? What we do know is that conflict can come from forcing free trade on nations where the leaders of those other nations benefit but the people don't.
One thing is for sure, this article shows a shortsightedness in economics as much as it does in ethics. For not only is a bottom-line ethic espoused that makes the free trade economies of the richest nations resemble the backdrop of what existed in the Hunger Games movie series, the only stakeholders of free trade recognized by this writer are some of the stakeholders of one's own nation. In this sense, it seems that Salter is a nation-first, free trader. And here, the issue isn't whether he should favor protectionism over free-trade. The issue is the ethical argument he uses to support his case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Joe Carter and his blogpost that opposes increasing the minimum wage. This appeared in the Acton blog.
Carter offers a within the system look at the cost of raising the minimum wage. And it is a limited within the system look at that for it only considers the choices faced by those who employ, not by those who are employed in low wage jobs. And because Carter views the minimum wage issue from within the system, he lacks any ability to view the system from the outside, to view the system from any ethical perspective. That is because to view the system from the inside alone ends up with us equating reality with the system and thus any bucking of the system is a denial of reality. And part of that reality is that the wages that Carter insists should not be raised are poverty wages that make employees dependent on gov't assistance to survive. And that means us taxpayers are subsidizing the payrolls of companies that pay poverty wages.
The real concern that any Christian should have over this issue is what is right for all of the participants. Is it right for the employers and business owners to treat and pay employees from a self-interest perspective alone? Doesn't such a perspective cause an employer or business owner to relegate one's employees to that of being disposable objects? And doesn't relegating people to be disposable objects deny the intrinsic value of those employees? And is it Christian for us to only view the plight of employers and business owners without challenging the notion that the decisions of employers and business owners are to be guided by self-interest alone? Is acting from self interest alone the basic ethical principle we learn from the Scriptures? And we can only face questions like these if we are willing to look at the system from the outside the system, rather than from the inside.
Here, Carter aligns himself with employers and business owners. In other words, Carter aligns himself with wealth and he is not alone. Much of conservative Protestantism aligns itself with wealth. And in doing so, these Christians are simply repeating the mistakes made by the Church. For in the pre revolutionary times of France, Russia, and Spain, the predominant branch of the Church in those countries also aligned themselves with wealth and with power. So that when the revolutions came, revolutionaries could only see the Church as being an enemy and this brought great dishonor the Gospel.
As Christians align themselves with either the domestic side of neoliberalism as seen with President Trump's efforts to cut taxes and regulations or the foreign face of neoliberalism as seen in free trade, they align themselves with wealth as the Church has mistakenly done in the past. And while these Christians rant and rail against the personal sins of people, they discredit the Gospel by turning blind eye to the sins of the economic system they have come to embrace and a deaf ear to the cries of the stakeholders of that system who are exploited. They also live in denial of the fact that when those with wealth are allowed to make decisions based on on self interest alone, society becomes more corrupt and its economic system becomes corrosive.
Monday, May 9, 2016
ONIM For May 9, 2016
Christian News
World News
Pick(s) Of The Litter
- 'Gay Cake' Case Returns To Court: 'We Pray For A Just Outcome' -- Christian Today (UK)
- Leading Christian PR Exec Steps Down From Liberty In Donald Trump Controversy -- Christian Today (UK)
- Christians In Syria Plead For 'Day Of Prayer' For City Of Aleppo -- Christian Today (UK)
- The Conviction And Resolve Of Frederick Douglass -- Reformed African American Network
- Ewan McGregor Says It Was Daunting To Play Jesus -- Huffington Post
- Cruz's Constant References To Jesus Drive Millions To Atheism -- The New Yorker
- Bible-Bearing Anti-LGBT 'Christians' Are Entering Target Stores And Terroring Customers -- Towlercroad.com
- Gordon Conwell Professor Sues For Retalliation Over LGBT Comments -- Religion News Service
- Trump Victory Marks Major Defeat For Christian Right Agenda -- Religion News Service
- When A Footnote Explains It All -- Mortification Of Spin
- Frankin Graham's Response To Federal Recognition Of Stonewall: 'A Monument To Sin?' -- The Washington Post
- Southern Baptist Leader: Opposing Trump Puts You "On The Right Side Of Jesus" -- Vox
World News
- Legal Bills Mount As Ferguson Stands By 'Failure-To-Comply' Cases -- St. Louis Post-Dispatch
- Arrests In Seattle As May Day Marchers Take To The Streets -- Yahoo News
- Trade Unions Hold Rallies To Mark May Day; Clashes -- Yahoo News
- Josh Moon: 'Southern Way Of Life' Not Worth Protecting -- Montgomery Advertiser
- Greek Police Fire Tear Gas As Thousands Protest Over Reform Vote -- Yahoo News
- The Socialist Alternative -- Truthdig
- Concealed Carry Gun-Weilder Intervenes In Domestic Dispute And Is Shot Dead -- The Washington Post
- The Real Story In Brazil, Look At Who Is Being Installed As President--And Finance Chiefs -- ZNet
- Brazil's Elite And The Drive To Impeach Dilma Rouseff -- ZNet
- Bountiful Afghan Opium Harvest Yields Profits For The Taliban -- The New York Times
- Student From Naperville Beaten In Iowa; Family Says Attack Racially Motivated -- ABC 7 Eyewitness News
- After Indiana Win Sanders Declares: 'I Say We Keep Fighting. Are You With Me?' -- Common Dreams
- The Backstory Of Gannett's Bid To Buy Tribune -- Columbia Journalism Review
- How 'Strategy For A Living Revolution' Came To Life -- Waging Nonviolence
- Tow Truck Driver Refuses to Tow Motorist Over Bernie Bumper Sticker -- WLOS
- Democrats Revolt On Twitter As #DropOutHillary Trends Nationwide--Here Are Some Of The Best Tweets -- The Blaze
- What You Need To Know About Hillary Clinton's Attack On Single-Payer Healthcare -- Think Profress
- Governor Christie Vetoes New Jersey Equal Pay Legislation -- NBC 10
- Republicans And Democrats Must Work Together To Not Mainstream Donald Trump -- Truthdig
- Cops Rarely Punished When Judges Find Testimony False, Questionable -- The Chicago Tribune
- NYPD Chief Accused Of Chasing 'Pregnant, Married' Underlings -- The New York Post
- Officer Accuses Houston Girl Who Used $2 In School Lunch Line Of Forgery -- The Dallas Morning News
- Mizzou's Enrollment Plummet Is More Drastic Than Previously Expected -- St. Louis Post-Dispatch
- Another Labour Activist Has Been Suspended For Anti-Semitic Social Media Posts -- Business Insider
- In One Quote, Muslim Boxer Amir Khan Landed A Stinging Blow On Donald Trump's Racism -- Yahoo News
- Clinton To Take Hard Line With Sanders, Say Allies -- The Hill
- Woman Doesn't Pull Over On Abandoned Street For Police, Drives To Public Area, Pays The Price -- Opposing Views
- Protesters Gather Outside Hillary Clinton Rally -- NBC Los Angeles
- Bernie Sanders Just Accused Hillary Clinton Of Violating Campaign Finance Laws -- U.S. Uncut
- Muslim Londoners Jubilant As Son Of Pakistan Immigrant Elected -- Yahoo News
- Portland Gave Its Minimum Wage Workers A Raise. Here's What Happened Next -- Yahoo News
- Passover Coverage That Was Demeaning -- The Washington Post
- Sweden Far-Right Plans Gay Parade In Mainly Muslim Area -- Aljazeera
- Professor's Airplane Math Didn't Equal Airplane Threat -- ABC News
- Here's What Happened When Some Famous Writers Went To Visit Some Hardcore Jewish Settlers -- The Washington Post
- Sanders Awarded 49 More Washington State Delegates -- Daily News 24/7
- US Takes Tought Tone On Israeli Settlements In New Report -- ABC News
- Airbnb Has An Unsurprising Race Problem -- Think Progress
- Raging Canada Fires Now Threaten Second Province -- Yahoo News
- Israel Indicts Nuclear Whistleblower Mordecai Vanunu -- Fox News
- Golan Heights And The Greater Israel Project -- News Junkie Post
Pick(s) Of The Litter
- Jewish American Author Chabon Takes On Israeli Occupation -- Yahoo News
- After Vote To Remove Brazil's President, Key Opposition Figure Holds Meetings In Washington -- ZNet
- Jeremy Scahili: Clinton Is Legendary Hawk; But Sanders Shouldn't Get Pass On Role In Regime Change -- Democracy Now
- Group Seeks Mandatory Minimum Sentence For Cops Who Kill The Unarmed -- Counter Current News
- Bernie Sanders Isn't Winning Minority Votes--And It's His Own Fault -- The Guardian
- A Better Way To Report On Sexual Assault -- Columbia Journalism Review
- How Friends And Family Remember Daniel Kerrigan -- Waging Nonviolence
- Can Climate Movement Break Free From The 'Jobs Vs. Environment' Debate? -- Waging Nonviolence
- Democratic Consultants Sign Up To Defeat Colorado Health Initiative -- Popular Resistance
- Army Investigates: Are These West Point Cadets Making A Political Statement In Uniform? -- USA Today
- Turkish Journalist Can Dundar Jailed After Surviving Gun Attack -- The Guardian
- Fort McMurray And The Fires Of Climate Change -- The New Yorker
- State Dept. Assures Leahy On Israeli Human Rights Scrutiny -- Politico
- Q&A: 'Racism Is On The Rise In Sweden And It's Scary' -- Aljazeera
- Privatizing The Clearing Of Homeless Encampments -- The Stranger.com
- Sea-Level Rise Claims Five Islands In Solomons -- Yahoo News
Wednesday, April 13, 2016
Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For April 13, 2016
April 7
To Bradley Birzer and Adam Fuller as they discussed the merits and problems associated with Russell Kirk’s criticism of Bush I’s attack on Iraq and its repercussions on the work and honor of his predecessor, Ronald Reagan. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.
I think that the discussion above was rather bizarre. For example, take Fuller's quote below:
Is winning/losing the only criteria by which we judge the honor war brings to a nation? For example, when Germany conquered Poland at the beginning of WW II, was it to their honor?
So consider the Gulf War. Yes, it was a multinational effort. And yes, our side won. But some questions arise. Did the US do all it could to prevent the war? After all, it knew ahead of time about the problems that existed between Iraq and Kuwait. Second, in the bombing of Iraqi civilian infrastructure, didn't the US break the Geneva Convention against such attacks and didn't such attacks, in conjunction with the sanctions that followed cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children? And weren't those deaths one of the reasons for the 9/11 attacks?
And yes, Reagan used the military. He used it in Beirut and withdrew our troops after the bombing of the Marine Corp barracks. In Grenada, Reagan sent troops in claiming that Americans were being threatened and their ability to leave was cut off though neither statement was true (see https://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/155/25966.html ). In addition, Reagan didn't restore the government that was ousted. The government that was ousted prior to the invasion was that of Maurice Bishop. Both him and his party, the New Jewel Movement, was rejected by the Reagan Administration even though Bishop seized power from the despot Prime Minister Gairy. In addition, there were several questionable post-invasion actions taken by our troops against the people of Grenada. And the UN General Assembly voted by a wide majority to condemn the invasion.
Condemnation of US actions occurred during Reagan's time also from our support of the Contras' terrorist attacks against Nicaragua. The ICJ found that the US had broken international law in providing that support and was ordered to pay reparations. Should note another smiliarly between Grenada and Nicaragua. Both suffered under despotic rulers prior to their respective Leftist takeovers and both former rulers were favorably treated by the US government.
And if we want to take a look at a joint failure by both Bush I and Reagan, we need to look at the support both presidents gave Saddam Hussein prior to his invasion of Kuwait.
Finally, we should note another one of Fuller's statements:
Here, the criteria used by our nation to determine who to support becomes clearly expressed but without shame or guilt. It was the criteria used in Iran('53) and Guatemala('54) though their respective situations in no way resembled Iraq. The same goes for other instances of regime change such as in Chile ('73). How can we view such successful actions as bringing honor to either individuals such as American leaders or to America itself?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
April 8
To Andrew Walker and his blogpost claiming that the religious liberties bills being considered in various states do not discriminate against the LGBT community. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.
I'm sorry, but this whole post is wrong. Why? Just from the beginning, without examining the actual laws themselves, they are declared to be nondiscriminatory. This kind of declaration is both tribal because it is defending a particular group from accusations and uses apriori reasoning which is the kind one would expect from a tribal defense.
Second, yes, analogies between these laws and Jim Crow are valid. Why? Because Jim Crow was more than just a set of laws, it was a culture. We should also note that not all of the refusals to provide services to Blacks during Jim Crow were mandated by Jim Crow laws. And, in fact, it is defending business's right or that of an individual working in that business to refuse to provide goods and services is what is being compared to Jim Crow, not segregation. And what the author seems unaware of among what was just mentioned regarding Jim Crow was that the laws themselves varied from state to state.
Third, allowing businesses or individuals working in those businesses to discriminate in the provision of goods and services to a particular group or legal event for that group sets up the possibility of systemic discrimination. Why? Because it sets the target group up for either the partial or complete deprivation of goods and services in a given location depending on the appropriate set of demographics of the business owners there and the choices they make.
Fourth, if gov't allows businesses to discriminate, then it would most likely require gov't action to eliminate the discrimination.
Again, whether these laws involve discrimination or not must be judged on a case by case basis. Yes, some of the nonconservative portrayals of these laws use hyperbole and thus misrepresent portions of these laws. But that hyperbole can only be discovered by examining the laws in detail, not by taking an apriori approach of declaring the law to be discrimination free. Below is a link to a credible analysis and criticism of the law that the Georgia governor vetoed.
http://web.law.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/microsites/gender-sexuality/files/public_rights_private_conscience_project_-_hb_757_the_establishment_clause.pdf
Us religiously conservative Christians need to be honest with ourselves. From the time when homosexuality was defined as a criminal activity til now when we are writing laws that legalize discrimination, we have shown various degrees of hostility to the LGBT community. It's time we stop and start sharing society with those from the LGBT community as equals. It is what those from that community deserve as people. And it is what they deserve from us because of the contributions they have made to our lives both as individuals and as members of society. The Biblical injunctions against homosexuality are independent from the equality that those in the LGBT community deserve in society.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
April 9
To Denny Burk and his blogpost lamenting the Republican Party’s failure to “defend” traditional marriage. This appeared in Denny Burk’s blog.
I think what is euphemistically called a defense of traditional marriage is, in reality, an attack on same-sex marriage in society. And because it is an attack, some younger religiously conservative Christians have been forced into a false choice of theologically accepting same-sex marriage so that they can politically accept it in society. The push to accept it in society is because these Christians see friends, and perhaps even family members, be marginalized for having a different sexual orientation. And because too many conservative Christian leaders have so strongly associated a religious rejection of same-sex marriage with marginalizing those from the LGBT community by attacking same-sex marriage in society, they feel forced into make theological compromises.
As for the Republican, Party we should not be surprised. That party has been the lap dog of business for quite a while and corporations are pushing equal rights for the LGBT community.
As for religious liberties, in reality too many of us religiously conservative Christians have taken a tribal approach to defending these liberties. It is a tribal approach because too many of us have only been concerned with our rights, not the religious freedom of those who disagree with us about same-sex marriage.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
April 10
To Joe Carter and his blogpost stating that we should oppose the raising of the minimum wage lest workers earning minimum wage lose their jobs to robots. This appeared in the Acton blog.
Just as there is the road less traveled, what we have here is the question not asked: How should we regard an economic system that makes us choose between poverty wages and unemployment? Instead, we are asked to choose between robots and employment with Carter's appearing to feign interest in the welfare of the workers. But the question not being asked is being lived out by employees in jobs for which the demographics have changed dramatically in terms of the workers' age as well as their education and needs. Those who have the jobs Carter mentions are being paid poverty wages with little hope for seeing better prospects.
There is a reason why Carter and others refuse to ask the unasked question. The reason is that they are full supporters of the system that asks us to choose between poverty wages and unemployment. Because to change that system means that we need to put some constraints on those benefiting from the current system. But to put constraints on them would result in infringing on their "economic freedom." And heaven knows that we should prefer to require workers to live on poverty wages than to violate, even in the smallest way, the economic freedom of a few.
But those being paid poverty wages are not experiencing economic freedom and thus we need to ask if we are preserving economic freedom for all or economic privilege for some. In the end, what Carter and others advocate is that despite the poverty wages many are required to live on, we should prefer to allow them to continue to suffer than to question the system that provides privileges for a few. And the sad thing here is that Carter is seen as representing the Christian perspective of economics because of his efforts to protect the economic privilege, I mean "freedom," of a few.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
April 12
To Joe Carter and his blogpost that provides an evangelical guide to the Pope’s latest teachings on marriage and family. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.
Just a couple of comments. Though I am not Catholic, I have a high regard for Pope Francis's analyses of our culture and our economic system. That our emphasis on individualism, consumerism and materialism has caused us to not see people, even those in our own families, as people, but rather our quest for things has caused us to devalue any, including family members, who would stand in the way of the acquiring our earthly treasures. Here, we need to think about what the Pope has said.
However, there are parts that warrant criticisms or the call for more nuance. His statement asserting that same-sex unions cannot be placed on the same level as marriage needs nuance. In terms of speaking an absolute truth that must be applied in the Church, then I would agree. But we exist in a society where there is the freedom of religion and where many people do not adhere to the teachings of the Scriptures. So here we need to ask ourselves how we will share society with others who hold to different views. To rule out recognizing same-sex marriage as being equal to heterosexual marriage in society requires that we share society with others as having some kind of superior position over them. Indeed, many of the Conservative Catholics I have corresponded with believe that it is the obligation of civil authorities to follow the teachings of the Pope in terms of how they carry out their duties. Thus, more nuance is required in Pope Francis' teachings on this subject.
Also, when it comes to the subject of who has the primary responsibility in educating children, I believe that should be decided on a case by case basis. Parents who abuse their children, parents who passively or actively teach their children to engage in criminal activities, and parents who teach their children to disregard the rights of others have forfeited, to varying degrees, the right to have the primary responsibility in educating their children. In fact, the Pope's teaching here talks about what kind of moral lessons parents should be teaching their children. When parents fail at this, others, sometimes including schools, must take the parents' place. So it needs to be stated that while parents have certain primary responsibilities in how they parent their children that cannot be replaced by institutions, the possession of those primary responsibilities is contingent on them meeting certain conditions. Since I am going by what is reported in this article, I think the concepts expressed about the primary responsibilities parents have over their own children must be expanded.
Finally, regarding the Pope's comments on remarriage and admission to the communion table. The right of the Church to prohibit individuals from taking communion should be based on repentance of sin. But how do those who have been joined in an unbiblical marriage repent? So the informal admission to communion for those who have entered into an unbiblical marriage is a step forward.
To Bradley Birzer and Adam Fuller as they discussed the merits and problems associated with Russell Kirk’s criticism of Bush I’s attack on Iraq and its repercussions on the work and honor of his predecessor, Ronald Reagan. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.
I think that the discussion above was rather bizarre. For example, take Fuller's quote below:
Why is it a destruction of America’s honor to win a war?
Is winning/losing the only criteria by which we judge the honor war brings to a nation? For example, when Germany conquered Poland at the beginning of WW II, was it to their honor?
So consider the Gulf War. Yes, it was a multinational effort. And yes, our side won. But some questions arise. Did the US do all it could to prevent the war? After all, it knew ahead of time about the problems that existed between Iraq and Kuwait. Second, in the bombing of Iraqi civilian infrastructure, didn't the US break the Geneva Convention against such attacks and didn't such attacks, in conjunction with the sanctions that followed cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children? And weren't those deaths one of the reasons for the 9/11 attacks?
And yes, Reagan used the military. He used it in Beirut and withdrew our troops after the bombing of the Marine Corp barracks. In Grenada, Reagan sent troops in claiming that Americans were being threatened and their ability to leave was cut off though neither statement was true (see https://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/155/25966.html ). In addition, Reagan didn't restore the government that was ousted. The government that was ousted prior to the invasion was that of Maurice Bishop. Both him and his party, the New Jewel Movement, was rejected by the Reagan Administration even though Bishop seized power from the despot Prime Minister Gairy. In addition, there were several questionable post-invasion actions taken by our troops against the people of Grenada. And the UN General Assembly voted by a wide majority to condemn the invasion.
Condemnation of US actions occurred during Reagan's time also from our support of the Contras' terrorist attacks against Nicaragua. The ICJ found that the US had broken international law in providing that support and was ordered to pay reparations. Should note another smiliarly between Grenada and Nicaragua. Both suffered under despotic rulers prior to their respective Leftist takeovers and both former rulers were favorably treated by the US government.
And if we want to take a look at a joint failure by both Bush I and Reagan, we need to look at the support both presidents gave Saddam Hussein prior to his invasion of Kuwait.
Finally, we should note another one of Fuller's statements:
I think in places like Iraq, the best solution, as Aristotle taught us about such societies, is to install another tyrant, but one who rules at the privilege of the United States and thus crosses no lines we set on human rights and doesn’t work against Western interests.
Here, the criteria used by our nation to determine who to support becomes clearly expressed but without shame or guilt. It was the criteria used in Iran('53) and Guatemala('54) though their respective situations in no way resembled Iraq. The same goes for other instances of regime change such as in Chile ('73). How can we view such successful actions as bringing honor to either individuals such as American leaders or to America itself?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
April 8
To Andrew Walker and his blogpost claiming that the religious liberties bills being considered in various states do not discriminate against the LGBT community. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.
I'm sorry, but this whole post is wrong. Why? Just from the beginning, without examining the actual laws themselves, they are declared to be nondiscriminatory. This kind of declaration is both tribal because it is defending a particular group from accusations and uses apriori reasoning which is the kind one would expect from a tribal defense.
Second, yes, analogies between these laws and Jim Crow are valid. Why? Because Jim Crow was more than just a set of laws, it was a culture. We should also note that not all of the refusals to provide services to Blacks during Jim Crow were mandated by Jim Crow laws. And, in fact, it is defending business's right or that of an individual working in that business to refuse to provide goods and services is what is being compared to Jim Crow, not segregation. And what the author seems unaware of among what was just mentioned regarding Jim Crow was that the laws themselves varied from state to state.
Third, allowing businesses or individuals working in those businesses to discriminate in the provision of goods and services to a particular group or legal event for that group sets up the possibility of systemic discrimination. Why? Because it sets the target group up for either the partial or complete deprivation of goods and services in a given location depending on the appropriate set of demographics of the business owners there and the choices they make.
Fourth, if gov't allows businesses to discriminate, then it would most likely require gov't action to eliminate the discrimination.
Again, whether these laws involve discrimination or not must be judged on a case by case basis. Yes, some of the nonconservative portrayals of these laws use hyperbole and thus misrepresent portions of these laws. But that hyperbole can only be discovered by examining the laws in detail, not by taking an apriori approach of declaring the law to be discrimination free. Below is a link to a credible analysis and criticism of the law that the Georgia governor vetoed.
http://web.law.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/microsites/gender-sexuality/files/public_rights_private_conscience_project_-_hb_757_the_establishment_clause.pdf
Us religiously conservative Christians need to be honest with ourselves. From the time when homosexuality was defined as a criminal activity til now when we are writing laws that legalize discrimination, we have shown various degrees of hostility to the LGBT community. It's time we stop and start sharing society with those from the LGBT community as equals. It is what those from that community deserve as people. And it is what they deserve from us because of the contributions they have made to our lives both as individuals and as members of society. The Biblical injunctions against homosexuality are independent from the equality that those in the LGBT community deserve in society.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
April 9
To Denny Burk and his blogpost lamenting the Republican Party’s failure to “defend” traditional marriage. This appeared in Denny Burk’s blog.
I think what is euphemistically called a defense of traditional marriage is, in reality, an attack on same-sex marriage in society. And because it is an attack, some younger religiously conservative Christians have been forced into a false choice of theologically accepting same-sex marriage so that they can politically accept it in society. The push to accept it in society is because these Christians see friends, and perhaps even family members, be marginalized for having a different sexual orientation. And because too many conservative Christian leaders have so strongly associated a religious rejection of same-sex marriage with marginalizing those from the LGBT community by attacking same-sex marriage in society, they feel forced into make theological compromises.
As for the Republican, Party we should not be surprised. That party has been the lap dog of business for quite a while and corporations are pushing equal rights for the LGBT community.
As for religious liberties, in reality too many of us religiously conservative Christians have taken a tribal approach to defending these liberties. It is a tribal approach because too many of us have only been concerned with our rights, not the religious freedom of those who disagree with us about same-sex marriage.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
April 10
To Joe Carter and his blogpost stating that we should oppose the raising of the minimum wage lest workers earning minimum wage lose their jobs to robots. This appeared in the Acton blog.
Just as there is the road less traveled, what we have here is the question not asked: How should we regard an economic system that makes us choose between poverty wages and unemployment? Instead, we are asked to choose between robots and employment with Carter's appearing to feign interest in the welfare of the workers. But the question not being asked is being lived out by employees in jobs for which the demographics have changed dramatically in terms of the workers' age as well as their education and needs. Those who have the jobs Carter mentions are being paid poverty wages with little hope for seeing better prospects.
There is a reason why Carter and others refuse to ask the unasked question. The reason is that they are full supporters of the system that asks us to choose between poverty wages and unemployment. Because to change that system means that we need to put some constraints on those benefiting from the current system. But to put constraints on them would result in infringing on their "economic freedom." And heaven knows that we should prefer to require workers to live on poverty wages than to violate, even in the smallest way, the economic freedom of a few.
But those being paid poverty wages are not experiencing economic freedom and thus we need to ask if we are preserving economic freedom for all or economic privilege for some. In the end, what Carter and others advocate is that despite the poverty wages many are required to live on, we should prefer to allow them to continue to suffer than to question the system that provides privileges for a few. And the sad thing here is that Carter is seen as representing the Christian perspective of economics because of his efforts to protect the economic privilege, I mean "freedom," of a few.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
April 12
To Joe Carter and his blogpost that provides an evangelical guide to the Pope’s latest teachings on marriage and family. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.
Just a couple of comments. Though I am not Catholic, I have a high regard for Pope Francis's analyses of our culture and our economic system. That our emphasis on individualism, consumerism and materialism has caused us to not see people, even those in our own families, as people, but rather our quest for things has caused us to devalue any, including family members, who would stand in the way of the acquiring our earthly treasures. Here, we need to think about what the Pope has said.
However, there are parts that warrant criticisms or the call for more nuance. His statement asserting that same-sex unions cannot be placed on the same level as marriage needs nuance. In terms of speaking an absolute truth that must be applied in the Church, then I would agree. But we exist in a society where there is the freedom of religion and where many people do not adhere to the teachings of the Scriptures. So here we need to ask ourselves how we will share society with others who hold to different views. To rule out recognizing same-sex marriage as being equal to heterosexual marriage in society requires that we share society with others as having some kind of superior position over them. Indeed, many of the Conservative Catholics I have corresponded with believe that it is the obligation of civil authorities to follow the teachings of the Pope in terms of how they carry out their duties. Thus, more nuance is required in Pope Francis' teachings on this subject.
Also, when it comes to the subject of who has the primary responsibility in educating children, I believe that should be decided on a case by case basis. Parents who abuse their children, parents who passively or actively teach their children to engage in criminal activities, and parents who teach their children to disregard the rights of others have forfeited, to varying degrees, the right to have the primary responsibility in educating their children. In fact, the Pope's teaching here talks about what kind of moral lessons parents should be teaching their children. When parents fail at this, others, sometimes including schools, must take the parents' place. So it needs to be stated that while parents have certain primary responsibilities in how they parent their children that cannot be replaced by institutions, the possession of those primary responsibilities is contingent on them meeting certain conditions. Since I am going by what is reported in this article, I think the concepts expressed about the primary responsibilities parents have over their own children must be expanded.
Finally, regarding the Pope's comments on remarriage and admission to the communion table. The right of the Church to prohibit individuals from taking communion should be based on repentance of sin. But how do those who have been joined in an unbiblical marriage repent? So the informal admission to communion for those who have entered into an unbiblical marriage is a step forward.
Wednesday, January 27, 2016
Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For January 27, 2016
Jan 20
To Elliot Clark and his blogpost suggesting that Christians should read the Quran for themselves. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.
This is an excellent post. I say this because I was taught in seminary that when reading the Bible, one should read the original documents as much as possible. And when we had to deal with various theologians, we read the theologians themselves rather than what others said about them.
The same principle applies here. If we want to know more about what Muslims believe, reading their critics will not help. Reading what they believe will help us better understand their religion as well as enable us to correct those who are make incorrect statements about Islam.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Denny Burk and his blogpost review of the movie 13 Hours. This appeared in Denny Burk’s blog.
But the problem with the movie is the scope of the story. The terrorism starts with the attack on the US embassy. And that seems to fit the pro-American narrative on terrorism in general. Terrorism always starts with what they did to us despite our long-standing history of interventions and support for tyrannical rulers in the region.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Devin Foley and his blogpost reducing the sins of our fathers to the current federal debt. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.
This article epitomizes what bothers me about conservatives. When it comes to explaining the sins of the our fathers, the only concern is debt. Such disregards our history of racism as seen in the ethnic cleansing of Native Americans from the land, slavery, and both Jim Crows. It also disregards our history of hegemony as seen in our invasions, interventions, and our support for both tyrants and terrorists. With all of that history and the current situation, the sins of our fathers, according to this article, have only to do with debt. Here, a reminder of one of my favorite Martin Luther King Jr. quotes is in order:
Jan 25
To Denny Burk and his blogpost on how future generations will judge our generation for its acceptance of abortion. This appeared in Denny Burk’s blog.
I agree with this article except I would add that abortion is not the only pro-life issue for which we will be judged. Abortion is not this country's only social justice problem where life is devalued and threatened by the status quo. Wealth disparity certainly devalues and threatens the lives of both the unborn and born. So do interventionist foreign policies. And how can we defend our way of life when threatens the quality and actual lives of future generations?
There is more than one issue for which our generation will be judged.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jan 26
To Joe Carter and his blogpost on the planned parenthood videos and the legal process that followed. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.
We should note that the videos that some of us might have seen were edited. The unedited videos were reviewed and checked by factcheck.org. Their findings can be found by accessing the link below: Just as a spoiler alert, according to the videos, it doesn't appear that the law cited above was broken. That doesn't mean that there is no reason for portesting Planned Parenthood; after all, they do provide services for those desiring elective abortions. The issue here is the content of the videos.
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/07/unspinning-the-planned-parenthood-video/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Mike Edmondson and his blogpost giving reasons why politicians should note be allowed to speak from the pulpit on Sunday morning. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.
Seeing that the caveat is the pulpit on Sunday mornings, most of the points made above are good. However, the last point can be taken as reason not to mention the outside world including politics and justice issues--we should note that politics often involves issues of justice. When political and justice issues are banned from being mentioned in the pulpit so that the sheep may be fed, it promotes a certain insularity among the sheep that can border on an Anabaptist mentality. It can also lead us into becoming more preoccupied with ourselves than we already are. Such is not a Reformed approach. Nor is it consistent with the behavior of God's people especially the prophets from the Old Testament. But most important, such an insularity and resulting self-preoccupation prevents us from loving our neighbor as we should.
If we combine the lessons from the parable ofthe two men praying with the idea of being a curmudgeon, perhaps we can arrive at that meets the concerns expressed above. That one of the roles of any miniter's sermon is to address political issues when injustice is being visited on others. Here, the minister should only address how people are being exploited; solutions should not be offered. In addition, the injustices promoted by all political parties should be mentioned so that there is neither support nor implied endorsement of any political party--this addressing the injustices promoted by all political parties falls in line with the lessons taught from the parable of the two men praying.
Since politics involves issues of justice and God loves justice, we can't avoid mentioning political issues from the pulpit, nor should we. But we should be careful to mention and describe these issues so that justtice,, rather than an ideology or political party, is being promoted.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Joe Carter and his blogpost on how the minimum wage is cruel. This appeared in the Acton blog.
If businesses work on such the idealistic approach as described in this video, how come we have the working poor some of whom are homeless? And why do we have certain businesses that use gov't assistance programs to subsidize their payrolls?
In addition, there are mixed results to the raising of the minimum wage and thus we need more time to study the impact of raising minimum wages in our current economic system. Whereas there was an increase in resttaurant work unemployment in Seattle during the first few months of having a higher minimum wage, that trend has reversed (see http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/08/25/latest-seattle-jobs-numbers-disprove-foxs-minim/205155 ) and overall unemployment in Seattle has dropped (see http://www.seattletimes.com/business/local-business/state-jobless-rate-stays-steady-at-53-percent-in-august/ ). Whle a Forbes article sttes that a comparison between Seattle restaurant employment compared with the restaurant employment for the rest of Washington slightly favors the side that opposes raising the minimum wage and that there are 700 fewer restaurant jobs in the Seattle area since the beginning of the increase in the minimum wage (see http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/10/23/checking-seattles-15-minimum-wage-look-theres-the-job-losses/#bc41da25da40 ). But here we should note that these statistics could be used to support an argument for making the minimum wage standard across a whole state as well as an argument against Seattle's new minimum wage.
But note that with the Forbes comparison comes our mystery in the minimum wage debate: why aren't we questioning the economic system that gives us an exclusive-or choice between having a job and being paid a livable wage?
In the meantime, the title of this article is rather ambiguous. Is the cruelty of the minimum wage an indication that it is too low? Or is the cruelty noted by Carter found in the mere existence of the minimum wage? Or is the cruelty in the current attempt to raise the wage? Or finally is the cruelty of the minimum wage a parroting of what Chris Rock said about being paid minimum wage:
Unfortunately, we have some conservative Christians sources who are so unabashadly pro-business in their ideology that they are blind to the human impact of their ideology has.
To Elliot Clark and his blogpost suggesting that Christians should read the Quran for themselves. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.
This is an excellent post. I say this because I was taught in seminary that when reading the Bible, one should read the original documents as much as possible. And when we had to deal with various theologians, we read the theologians themselves rather than what others said about them.
The same principle applies here. If we want to know more about what Muslims believe, reading their critics will not help. Reading what they believe will help us better understand their religion as well as enable us to correct those who are make incorrect statements about Islam.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Denny Burk and his blogpost review of the movie 13 Hours. This appeared in Denny Burk’s blog.
But the problem with the movie is the scope of the story. The terrorism starts with the attack on the US embassy. And that seems to fit the pro-American narrative on terrorism in general. Terrorism always starts with what they did to us despite our long-standing history of interventions and support for tyrannical rulers in the region.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Devin Foley and his blogpost reducing the sins of our fathers to the current federal debt. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.
This article epitomizes what bothers me about conservatives. When it comes to explaining the sins of the our fathers, the only concern is debt. Such disregards our history of racism as seen in the ethnic cleansing of Native Americans from the land, slavery, and both Jim Crows. It also disregards our history of hegemony as seen in our invasions, interventions, and our support for both tyrants and terrorists. With all of that history and the current situation, the sins of our fathers, according to this article, have only to do with debt. Here, a reminder of one of my favorite Martin Luther King Jr. quotes is in order:
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.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jan 25
To Denny Burk and his blogpost on how future generations will judge our generation for its acceptance of abortion. This appeared in Denny Burk’s blog.
I agree with this article except I would add that abortion is not the only pro-life issue for which we will be judged. Abortion is not this country's only social justice problem where life is devalued and threatened by the status quo. Wealth disparity certainly devalues and threatens the lives of both the unborn and born. So do interventionist foreign policies. And how can we defend our way of life when threatens the quality and actual lives of future generations?
There is more than one issue for which our generation will be judged.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jan 26
To Joe Carter and his blogpost on the planned parenthood videos and the legal process that followed. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.
We should note that the videos that some of us might have seen were edited. The unedited videos were reviewed and checked by factcheck.org. Their findings can be found by accessing the link below: Just as a spoiler alert, according to the videos, it doesn't appear that the law cited above was broken. That doesn't mean that there is no reason for portesting Planned Parenthood; after all, they do provide services for those desiring elective abortions. The issue here is the content of the videos.
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/07/unspinning-the-planned-parenthood-video/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Mike Edmondson and his blogpost giving reasons why politicians should note be allowed to speak from the pulpit on Sunday morning. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.
Seeing that the caveat is the pulpit on Sunday mornings, most of the points made above are good. However, the last point can be taken as reason not to mention the outside world including politics and justice issues--we should note that politics often involves issues of justice. When political and justice issues are banned from being mentioned in the pulpit so that the sheep may be fed, it promotes a certain insularity among the sheep that can border on an Anabaptist mentality. It can also lead us into becoming more preoccupied with ourselves than we already are. Such is not a Reformed approach. Nor is it consistent with the behavior of God's people especially the prophets from the Old Testament. But most important, such an insularity and resulting self-preoccupation prevents us from loving our neighbor as we should.
If we combine the lessons from the parable ofthe two men praying with the idea of being a curmudgeon, perhaps we can arrive at that meets the concerns expressed above. That one of the roles of any miniter's sermon is to address political issues when injustice is being visited on others. Here, the minister should only address how people are being exploited; solutions should not be offered. In addition, the injustices promoted by all political parties should be mentioned so that there is neither support nor implied endorsement of any political party--this addressing the injustices promoted by all political parties falls in line with the lessons taught from the parable of the two men praying.
Since politics involves issues of justice and God loves justice, we can't avoid mentioning political issues from the pulpit, nor should we. But we should be careful to mention and describe these issues so that justtice,, rather than an ideology or political party, is being promoted.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Joe Carter and his blogpost on how the minimum wage is cruel. This appeared in the Acton blog.
If businesses work on such the idealistic approach as described in this video, how come we have the working poor some of whom are homeless? And why do we have certain businesses that use gov't assistance programs to subsidize their payrolls?
In addition, there are mixed results to the raising of the minimum wage and thus we need more time to study the impact of raising minimum wages in our current economic system. Whereas there was an increase in resttaurant work unemployment in Seattle during the first few months of having a higher minimum wage, that trend has reversed (see http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/08/25/latest-seattle-jobs-numbers-disprove-foxs-minim/205155 ) and overall unemployment in Seattle has dropped (see http://www.seattletimes.com/business/local-business/state-jobless-rate-stays-steady-at-53-percent-in-august/ ). Whle a Forbes article sttes that a comparison between Seattle restaurant employment compared with the restaurant employment for the rest of Washington slightly favors the side that opposes raising the minimum wage and that there are 700 fewer restaurant jobs in the Seattle area since the beginning of the increase in the minimum wage (see http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/10/23/checking-seattles-15-minimum-wage-look-theres-the-job-losses/#bc41da25da40 ). But here we should note that these statistics could be used to support an argument for making the minimum wage standard across a whole state as well as an argument against Seattle's new minimum wage.
But note that with the Forbes comparison comes our mystery in the minimum wage debate: why aren't we questioning the economic system that gives us an exclusive-or choice between having a job and being paid a livable wage?
In the meantime, the title of this article is rather ambiguous. Is the cruelty of the minimum wage an indication that it is too low? Or is the cruelty noted by Carter found in the mere existence of the minimum wage? Or is the cruelty in the current attempt to raise the wage? Or finally is the cruelty of the minimum wage a parroting of what Chris Rock said about being paid minimum wage:
You know what that means when someone pays you minimum wage? You know what your boss was trying to say? "Hey if I could pay you less, I would, but it's against the law.”
Unfortunately, we have some conservative Christians sources who are so unabashadly pro-business in their ideology that they are blind to the human impact of their ideology has.
Wednesday, January 13, 2016
Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For January 12, 2016
Jan 8
To Joe Carter and his blogpost opposing the legalization of prostitution. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website
This is an article with which I am in full agreement. And yet, how we implement the criminalization of prostitution targets the women more than the men who support it as customers and the men who provide the women. If we legalize any part of prostitution, we should make it legal for the actual prostitutes and criminalize the men who use the prostitutes and those who manage them.
But in addition, we need to increase the job market for jobs that pay liveable wages so that there are fewer women who find themselves in such desparate situations that they see prostitution as a way to support themselves.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Joe Carter and his blogpost criticizing Powerball and other state-run gambling games. This appeared on the Acton blog.
As right as this article is on powerball and state-run gambling, it misses a point. That point is the question of why there is state-run gambling. My guess is that it is to keep the people at bay because the state will not tax those who are wealthy in order fund certain programs. And thus, people who are desparate to win the big prizes to make in life are depended on to foot the bill of some necessary government programs. But I guess that is the price of ensuring economic "freedom" for those to whom that "freedom" applies.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Bruce Edward Walker and his blogpost criticizing those who work to reduce our reliance on fossile fuels. This appeared in the Acton blog.
First, let's take a look at what the poverty level is. It is $1.25 per day. And the only reason why we know that that removes people from poverty is that we are told so. But suppose it is true, what else is true? We know that most of the improvement in world poverty came from nations like China and India. But China is also experiencing severe enviornmental problems and a significant number of workers there work in sweatshop factories. And while there has been some statistica progress reported in India, hundreds of thousands of farmers from India have committed suicide because of financial debt stemming from the "free market" that exists there.
In addition, we need to remember that some gains in jobs in both India and China have come through the loss of jobs here. This is because the minimum wage requirements and other regulatory enforcements that exist here do not exist in many of the Asian nations cited above. So employment gains in Asia have come at the expense of jobs here. This increases the labor pool which, according to the law of supply and demand, keeps wages down here.
But besides all of that, this article is telling us that to do something about damage to the environment by reducing our use of fossile fuels, we are told that we mush sacrifice gains made elsewhere. Basically, this article tells us that we must pick our poison. And yet this article never once does such a choice inspire supporters of the global economy to question the system.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jan 11
To Joe Carter and his blogpost claiming that raising minimum wage does not target poverty. This appeared in the Acton blog.
One of the problems with the article above is that the research is cherry-pioked. For example, Arindrajit Dubeú's work on raising the minimum wage and poverty show different results (see https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/15038936/Dube_MinimumWagesFamilyIncomes.pdf ). And, in fact, in reviewing other research, Dubeú references Neumark's work, Neumark is the author of the first work cited, and and states that some of his work is unconventional as well as having flaws in its methodology. We should note here that Dubeú disagrees with Neumark's assessment of the data. It wouldn't hurt Carter to cite evidence from different perspectives than the one he favors.
Second, that raising the minimum wage has no effect on the unemployed is a rather trivial statement. What he misses is that the number of low wage workers who would benefit from a raise in the minimum wage includes more than just minimum wage workers, it includes at least those who are paid one to several steps above minimum wage since this is how employers who want to be fair to their many of their employees who are paid more than minimum wage would react to a raise in the minimum wage. In addition, we should note that the reduction in poverty must include a number of tools, not just one. That is because the poor are not a monolith.
Third, my sources who work with sheltering the homeless tell me that a number of homeless people are actually employed. Thus, raising the wages of all low-income workers could reduce the number of working homeless people.
Fourth, the last statistics I've seen from Seattle's raising the minimum wage in the food industry business is that after an initial drop in employment has come an increase in employment. The increase in employment can come from more people having expendible income, However, suppose there is a decrease in employment with an increase in the minimum wage. How is it that the choice between having low paying jobs or higher employment rates does not cause us to question the current economic system we employ. Yes, some business leaders can tell us how to work the current system. But they can't always step outside our current system to tell us whether the system itself is flawed.
Wednesday, August 5, 2015
Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For August 5, 2015
July 29
To Denny Burk and his blogpost on abortion and one woman's brief account. This appeared in Denny Burk's blog.
Denny,
Your blogpost here is good, but the title is a little misleading. Itisn’t the sex life that is at fault for the abortion itself, it is the failure to recognize the intrinsic value of each human life that is the problem.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 30
To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost quote stating that even pagans understand that same-sex marriage is wrong. this appeared in Heidelblog.
Of course, this 'even pagans understood' cuts both ways and this should be important for those who would be interested in not becoming the pharisee from the parable of the two men prayed.
Even pagans understand the injustices from an economic system that uses a flag of freedom as a cloak for greed. Even though his solutions were left wanting, Marx understood this. So did my brothers and sisters at Occupy Wall Street. And because of those injustices, even pagans understand the need to speak out even if those who cry out look less appealing than Balaam's donkey.
Even pagans understand that our modern way of life is destroying the parts of the environment that makes life possible. Even pagans understand that it would be wise to seriously consider what the vast majority of scientists have to say on this subject. And even pagans understand that to halt the destruction of the environment while helping those who are impoverished, we must learn to share more with others while perhaps making due with less for ourselves.
And even pagans understand that, if we continue to rely on war and militarism, WMDs will eventually be used and then be used on a more frequent basis endangering the lives of those who follow us. And even pagans understand that patriotism can be a gateway association that promotes a moral relativity that defines right and wrong by asking who does what to whom.
We so focus on the sexual behaviors of others that horrible sins of both others and ourselves are easily flying in under the radar, that is if there is any radar left which is not devoted to detecting sexual sins. Yes, we need to speak out against sexual sins. But does that mean that we should marginalize those whose sexual sins we find intolerable?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 31
To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost on a Biblical view of human authority in particular as it applies in the home. This appeared in Heidelblog.
First, you have a spelling error at the end of the following line:
"This is an area where Christians have an opportunity to be distinct from the prevailing culture both both by respecting the creation order and by showing hey"
Second, there are things we can learn from the current limited egalitarianism that is a part of our culture. But before we discuss that, we need to discuss when to push a Biblical complementarian perspective. Certainly we need to push that in the Church and fellowship groups. And when we need to push that when we teach the Bible to others. Pushing it at home depends on whether we have married a believing wife and if so, would our current church support that. But what about expecting society to adopt such an approach?
Some would argue that we should insist that society follow the Biblical model. But to be consistent, we would have to repeal the First Amendment that talks about the freedom of religion. Should we fear egalitarianism in society? I would have a bigger fear of society pushing an unbiblical form of hierarchy regardless of who is granted superiority.
If the government is to recognize each person as being equal in society, then what is wrong with the current egalitarian approach outside of possible restroom confusion? And what if we, in our roles of heads of the house, treat our wives as being equals while still making the final decision on certain matters? See, that treating our spouses as equals can be an expression of love and respect. In addition, recognizing where our spouses are superior to us outside of gender stereotypes can be a further expression of love and respect. Even Adam Smith knew that too strict a division of labor has a dumbing down effect. Is that what we want our spouses to experience?
Again, I think we should welcome the egalitarianism promoted in society. We can certainly live around that at home and in our churches. And we need to distinguish what we should allow for society to follow from what we would preach people to follow as private individuals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aug 2
To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost quote about abortion and choice. This appeared in Heidelblog
The real issue with abortion is not choice. The real issue is what, if any, intrinsic value does human life have. For if the only value is conferred, then we are all at the mercy of those who have the power to grant or take away our value as people.
At the same time we must realize that the practice of abortion is not our society's only institution that acts as if human life has no intrinsic value. The Free Market, our Neoliberal Capitalism, and our penchant for militarism and war all act as if human life has no intrinsic value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
August 3
To Victoria Sweatman and her comment of around July 24 stating that neither history nor the Constitution support same-sex marriage. This was part of the discussion on the blogpost about the Obergefeel v. hodges decision. This appeared on the First things blog.
Victoria,
Actually history is replete with same-sex couples and has more examples of such marriages than we care to admit. So your point doesn't make the comparison specious. Think about the opposition to racial equality that has remained entrenched for centuries in our own nation.
And what does the Constitution say about this matter? First, we have a freedom of religion such that the religious views of some cannot be forced on all. Second you have the 14th amendment that says you cannot discriminate in the administration of laws. And that is what we had in terms of marriage. Heterosexual couples were allowed to enjoy a one-to-one union that same-sex couples could not. That the one-to-one partnership was a complete union prevents the slippery slope which some fear. That union, which cannot be replicated in any kind of partnership, joins one consenting adult and all that they have to another. Those who argue otherwise are fixated on the sexual union part of the relationship.
Also, if you are going to say that my reasoning is weak, you have to present more grounds than to say some people disagree.
Finally, to draw conclusions about the high prevalence of open relationships and other motivations in the LGBT community without considering the context would be an unacceptable way of drawing conclusions in any kind of research endeavor. What most of us are out of touch with is the degree of marginalization those from the LGBT community have experienced on a personal level for most of their lives. To not consider context when drawing conclusions about behavior would not be acceptable in any kind of scientific endeavor to study any subject.
And if you to question my view about the comparisons between same-sex marriage and heterosexual marriage with same-sex marriage vs any other arrangement, you will have to be more specific in order to make your point.
The real issue is that some of us religiously conservative Christians who hold to traditional marriage in the Church have a personal antagonism against same-sex marriage in society which is not shared by the rest of us religiously conservative Christians who agree with God's Word about traditional marriage but who believe that same-sex marriage should be allowed in society. I think it is time that those Christians who have such an antagonism need to more honest and up front about it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost on submitting to those in authority. This appeared in Heidelblog
Something should also be noted about these verses that tell us to submit. That is that they were written before the Gospel had been spread around the world, before Christianity had been associated with particular governments, and before democracy. There are times to resist, but we must note that even then our resistance should reflect our faith in Christ.
When Martin Luther King Jr contemplated how to respond to unjust laws, he had to balance 2 issues: injustice and submission to authorities. Following Augustine, King asserted that an unjust law is not a valid law. At the same time, King was against what is popularly called anarchy and wanted to recognize those who were put in authority. So when he and those who followed him broke the law to show the injustice of the laws back then, he and his followers submitted to arrests and jail time and he advocated that they do so without bitterness and without verbal violence.
Was King wrong to break the law to illustrate injustice? I don't think so And when we consider the association between the Gospel and the unjust laws he was responding to as well as the association between the Gospel and passivity to the harsh injustices back then, to take King's approach honored the Gospel more than mere submission to the laws because instead of being merely concerned with one's own personal righteousness in following the law, by addressing injustice, he was reaching out in love to those who were
oppressed. And that is an important point missing in the discussion of how we should honor and submit to authorities. And considering that our democracy puts more tools and privileges into our hands to address injustice, then we see that today's situation involves a different stewardship call in how we relate to those in authority from back in the first century when there was no democracy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
August 4
To Joe Carter and his blogpost Criticizing Dan Price, the CEO who is starting a multi-year program that will eventually raise minimum salaries for his employees to $70k. This appeared in the Acton blog.
It seems like the biggest problems Price is facing for his plan to raise salaries to a minimum of $70k are not market problems but personal problems on the part of those who object. From his brother who is suing him to disgruntled employees who are envious to unsure customers, breaking with convention by paying people more shows why we need to look in the mirror and examine ourselves. It also shows that the free market isn't as free as we are led to believe. For look at the backlash Price is receiving before his experiment has a chance to be tested by the "Free Market."
What will be most interesting, but also predictable because of past precedent, is the lawsuit by Price's brother. After all, who are the employees that they should be recognized as having "earned" more of the company's profits than what some owners want to grant? After all, without the employees, there is no production of products that produce profits. None. But such shows the ownership mentality of some and their views of their employees.
In the meantime, here is Joe Carter telling Price that if he read the parable about the vineyard owner (see parable of the vineyard owner ) before deciding to raise wages, he could have saved himself time and trouble. After all, it is the hired hands from that parable who tell us what happens when envy has its way and obviously Joe Carter's Free Market is based on envy. Of course, in cheering on the hired hands from Price's company (a.k.a., the disgruntled employees who are objecting to the raises others are receiving), Carter seems to be showing greater affection for today's hired hands and his free market than he does for the vineyard owner from parable and the lesson He was teaching. Does Carter even know who that vineyard owner is? Does he know the lesson that comes from the parable?
So the last will be first, and the first will be last.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Joe Carter and his blogpost containing a short animated film and explanation on, from one example, since there is cooperation between two major department stores that cooperation is the rule in Capitalism and thus no central authority needs to oversee it. This appeared on the Acton blog.
So much is implied from such a little example and using little examples as an apologetic seems to be the habit of those who defend capitalism. One only needs to look at the history of news media and the number of corporations who have owned news media or the number of big banks today vs yesteryear to realize that this idea of cooperation is not necessarily germane to today's Capitalism. And one only needs to look at the causes of the 2008 economic collapse to realize what can happen when there is a lack of federal oversight when big money is involved.
When many Americans look at Capitalism, they only see what happens to them and those they have contact with. They are unable to see the bigger picture because either they refuse or neglect to notice all of the stakeholders involved in the system. Human trafficking is a significant problem in our agriculture sector. And even when that is not involved, trade agreements and foreign policies involving military interventions with the subsequent installment of proxy leaders has been part of our economic system. The current consolidation of wealth and the growth of poverty is also a part of our economic system. But primarily, the objectification of workers and relegating them to a state of being disposable is a fundamental part of our Capitalist system. And seeing how those in the lower economic classes suffer the most during times of collapse while those in the higher economic classes benefit the most from recoveries shows the direction of our economy. In fact, perhaps those defenders of Capitalism would like to explain why there are so many more empty homes than there are homeless families.
.
To Denny Burk and his blogpost on abortion and one woman's brief account. This appeared in Denny Burk's blog.
Denny,
Your blogpost here is good, but the title is a little misleading. Itisn’t the sex life that is at fault for the abortion itself, it is the failure to recognize the intrinsic value of each human life that is the problem.
July 30
To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost quote stating that even pagans understand that same-sex marriage is wrong. this appeared in Heidelblog.
Of course, this 'even pagans understood' cuts both ways and this should be important for those who would be interested in not becoming the pharisee from the parable of the two men prayed.
Even pagans understand the injustices from an economic system that uses a flag of freedom as a cloak for greed. Even though his solutions were left wanting, Marx understood this. So did my brothers and sisters at Occupy Wall Street. And because of those injustices, even pagans understand the need to speak out even if those who cry out look less appealing than Balaam's donkey.
Even pagans understand that our modern way of life is destroying the parts of the environment that makes life possible. Even pagans understand that it would be wise to seriously consider what the vast majority of scientists have to say on this subject. And even pagans understand that to halt the destruction of the environment while helping those who are impoverished, we must learn to share more with others while perhaps making due with less for ourselves.
And even pagans understand that, if we continue to rely on war and militarism, WMDs will eventually be used and then be used on a more frequent basis endangering the lives of those who follow us. And even pagans understand that patriotism can be a gateway association that promotes a moral relativity that defines right and wrong by asking who does what to whom.
We so focus on the sexual behaviors of others that horrible sins of both others and ourselves are easily flying in under the radar, that is if there is any radar left which is not devoted to detecting sexual sins. Yes, we need to speak out against sexual sins. But does that mean that we should marginalize those whose sexual sins we find intolerable?
July 31
To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost on a Biblical view of human authority in particular as it applies in the home. This appeared in Heidelblog.
First, you have a spelling error at the end of the following line:
"This is an area where Christians have an opportunity to be distinct from the prevailing culture both both by respecting the creation order and by showing hey"
Second, there are things we can learn from the current limited egalitarianism that is a part of our culture. But before we discuss that, we need to discuss when to push a Biblical complementarian perspective. Certainly we need to push that in the Church and fellowship groups. And when we need to push that when we teach the Bible to others. Pushing it at home depends on whether we have married a believing wife and if so, would our current church support that. But what about expecting society to adopt such an approach?
Some would argue that we should insist that society follow the Biblical model. But to be consistent, we would have to repeal the First Amendment that talks about the freedom of religion. Should we fear egalitarianism in society? I would have a bigger fear of society pushing an unbiblical form of hierarchy regardless of who is granted superiority.
If the government is to recognize each person as being equal in society, then what is wrong with the current egalitarian approach outside of possible restroom confusion? And what if we, in our roles of heads of the house, treat our wives as being equals while still making the final decision on certain matters? See, that treating our spouses as equals can be an expression of love and respect. In addition, recognizing where our spouses are superior to us outside of gender stereotypes can be a further expression of love and respect. Even Adam Smith knew that too strict a division of labor has a dumbing down effect. Is that what we want our spouses to experience?
Again, I think we should welcome the egalitarianism promoted in society. We can certainly live around that at home and in our churches. And we need to distinguish what we should allow for society to follow from what we would preach people to follow as private individuals.
Aug 2
To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost quote about abortion and choice. This appeared in Heidelblog
The real issue with abortion is not choice. The real issue is what, if any, intrinsic value does human life have. For if the only value is conferred, then we are all at the mercy of those who have the power to grant or take away our value as people.
At the same time we must realize that the practice of abortion is not our society's only institution that acts as if human life has no intrinsic value. The Free Market, our Neoliberal Capitalism, and our penchant for militarism and war all act as if human life has no intrinsic value.
August 3
To Victoria Sweatman and her comment of around July 24 stating that neither history nor the Constitution support same-sex marriage. This was part of the discussion on the blogpost about the Obergefeel v. hodges decision. This appeared on the First things blog.
Victoria,
Actually history is replete with same-sex couples and has more examples of such marriages than we care to admit. So your point doesn't make the comparison specious. Think about the opposition to racial equality that has remained entrenched for centuries in our own nation.
And what does the Constitution say about this matter? First, we have a freedom of religion such that the religious views of some cannot be forced on all. Second you have the 14th amendment that says you cannot discriminate in the administration of laws. And that is what we had in terms of marriage. Heterosexual couples were allowed to enjoy a one-to-one union that same-sex couples could not. That the one-to-one partnership was a complete union prevents the slippery slope which some fear. That union, which cannot be replicated in any kind of partnership, joins one consenting adult and all that they have to another. Those who argue otherwise are fixated on the sexual union part of the relationship.
Also, if you are going to say that my reasoning is weak, you have to present more grounds than to say some people disagree.
Finally, to draw conclusions about the high prevalence of open relationships and other motivations in the LGBT community without considering the context would be an unacceptable way of drawing conclusions in any kind of research endeavor. What most of us are out of touch with is the degree of marginalization those from the LGBT community have experienced on a personal level for most of their lives. To not consider context when drawing conclusions about behavior would not be acceptable in any kind of scientific endeavor to study any subject.
And if you to question my view about the comparisons between same-sex marriage and heterosexual marriage with same-sex marriage vs any other arrangement, you will have to be more specific in order to make your point.
The real issue is that some of us religiously conservative Christians who hold to traditional marriage in the Church have a personal antagonism against same-sex marriage in society which is not shared by the rest of us religiously conservative Christians who agree with God's Word about traditional marriage but who believe that same-sex marriage should be allowed in society. I think it is time that those Christians who have such an antagonism need to more honest and up front about it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost on submitting to those in authority. This appeared in Heidelblog
Something should also be noted about these verses that tell us to submit. That is that they were written before the Gospel had been spread around the world, before Christianity had been associated with particular governments, and before democracy. There are times to resist, but we must note that even then our resistance should reflect our faith in Christ.
When Martin Luther King Jr contemplated how to respond to unjust laws, he had to balance 2 issues: injustice and submission to authorities. Following Augustine, King asserted that an unjust law is not a valid law. At the same time, King was against what is popularly called anarchy and wanted to recognize those who were put in authority. So when he and those who followed him broke the law to show the injustice of the laws back then, he and his followers submitted to arrests and jail time and he advocated that they do so without bitterness and without verbal violence.
Was King wrong to break the law to illustrate injustice? I don't think so And when we consider the association between the Gospel and the unjust laws he was responding to as well as the association between the Gospel and passivity to the harsh injustices back then, to take King's approach honored the Gospel more than mere submission to the laws because instead of being merely concerned with one's own personal righteousness in following the law, by addressing injustice, he was reaching out in love to those who were
oppressed. And that is an important point missing in the discussion of how we should honor and submit to authorities. And considering that our democracy puts more tools and privileges into our hands to address injustice, then we see that today's situation involves a different stewardship call in how we relate to those in authority from back in the first century when there was no democracy.
August 4
To Joe Carter and his blogpost Criticizing Dan Price, the CEO who is starting a multi-year program that will eventually raise minimum salaries for his employees to $70k. This appeared in the Acton blog.
It seems like the biggest problems Price is facing for his plan to raise salaries to a minimum of $70k are not market problems but personal problems on the part of those who object. From his brother who is suing him to disgruntled employees who are envious to unsure customers, breaking with convention by paying people more shows why we need to look in the mirror and examine ourselves. It also shows that the free market isn't as free as we are led to believe. For look at the backlash Price is receiving before his experiment has a chance to be tested by the "Free Market."
What will be most interesting, but also predictable because of past precedent, is the lawsuit by Price's brother. After all, who are the employees that they should be recognized as having "earned" more of the company's profits than what some owners want to grant? After all, without the employees, there is no production of products that produce profits. None. But such shows the ownership mentality of some and their views of their employees.
In the meantime, here is Joe Carter telling Price that if he read the parable about the vineyard owner (see parable of the vineyard owner ) before deciding to raise wages, he could have saved himself time and trouble. After all, it is the hired hands from that parable who tell us what happens when envy has its way and obviously Joe Carter's Free Market is based on envy. Of course, in cheering on the hired hands from Price's company (a.k.a., the disgruntled employees who are objecting to the raises others are receiving), Carter seems to be showing greater affection for today's hired hands and his free market than he does for the vineyard owner from parable and the lesson He was teaching. Does Carter even know who that vineyard owner is? Does he know the lesson that comes from the parable?
So the last will be first, and the first will be last.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Joe Carter and his blogpost containing a short animated film and explanation on, from one example, since there is cooperation between two major department stores that cooperation is the rule in Capitalism and thus no central authority needs to oversee it. This appeared on the Acton blog.
So much is implied from such a little example and using little examples as an apologetic seems to be the habit of those who defend capitalism. One only needs to look at the history of news media and the number of corporations who have owned news media or the number of big banks today vs yesteryear to realize that this idea of cooperation is not necessarily germane to today's Capitalism. And one only needs to look at the causes of the 2008 economic collapse to realize what can happen when there is a lack of federal oversight when big money is involved.
When many Americans look at Capitalism, they only see what happens to them and those they have contact with. They are unable to see the bigger picture because either they refuse or neglect to notice all of the stakeholders involved in the system. Human trafficking is a significant problem in our agriculture sector. And even when that is not involved, trade agreements and foreign policies involving military interventions with the subsequent installment of proxy leaders has been part of our economic system. The current consolidation of wealth and the growth of poverty is also a part of our economic system. But primarily, the objectification of workers and relegating them to a state of being disposable is a fundamental part of our Capitalist system. And seeing how those in the lower economic classes suffer the most during times of collapse while those in the higher economic classes benefit the most from recoveries shows the direction of our economy. In fact, perhaps those defenders of Capitalism would like to explain why there are so many more empty homes than there are homeless families.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)