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

Around Aug 22

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

August 24

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

August 25

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

August 27

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

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

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

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

August 27

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments Which Conservataives Block From Their Blogs For Dec 11, 2019

Nov 13

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost on the culture war and the Gospel. In that article, he rightly criticizes fellow believers who look to win a culture war in America to take America back. This appeared in Heidelblog.

Every Christian needs to worry about how we marginalize other groups more than about how we might be marginalized now and in the future. And that is just as true for Calvinists as it is for those evangelicals who do not recognize Calvin's teaching on the 2 kingdoms. And regarding that teaching, we need to look at history to see how well Calvin's practice matched his theory. That history should tell us what we can realistically expect from his modern day adherents.

The culture war talk is for those, religiously conservative Christian or not, who look to achieve some degree of supremacy and control over society. Such people look at democracy as a means to their desired ends rather than an end. Those who look to natural law to settle issues raised by the sexual revolution and other social uprisings regarding sex will surely be disappointed. For not only does nature provide more than an ample number of examples of the existence of homosexuality which bring benefits to a given species, other societies that are more in-tune with nature, such as Native American tribes, have often recognized more than two genders. Thus one cannot use the natural law argument without pushing at least some of one's religious beliefs on others and thus violating the distinction between the 2 kingdoms as recognized but not practiced by Calvin.

In the end, what sabotages our sharing of the Gospel is that we, religiously conservative Christians that is, have never learned the difference between showing proper respect to legitimate authority figures and structures from embracing authoritarianism. Evidence of that is seen in whom Clark says we religiously conservative Christians can align ourselves with politically.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dec 6

To Bradford Littlejohn and his article on whether Nationalism can unite us. This appeared in First Things.

Sanitized definitions of the word 'nationalism' can never be adequate. For history shows us that regardless of how we scrub away at the definition, nationalism's true gang mentality and group authoritarianism emerge as permanent stains.

Part of the history I am referring to is what is written above about the Native Americans who resisted the ethnic cleansing being pursued by the European settlers. For Littlejohn cites Lowry in writing the following:

Lowry has no compunction about speaking the language of Manifest Destiny: “It is understandable that the Indians fought us. . . . But theirs was a losing battle, militarily and culturally. . . . Their way of life was not going to survive competition with the dynamic, churning engine of wealth and power next to them.” As a matter of hardheaded historical reality, he argues that it “wasn’t realistic” for thinly-spread Indian tribes to control most of the continent while multiplying whites remained confined to the Atlantic coast.

In the end Lowry was not trying to justify Native American resistance, he was simply rationalizing the carrying out of race-based Manifest Destiny. For he declared that the white settlers were entitled to the land because their way of life was superior to that of the Native Americans and because the white settlers needed breathing or living space. And white settlers took that land using a combination of force and unbroken treaties.

History tells us that white American settlers were not the only ones who believed that they were entitled to the land of others because they were superior to those others and they needed breathing or living space. And it isn't only history also teaches us that it is far easier to condemn others for doing what we do than to condemn ourselves. All we need to do is to reflect on our reactions to the immigrants crossing our southern border to see our selective use of standards.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For February 20, 2019

Feb 15

To Joe Carter and his blogpost that claims that progressives are trying to legislate policies that were thought to be unthinkable. Carter defines and uses the Overton Window to show how progressives are attempting to promote their agenda. This appeared  in the Acton blog.

If politicians are adjusting the policies they support according to what the people will support, what should we say about many Republicans who adjust the policies they support according to the campaign donations they receive directly or indirectly from corporations?

Carter has defined what the Overton Window and includes how progressives are trying to push through what was unthinkable into laws, But he has not really told us why what progressives want in the New Green Deal was or should be unthinkable. And that makes the term a mere pejorative and thus a word used to manipulate readers of this article.

Carter obviously rejects the New Green Deal in its entirety. Does that mean that he rejects its efforts to clean the environment by how we update our power grid, or to make education affordable, or to ensure employment for every American? Does it mean that he supports at least some of those goals but thinks that the Federal government should not bite off more than it can financially chew by footing too much of the bill? Or does Carter support maintaining the current status quo?

The New Green Deal is an updated, more exhaustive version of FDR's New Deal which is despised and scapegoated by many current conservatives. Many past conservatives such as Presidents Eisenhower and Reagan were strong supporters of programs like Social Security while President Nixon started the EPA. But having succumbed to a spell cast by Ayn Rand, many current Republicans and their financial supporters want to eliminate everything from FDR's New Deal. And that is despite how his New Deal saved the people of our nation from many problems.

Many current conservatives oppose the new deals because of both the benefits they bring and that the federal government foots the bill. In the end, I'm afraid that the major opposition to the basic principles of either new deal is because those with wealth want to continually reduce their social responsibilities. I say social responsibilities because the people these deals would help are fellow stakeholders of the business interests and economic system that made those with wealth rich. That kind of rejection of the New Green Deal leans toward varying degrees of cold hearted selfishness.

At the same time, pruning some of the goals of and how we implement the New Green Deal based on feasibility can provide responsible objections to what the Dems propose.
I have my own reservations to the New Green Deal. Though I fully agree with the program's approach to updating our power grid, the deal does not address our most basic problem in America: the belief that one is morally obligated to work only for one's self-interest. That helping the vulnerable is always a choice, never a moral obligation. Though some government intrusion to mandate some help is necessary, the government needs to supplement its intrusion with new relationship structures between all of the stakeholders in the economy so that all work together. We need new structures so that we learn how to work not just for self-interest alone, but the interests of others, especially the vulnerable. Government should create new structures that make our economic system a participatory one, not one that revolves around elite-centered rule. If we continue with the status quo where we, especially the wealthy, believe that we are only obligated to work for self-interest, our systems and society will implode from selfishness.

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

Feb 16

to Michael Matheson Miller and his blogpost that asserts that using tariffs is not a good way to solve the problems caused by economic and social globalism. This appeared in the Acton blog.

We first have to deal with the inaccurate claim that economic globalization has brought a lot of good including a 'drastic reductions in poverty.' Yes, we have seen a drop in abject poverty, but other levels of poverty exist some of which are growing. In addition, wealth disparity has been increasing in many nations and between nations. Thus, economic globalization is not all that Carter says it is.

In fact, the term 'globalization' is really an ambiguous term. Globalization can revolve around many ventures. For example, international communism is a globalization of labor with their plights and concerns. I don't see Carter call for that kind of globalization.

The economic globalization that Carter consistently praises is actually called neoliberal Capitalism or neoliberalism. With neoliberalism, business owners face fewer and fewer restrictions and social responsibilities in the name of free trade. But we should also realize that the fuel on which Capitalism runs, especially neoliberalism, is greed in the form of following the maximization of profits ethic. The maximization of profits is a cannibalizing ethic in that all other moral and ethical values can be sacrificed if doing so increases profits. And with fewer regulations and supervision, those who are wealthy gain more power as they gain more wealth. And as they gain more power, they lose more accountability and responsibility.

What we have seen with today's economic globalization are some reductions in abject poverty. What we have also seen are worldwide gains in wealth disparity and increasing damage to the environment, as well as losses in democracy. For the more a nation embraces free trade, which is part of neoliberalism, the more it loses governmental supervision of businesses. And when the government is a working democracy, then losses in government supervision of businesses translates into the weakening of democratic controls over businesses. In the meantime, many of these businesses follow the maximization of profits ethic.

Carter's article is about how we can curb economic globalism while still passionately embracing neoliberalism. But if he is really talking about neoliberalism when he says economic globalism, then all we need to do is to substitute the term 'neoliberalism' for the term 'economic globalism' in the previous sentence to see the contradiction. It seems that what Carter is proposing is that non-owners care for the victims of neoliberalism while owners continue to follow the maximization of profits ethic.

There have always been varying forms of economic globalism. There was a form of economic globalism when America became a nation. But America did not embrace the economic globalism of its day. Rather, it used protectionism, such as using tariffs, to allow its fledgling industries to grow up and have a chance to catch up with their European counterparts. Our nation employed tariffs from its beginning to the FDR Administration. And that protectionism brought great benefits to our economy because it allowed our industries to grow and mature. Whether America needs tariffs or not is debatable. But those less developed nations that want to develop their fledgling industries could very well benefit from protectionism including the use of tariffs. To prohibit those nations from doing so is called 'kicking away the ladder.' The ladder in this case would be protectionism and it is a ladder our nation used to develop our then fledgling industries.

The Pharisee Is The Pope Of Tribalism

Some who are concerned about our national unity identify tribalism as a threat. There are several working definitions of tribalism depending on the context in which the term is used. One such definition is based on a post-Cold War observation. What was observed was that a very strong loyalty could extend to any kind of group such that right and wrong depended on what served the welfare of the group. Such a loyalty allows for only moral relativity where what is right and wrong depends more and more on who does what to whom. Such loyalty acts as an inhibitor on people being able to judge their own groups.

For those concerned about our national unity, they are worried about the different groups within the nation where very strong loyalty is evident. They are worried that some groups based on ideology, religion, language, ethnicity, economic class and national identity have too many members who are more loyal to their groups than they are to the nation. Please note that some of these groups that are receiving such loyalty might not be located in our nation. That was the concern of Joe McCarthy and the red scare in the 1950s where those who identified with any kind of Communist ties were then received workplace sanctions.

Here we should note that those who are concerned about our national unity do not regard nationalism as a form of tribalism because nationalism is suppose to be acting as the pie in which different groups of American become its pieces. But all we have to do to show that nationalism can act as a form of tribalism is to change the overall context to something larger than the nation, such as the world. When the pie is globalism and some nations have garnered a great loyalty from enough people, then those people may not care if their actions hurt the world at large, they are only concerned with what is "best" for their nation at the present time.

Of course, we don't need globalism to show how nationalism can act as a form of tribalism. Those who believe in absolute moral values, whether their beliefs have a secular or religious basis, see nationalism act as a form of tribalism. In the context of absolute moral values, tribalism occurs when loyalty to any group, including the nation, trumps commitment to principles and morals. When this occurs, we end up with the rule of force and an ends justify the means ethic.

That ethic was clearly seen in the actions of former Vice President Dick Cheney as he was portrayed in the movie Vice. In that movie, Cheney did not care about what he did to others or whom he hurt if he saw that it protected the people of the United States. In other words, Cheney did not allow any moral standards stand in the way of what he saw was needed to protect America. His loyalty to the United States was so great that he recognized no absolute moral values if they interfered with how he thought things should be done.

We see the same tribalism in the form of nationalism in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The siren song of the tribalism trap seduces people to pick a side so that they easily point the finger at the atrocities committed by the other side while whitewashing the atrocities committed by their own side. Regardless of whether we have embraced Israeli or Palestinian nationalism, we end up being willing to do anything to win without recognizing any moral limits for our actions.

Because of the moral relativity that comes from strong loyalty to a group, another way to picture tribalism is to see it as a kind of group authoritarianism where the group becomes the ultimate authority over all. And when one looks at the traits of an authoritarian personality type, it is easy to see the connection. Some of those traits include (click here for the source)

• Respect for submission to acknowledged authority
• Belief in aggression toward those who do not subscribe to conventional thinking, or who are different
• A negative view of people in general - i.e. the belief that people would all lie, cheat or steal if given the opportunity
• A need for strong leadership which displays uncompromising power
• A belief in simple answers and polemics - i.e. The media controls us all or The source of all our problems is the loss of morals these days.
• Resistance to creative, dangerous ideas. A black and white worldview.
• A tendency to project one's own feelings of inadequacy, rage and fear onto a scapegoated group  

It should be easy to see authoritarian personality type characteristics on display in internet discussions. As for nationalism serving as an example of tribalism and thus displaying traits of an authoritarian personality type, we simply insert one's nation and its traditional values as the source of acknowledged authority and we should not have much difficulty in seeing how a nationally based tribalism displays authoritarianism. That tribalism demands that others submit to our nation's authority. Why? It is because a fear-driven aggression and hostility over challenges to an acknowledged authority is a summary definition of an authoritarian personality type. And that's what happens when we see a nation or group of nations bully other nations or following double standards?

Now where does the phariseeism come into play here? It is present in tribalism's moral relativity where what is right and wrong depends on who does what to whom. With that comes a sense of superiority that says what others do against us is wrong but what we do to others for our own good is never wrong.  Here, it would be helpful to look at the parable of the two men praying (click here for the source):

 To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everyone else, Jesus told this parable: “Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood by himself and prayed: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other people—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.’

“But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’

“I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.”

 As the Pharisee exalted himself and looked down at the tax collector as being below him. And so those who have embraced tribalism exalt their own groups and look down at other groups and assume that their own group is an authority over other groups. And as the Pharisee considered the tax collector his inferior, so too we see with tribalism how those from other groups are considered to be inferior to those who embrace tribalism.

It is the Phariseeism lodged in the authoritarian personality type traits from tribalism that have currently seized the day. These traits play a major role in why we are so divided and so uncivil with fellow citizens let alone the world. And it is not until we see ourselves as fellow sinners regardless of whom we compare ourselves with that things will change. And it isn't until we seek to share power rather than to seek to control others out of fear that we really coexist peacefully. Yes, we have real enemies out there. But to act toward others as if we are superior to them and are entitled to control them and their resources that we can actually start living in peace.



 

ONIM For November 19, 2018

10 Best Fact Checking Sites Found Here.

If you are not sure about the validity of a news story linked to below, you can use  mediabiasfactcheck.com to check out the credibility of the source of most of the stories linked to here.
Christian News

• How To Talk About Racism In The Church Without Becoming Bitter -- Witness: A Black Christian Collective
• Christian Fascism Comes To Brazil: New President Bolsonaro Promises Christian Theocracy -- Progressive Secular Humanist
• 7 Reasons Why Hymns Are Better Than Contemporary Worship Songs -- Ponder Anew
• When Conservatism Isn't Enough -- Christianity Today
• Trump's Nationalism Is Incompatible With Christianity -- Faith In Public Life
• Pastor Wanted To Know The Truth About Migrant Caravan. So He Joined It -- Church Leaders

 
World News

• Democrats Propose Funding Teacher Pay Raises By Canceling Tax Cuts For The Wealthy -- PBS
• Texas May Have Again Illegally Reduce Special Education Funding -- TexasTribune
• Press Secretary Uses Manipulated Video In War Against Press -- Bulletin Of Atomic Scientists
• City Of San Francisco Threatens Court Action Over Trump's Acting Attorney General -- Reuters
• Doctors Revolt After N.R.A. Tells Them To 'Stay In Their Lane' On Gun Policy -- New York Times
• Corey Booker Says The Georgia Election Is Being 'Stolen' From Stacey Abrams -- Yahoo News
• Dunphy: White Nationalism Defiles Our Nation -- Telegraph
• McConnell Blocks Senate Bill Protecting Mueller Investigation -- Bloomberg
• US May Not Join Macron Cyber Pact -- Bulletin Of The Atomic Scientists
•  The Women's March Anti-Semitism Controversy Threatening The Movement's Future -- Haaretz
• U.S. Senator Graham Says Supports Mueller Bill, Urges Vote -- Reuters
• As Polarized As Americans Are, They Agree On This: Gerrymandering Is Wrong -- Los Angeles Times
• Federal Deficit Jumps 17 Percent As Tax Cuts Eats Into Government Revenue -- NPR
• Racist GOP Campaign Fails As Democrat Antonio Delgado Wins Key N.Y. House Race -- Huffington Post
• Facebook Reportedly Paid For Smear Campaign Against George Soros -- Huffington Post
• Brazil's New Foreign Minister Believes Climate Change Is A Marxist Plot -- Guardian
• U.S. Prepares Criminal Case Against Wikileak's Assange -- Reuters
• Florida County Submits Recount 2 Minutes Late And State Rejects It -- Huffington Post
• This 25-Year-Old Donate A Kidney To A Stranger--And Saved 3 Lives In The Process -- Yahoo News
• Utah Republican Behind In Tight Race Sues To Halt Recount -- AP News
• Judge Sides With Nelson, Rules Florida Rule On Matching Ballot Signiatures Being Applied Unconstitutionally -- ABC News
• Pentagon Fails Its First-Ever Audit, Official Says -- Reuters
• Stacey Abrams Ends Fight For Georgia Governor With Harsh Words For Her Rival -- New York Times
• Early Benchmarks Show 'Post-Millennials' On Track Most Diverse, Best Educated Generation Yet -- Pew Research Center
• Public Expects Gridlock, Deeper Divisions With New Political Landscape -- Pew Research Center
• Despite Rising Economic Confidence, Japanese See Best Days Behind Them And Say Children Face A Bleak Future -- Pew Research Center
• Billion-Dollar US Energy Firm Opposes Trump's Plan To Roll Back Mercury Rules -- Guardian

 
Israel-Palestine News

• What's Working, What's Not -- Palestine Solidarity
• Israel-Gaza Border Ignites After Botched Incursion -- Reuters
• Billboard Celebrating Gaza's Heroic First Responders OutSide Boston Is Taken Down Under Pressure -- Mondoweiss
• Iceland Recognizes Palestinian State -- Guardian
• Israel's Netanyahu Takes Over Defence Job As Coalition Falters -- Reuters
• Israeli Intervention In US Election 'Vastly Overwhelms' Anything Russia Has Done, Claims Noam Chomsky -- Independent

Donald Trump News

• Trump's Acting Attorney General Involved In Firm That Scammed Veterans Out Of Life Savings -- Guardian
• Trump's Tax Cut Was Suppose To Change Corporate Behavior. Here's What Happened -- New York Times
• Trump Does Not Want More Relief Funding Sent to Puerto Rico -- CNN
• Trump Honors GOP Donor, 6 Others With Presidential Award --  AP News

Pick(s) Of The Litter

• Civilian Death Toll In Yemen Mounting Despite US Assurances -- AP News
• Inmates Fighting California Blaze Paid Just $1 An Hour -- New York Post
• Private Prison Companies Poured Record Cash Into The 2018 Elections -- Mother Jones
• Price Tag Of The 'War On Terror' Will Top $6 Trillion Soon -- Military Times
• The Earth Is In A Death Spiral. It Will Take Radical Action To Save Us -- Guardian
• Camp Fire Death Toll Climbs To 63; Number Of Missing Jumps To 631 -- Los Angeles Times
• Black Teens Were Allegedly Kicked Out Of Mall Over No-Hoodie Policy, So 4 White Women Wore Hoodies 'Just To See What Would Happen' -- Yahoo News
• There Are Now More Than 14,000 Immigrant Kids In Federal Custody--A New Record -- Mother Jones
• UK Austerity Has Inflicted 'Great Misery' On Citizens, UN Says -- Guardian

 
Just For Fun

• Trump Refuses To Pardon White House Turkey After Accusing It Of Working For Soros -- Borowitz Report
• Trump Warns Florida Recount Could Set Dangerous Precedent Of Person With The Most Votes Winning -- Borowitz Report
• Rick Scott Accuses Democrats Of Trying To Support G.O.P.'s Successful Voter Suppression -- Borowitz Report
• Amazon To Provide All Employees With Prime Boxes To Live In -- Babylon Bee
• Pelosi: 'If I Am Not Elected Speaker, Millions Will Die' -- Babylon Bee

 

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For January 18, 2017

Jan 3

To Joseph Pearce and his blogpost on some of what Queen Elizabeth said. The part focused on here is where Pearce states that Queen Elizabeth is advocating subsidiarity. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative Blog.

The writer of this article grossly misinterprets the Queen in a certain area. For the Queen said:

But even with the inspiration of others, it’s understandable that we sometimes think the world’s problems are so big that we can do little to help. On our own, we cannot end wars or wipe out injustice, but the cumulative impact of thousands of small acts of goodness can be bigger than we imagine.

Pearce interprets her as saying the following:

Can we really believe that the head of state of one of the most powerful countries in the world is extolling the principle of subsidiarity—the principle that individuals, families, local communities, charities and churches can change society for the better whereas big and burdensome governments tend to make the big problems even bigger?

What Pearce's interpretation misses is the key phrase 'On our own.' Because of that phrase, Pearce's exclusive-or interpretation of saying that either big gov't saves the vulnerable or local groups of people help the vulnerable but not both presents a false dichotomy. In addition, to exclude gov't from helping people is to say that gov't can only represent those people who can help themselves. And such leaves the vulnerable wholly dependent on the benevolence and access to resources that those around them have.
 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost quote of Carl Trueman who complained that we are intolerant of the wrong things. This appeared in the Heidelblog.

Intolerance should not just be determined by the tenets and behaviors we are objecting to, but by the context in which these beliefs and behaviors exist as well. It is one thing to be intolerant of heresy or immoral sexual behavior in the Church, but should we be intolerant of it in society as well?

Right now we have battle lines being drawn between post Modernists and authoritarian traditionalists with both have something significant contribute to the other, but with neither one of them listening because they they think know enough already. It is wrong for either of these groups to be intolerant of others in society. Why? Because society is not the Church, it includes both those who belong to the Church and those who don't. And while some in the Church are upset because they feel that they are being marginalized by society's acceptance of different sexual orientations and identities, the truth is that the Church, for centuries, has had society marginalize those who practice certain sexual sins and it has done so with all of the personal traits of the pharisee from the parable of the two men praying.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jan 4

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost quote of Paul Helm that questions whether there is a right side of history? This appeared in the Heidelblog.

Let's approach this subject on a case by case basis. Were those who opposed slavery in America on the right side of history or if there is no right side of history, are they to be placed next to those who supported slavery as if there is no difference between them?

Seems to me that the right side of history is the side that does not invoke shame for one's position. And it also seems that we should not let the fact that the right side can be wrongly identified be used to deny the existence of the right side of history.

As for comparing the Enlightenment with Medieval times, there is no reason why we can't compare those two times on a trait by trait basis so that both get a mixed report even though side might be more preferable to the other. Otherwise, we have only shown ourselves to have a fear of having a preferred time period being examined more closely.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jan 17

To Joseph Pearce and his blogpost asking whether Trump will be a nationalist or an imperialist. The article describes in binary terms nationalism on one hand and imperialism/internationalism/globalism on the other hand. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

The use of terms 'nationalism' and 'imperialism' is understandable but inadequate. For while one dictionary definition of nationalism allows a nation to pursue imperialism while the other definition merely advocates for self-rule. Likewise, internationalism or globalism is not the same as imperialism. Internationalism or globalism can refer to collaborative efforts between nations in some sphere whereas  imperialism involves controlling or conquering rather than collaboration. In addition, we need to recognize that in both nationalism and globalism, we can have either democratic rule or elite-centered rule.

Thus, we need to be clear about the terms we are using. Each nation should respect the right of the people from all other nations to exercise self-rule. But such does not eliminate internationalism. Because some of what a nation does can impact other nations, there is an international accountability. In addition, certain moral values must not be violated in how a nation treats subsets of its population or there must be international accountability.

But something else must be said about either self-rule and collaborative efforts. They can be based on democratic principles where all people are involved in the decision making processes or they can be elite-centered. For example, the US is now considered by some to be an oligarchy (see  http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746  ). Thus, regardless of the national interests Trump pursues, because we are a nation that suffers from elite-centered rule, his pursuits will not result in self-rule.

An example of elite-centered rule from an internationalist perspective could be seen in Obama's efforts to fast-track the TPP. His efforts simply removed democratic principles from the decision making process. In addition, the result of the TPP would be to give foreign investors power and control over each member nation in that corporations could sue governments over laws that were democratically passed if such laws cost the corporations profits while these same corporations were not accountable to the governments. But when talking about internationalism, are we going classify the ICC or the UN with their internationalism in the same category as trade agreements such as the TPP or the EU?

The problem we have in describing the world around us is that we tend to use binary thinking. During the Cold War, we had the Free World vs Communism. However, there were many things practiced by some in the Free World that resembled the pejorative stereotype we assigned to Communism. And there were democratic efforts made by Socialists that were not duly recognized and thus distinguished from Lenin-Stalin Communism by the Free World. So we should see that this model of nationalism vs imperialism where the former neglects to distinguish between democratic rule and elite-centered rule while the latter fails to distinguish imperialism from internationalism and the different types of globalism is flawed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To Art Carden and his blogpost about Adam Smith’s Invisible Hand. In that article, Carden describes the conflict as being the invisible hand o the market vs fist of the state. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

There are two problems with this article. First, the binary understanding of the conflict that exists regarding markets. That conflict being the invisible hand of the market vs the fist of the state. The second problem is tendency for some to misunderstand what Smith said.

According to this article, it seems that the invisible hand of the market represents the freedom of all people while the fist of the state represents alien tyrants. The history of labor struggles in the US strongly contradicts that perception. For we should note that representation in the free market is not based by the individual but by the dollar or whatever currency is involved. Those with the most dollars have the most say while those with the least wealth are barely heard. And in a society where things are valued more than people, the public interest is not necessarily served by those who have the greatest say over what happens in the market. Again, the history of American labor struggles bares this out. We might also want include the history of offshoring jobs as well.
interest.

In addition, what if the state is working democracy, how can its decisions that limit the free market be described as the fist of an alien tyrant? Rather such a government is putting limits on a market that is anything but democratic.

Second, Smith did not speak of the invisible hand of the market by observation alone, but by some speculation. His description of the invisible hand came from arguing against mercantilism and the influence that those with wealth had over government officials. So did eliminating mercantilism also eliminate the influence that those with wealth have over government officials.

In addition, the line from the article that says:

This is where the invisible hand of the market comes in. Voluntary market exchange reveals the patterns of specialization, division of labor, and production most consistent with consumers’ preferences. Others’ talents, tastes, values, and knowledge constitute the invisible hand. I convey information about my own talents, tastes, values, and knowledge with offers to buy or sell. Others convey their knowledge by their willingness to accept my bids and offers. I am being led by the invisible hand of others’ knowledge toward patterns of specialization and production that leave us most satisfied, given that we are all free to accept or reject any offer.

does not entirely represent Smith's sentiments. The following is what Smith also wrote about the division of labor (see http://www.gradesaver.com/the-wealth-of-nations/study-guide/quotes as it quotes Smith):

In the progress of the division of labor, the employment of the far greater part of those who live by labor, that is, of the great body of the people, comes to be confined to a few very simple operations; frequently to one or two. But the understandings of the greater part of men are necessarily formed by their ordinary employments. The man whose whole life is spent in performing a few simple operations, of which the effects, too, are perhaps always the same, or very nearly the same, has no occasion to exert his understanding, or to exercise his invention, in finding out expedients for removing difficulties which never occur. He naturally loses, therefore, the habit of such exertion, and generally becomes as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human creature to become. The torpor of his mind renders him not only incapable of relishing or bearing a part in any rational conversation, but of conceiving any generous, noble, or tender sentiment, and consequently of forming any just judgment concerning many even of the ordinary duties of private life.

It seems that those who use Smith to promote free markets, do so selectively.

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

To Joe Carter and his blogpost on 5 facts about Martin Luther King Jr. This appeared in the Acton blog.

But there is one other fact about Martin Luther King if we are to truly honor him. That fact was that opposing racism was not his only core concern. He also opposed materialism and economic exploitation as well as war and militarism. In fact, he saw the three of them, that is racism, materialism/economic exploitation, and war/militarism as being inseparable and incapable of being defeated for as long as our society cared about gadgets, profits, and property rights more than it was concerned about people (see http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2564.htm as just one of several references that support what was just written about King).

What We See Isn't Always What We'll Get

The people in the following 3 situations have something in common. Once at Occupy, I was telling some fellow activists who are Black and live in New York City about how protesters were arrested in some of the suburbs where I was protesting. The police were gentle and respectful when arresting those protesters and the people I was telling this to could not believe it.

I was talking with a political conservative friend of mine. We did agree on somethings, but one thing this person was adamant about is that this they did not trust the government at all. Therefore this friend wanted the government to have as little power as possible.
 
When writing about religion, Vladimir Lenin wrote the following (click here for the source):

Religion is one of the forms of spiritual oppression which everywhere weighs down heavily upon the masses of the people, over burdened by their perpetual work for others, by want and isolation. Impotence of the exploited classes in their struggle against the exploiters just as inevitably gives rise to the belief in a better life after death as impotence of the savage in his battle with nature gives rise to belief in gods, devils, miracles, and the like. Those who toil and live in want all their lives are taught by religion to be submissive and patient while here on earth, and to take comfort in the hope of a heavenly reward. But those who live by the labour of others are taught by religion to practise charity while on earth, thus offering them a very cheap way of justifying their entire existence as exploiters and selling them at a moderate price tickets to well-being in heaven. Religion is opium for the people. Religion is a sort of spiritual booze,   in which the slaves of capital drown their human image, their demand for a life more or less worthy of man. 

What the people in these stories have in common is that they generalized what they had personally observed to all cases. My fellow activists who were Black were experiencing a different relationship with the police than what the protesters whom I witnessed protesting in the suburbs experienced and therefore they could not believe what I witnessed. Suppose they had had better experiences with the police, would they have a better view of the police? And turnabout is fair play here. Suppose those of us who like the police saw how some minorities who live in the cities are mistreated, would they see the need for movements like Black Lives Matter? Likewise, if my friend had lived in a nation where the government was responsive to the needs of the people, would my friend have fewer qualms over the government gaining some power? And suppose Lenin had witnessed Christians or people from other faiths who helped free workers from exploitation, would he have a more nuanced view of religion in general and Christianity in particular?

Sometimes what we believe to be possible and impossible depends on the size of the circles in which we travel. However, there is a growing trend that is threatening us from thinking about expanding those circles. That grow trend is the current increase in tribalism. We are witnessing a tribalism on a national level in some Eastern European nations, England, and the US. This national tribalism exalts our own groups as being superior over others. And this exaltation, which is really a search for personal significance through group association, is not going to encourage us to expand the circles in which we travel nor is it going to spur us on to learn from others. 

We should note here that tribalism is not restricted to national identity. Tribalism can exist in any group to which we belong. I know from some of the groups I belong to that there is a fair amount of tribalism. Take Christian fundamentalists for example. Tribalism has hit many of my fellow Christian fundamentalists hard with the result of making us more insular.

But we should also note that nationalism is not the same as self-rule. The current British exodus from the European Union is often listed as an example of economic nationalism. That means those who favor a more global economy are going to associate tribalism with some attempts at self rule by calling it economic nationalism. This is done in order to persuade others into agreeing with them. But here, we need to remember that there is in any form of tribalism, a sense of superiority over others. Tribalism, on a national level, resorts in a search for more than just self-rule. Meanwhile, self-rule can simply be a yearning for democracy.

But getting back to the subject, it seems that before we so easily arrive at conclusions about people, groups, ideas, and so forth, we need to expand the circles in which we travel. We need to widen those circles  in order to see if what we think is impossible is actually possible. And we need to discover if what we know is the rule for us could be an exception for others. Once we travel in wider circles, either we will have our previous beliefs confirmed or we will be surprised by what we see. And not only that, we will be making dents into the advances tribalism is making in the world today.


 

What Christians and Socialists Should Agree On, But Don't

In a Reuters' blogpost by John Lloyd (click here for the article), a number of world leaders including Russia's Vladimir Putin, China's President Xi, and India's Narendra Modi are said to have something in common with Donald Trump. If we put that assertion in conjunction with Noam Chomsky's contention that Trump is really not that different from the other Republican candidates (click here for his interview transcript), you get an idea of one of the world's major problems: Nationalism.  Here we should note that nationalism is just a form of tribalism only the loyalties are based on national identity. This blog has defined tribalism as a strong group loyalty that causes those afflicted by it to embrace moral relativism because group loyalty has trumped commitment to principles and morals.

In contrast to the world's leaders, Donald Trump, the rest of the Republican candidates, and we could even include the Democrats here, we have Socialists and Christians. Not that these two groups share many followers; but that in terms of their ideology or theology, they both preach there is a greater loyalty and commitment than national identity. For Marxists, the group that should supersede nationalism is an international based on economic class. For Christians, the most important tie should be one's faith in Christ and then in the fact that we are all children of Adam and thus we are all brothers and sisters in terms of creation. In either case, what is hoped for is that there are ties greater than the ties placed on us by national identity.

In a world where nationalism is running amuck, whether it is in uprisings such as in the Ukraine, or in Israel's treatment of the Palestinians, or even in the prequels to elections as is occurring here, this point of partial commonality between Socialists and Christians is refreshing. We are saying that there is a partial commonality because the reasons for not making nationalism or patriotism so important are different. It is still refreshing when it can be seen. However, it is not always seen with American Christians. Many conservative American Christians are still nationalists though the Scriptures teach us to be otherwise.

Instead of having greater ties than nationalism, many conservative American Christians have fallen after hearing nationalism's siren song. Those who sing that song tell us that nationalism is good because it is a commitment to something that is greater than oneself. As a friend of mine put it in an internet discussion, nationalism or patriotism is a familial love only where the members of one's family are those who share one's national identity. Thus, how could any decent person be opposed to nationalism?

The answer to that question can be found in what those leaders who espouse nationalism are willing to do in its name. For the sake of their nations, these leaders have more than willing to hurt both those who share the same national identity as well as those who don't. They are willing to do tremendous harm if the result of that harm is perceived to be a stronger nation. 

There is enough history of Putin's past crimes and mistreatment of others as well as his actions in Chechnya to confirm this. One only needs to look at the sacrifices many Chinese workers have had to make in order to increase China's  prosperity and power.  And what does Trump promise? Since he belongs to the other party than the one that is in power, he promises to make America great again. He will accomplish this by building a separation wall between Mexico and the United States for starters. But he also promises to rebuild the world's strongest military in order to make it stronger. Who among the vulnerable will lose out in terms of cut budget funds since Trump believes that the government should restrict itself to public works and providing safety? And what nations will be attacked since Trump promises a foreign policy without apologies.

The trouble with nationalism is twofold. First, to use Star Trek phraseology, the needs of the nation outweigh the rights of individuals or other nations. When the rights of individuals or other nations are not respected, there is little that can stop a leader from justifying any action as long as he/she can claim that it is for the good of the country. Obama's use of drones is a prime example of an action which a leader can justify for the sake of national security despite the number of civilian deaths and the intrusion on national sovereignty rights which comes with his use of drones.

But it isn't just in the use of weapons where nationalism causes problems. The quest for economic growth at the expense of the rights of others, the prosperity of other nations, as well as the environment threatens everyone's future.

The second problem with nationalism is that it denies the equality of others. Martin Luther King Jr. realized this in his speech against the Vietnam War when he said:

As if the weight of such a commitment to the life and health of America were not enough, another burden of responsibility was placed upon me in 1964; and I cannot forget that the Nobel Prize for Peace was also a commission -- a commission to work harder than I had ever worked before for "the brotherhood of man." This is a calling that takes me beyond national allegiances, but even if it were not present I would yet have to live with the meaning of my commitment to the ministry of Jesus Christ. To me the relationship of this ministry to the making of peace is so obvious that I sometimes marvel at those who ask me why I am speaking against the war. Could it be that they do not know that the good news was meant for all men -- for Communist and capitalist, for their children and ours, for black and for white, for revolutionary and conservative? Have they forgotten that my ministry is in obedience to the one who loved his enemies so fully that he died for them? What then can I say to the "Vietcong" or to Castro or to Mao as a faithful minister of this one? Can I threaten them with death or must I not share with them my life?

This equality of those not belonging to our nation is partially acknowledged in the Marxist emphasis on the International. Here, Marxists are still promote tribalism in that they divide people by economic class. But at least they recognize the equality of those who do not share their national identity. 

Christianity, however, should fully acknowledged such equality. It doesn't always for numerous reasons, but it should.

It is the seeing of a greater allegiance than what nationalism demands which is what both Christians and Socialists have in common. Yes, their relegating nationalism to a lower ranking are for different reasons. But in today's world,  what Christians and Socialists have in common is much more important than where they differ.

As Bad As It Is, Racism Is Just One Of Our Dire Problems

Thabiti Anyabwile is a pastor and a contributor to the Gospel Coalition website. He just wrote a blogpost for that website which talked about how engrained racism is in people (click here). Before that blogpost, he wrote a series of blogpost containing letters to and from a Ferguson protester. Some of those letters were excellent in content and writing. But our concern here is the article linked to above.

To show how pervasive and profound our problem with racism is, he likens it to a cactus plant he once planted in the front of his yard. He discovered that he had to remove it because of how the growth of this plant was  effecting some of the other vegetation. And it wasn't until he tried to remove the cactus that he realized how deep and far its roots went.  This is why he likens racism to a cactus plant. For though some things have improved, racism is still there in force and it exists in other places besides individual people.

For example, Anyabwile vaguely cites the latest DOJ investigation of Ferguson that states that the city has a problem with 'institutional racism'  (click here for news report on the DOJ investigation). And who could argue with that when it found that the police department there showed a pattern of 'racial bias' as evidenced in the force used, citations issued, and traffic stops made. That this racial bias reached into the court system as measured in the number of cases not dismissed against Blacks. Others have reported incidents of misconduct by various police officers which included false arrests and the planting of evidence (click here and there). This doesn't include the failure to indict police officers for their violence against unarmed Blacks. The Eric Garner incident comes to mind here because of the video evidence. At the same time, we see violent White criminals apprehended rather than killed such as the man who ambushed and killed a Pennsylvainia State Trooper and the white supremacist who was just apprehended after a shooting spree in Arizona (click here)

When we add this to the number of unarmed Blacks shot by police and the inordinate percentage of minorities who are incarcerated, there is not much doubt regarding Anyabwile's claims. We should note that he could have made a stronger case by providing documentation. For example, Anyabwile also mentions that judges are in on the racial bias action, but he offers no testimonies or documentation.

Above is the institutionalized racism, that doesn't include racism practiced by those in the private sector. We should note the racist rant recorded by a fraternity at Oklahoma (click here and there), the Trayvon Martin shooting, and a Black man was found hung in Mississippi just recently (click here). Regarding the last instance, the FBI is investigating and so no conclusions can be drawn as to why this man hung. 

In essence, Anyabwile is correct in his assessment of our problems with racism. But, again, he neither documented nor provided enough testimonies to make a strong case. And since what he is saying is basically correct, his lack of a strong case can partially sabotage his efforts.

However, Anyabwile makes an excellent point by noting that our problem with racism is a Christian discipleship as well as a social justice issue. The implication of his point here is that Christians are not just called on to combat racism on a personal level, they are to join everyone else in publicly fighting it. This includes calling on our government to address the issue.

But something else needs to be said here. Anyabwile makes the following statement:

It’s tragic that the country’s biggest sin is racism and the Church’s biggest omission is racial justice. The tragedy gets compounded when one remembers that some quarters of the Church were once the strongest supporters of this sin.

This statement must be challenged not because racism is not a huge problem, it must be  challenged because we need to step back to see the other major problems we have and check if they're related. We should note that the problem with ISIS is not racism, it is a religious warfare problem. The problem with Wall Street and corruption is not racism, it is economic classism.  And we should note how American Conservative Christians have been trying to use the law to keep homosexuals from achieving a fuller equality through the access to same-sex marriage. Russia and the United States are causing problems because of nationalism. And concerning nationalism, it would help to remember what Bobby Seale,  cofounder of the original Black Panthers organization, said on a talk show. He equated nationalism with racism because both dealt with issues of superiority.

So really, the world's biggest problem is tribalism, which can involve racism, and the Church's biggest 'omission' is not challenging this tribalism whether that tribalism revolves around religion or race, national identity or sexual orientation, or economic class.  Our loyalty to our groups is becoming so strong that not only do we more easily look at outsiders as threats and the source of all evil, we easily excuse our dehumanizing actions toward them while exalting ourselves.

That we go on from racism to approach the problem more abstractly, we find that we are presenting an even a bigger challenge to the Church than calling on it to oppose racism. This is  because much of the Church has even closer ties to money and those with wealth than it has to race. For example, some Conservative Churches are beginning to address the racial issue. But very few, if any, are challenging the economic classism problem as it exhibits itself in an ever increasing income and wealth disparities as well as a growing hopelessness for those imprisoned in the underclass. Though the Conservative Church as a whole still has a dismal record in combatting racism, its battle against economic classism is almost nonexistent. 

And how many Christian churches are challenging the abuses of nationalism? Currently, the churches in Syria and Egypt are battling the temptation of compromising speaking the truth to power because those in power, who so harshly abuse others, are making efforts to protect the churches. Thus, these churches have to choose between enjoying protection and spiritually biting the proverbial hand that feeds them.

In America, the failure of the Conservative Church to challenge nationalism is not due to a fear of losing protection; its failure is because many in the Conservative Church feel pride and a sense of significance in celebrating nationalism. And by exalting our nation and associating our faith with our nation's accomplishments, it is a way of exalting oneself as well. Thus, any challenge to our nation's prestige is interpreted as being a slap in the face by those who are proud Americans.

If Anyabwile could only step back from racism and see that our real problem is tribalism regardless of whether race is involved, he would have said that the Conservative Church's biggest omission is social justice. And that would have included the complicity in racism of which many in the Conservative Church are guilty.

There is a P.S. here. In listing the different kinds of groups we join and embrace tribalism, I forgot to mention one of the major kinds of groups: political-economic ideology. 

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For May 21, 2014

May 17

To R. Scott Clark and his heidelblog podcast on political correctness. This appeared on the Heidelblog


The Left has been aware of how political correctness has been around for decades and started during Wilson's administration as soon as the  controlling public opinion became a priority. During WWI, everything German was the target. After WWI, Bolshevism was targeted. There was the Hollywood blacklist of the 1940s and 1950s along with McCarthyism. There was firing of at least one professor from a tenured position for participating in and supporting students who were standing up against segregation. And then there was the FBI harassment of Civil Rights and antiwar activists. Then there was the harassment of antiwar activists during the Bush years along with the Obama Administrations possible ties to dismantling the Occupy encampments.

The test of our commitment to civil and religious rights is whether we will defend the rights of those with whom we disagree. So the ACLU defense of the speech and assembly rights of neo-Nazis, with whom they vehemently disagree, shows a true commitment to civil rights. Likewise, we would be showing a commitment to civil and religious rights by defending the rights of homosexuals to marry while disagreeing with homosexuality because of what the Scriptures say.

On the other hand, we have to consider that any political correctness pressure to condone accepting  homosexuality could be partially be due to our past intolerance and legislative persecution of gays. In other words, we have no problems when we can control them but we cry coercion if the favor is returned. Such shows a commitment to partisanship, not to principle, and those seeds of partisanship have found their place in other gardens.

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

May 18

To Joe Carter and his blogpost on globalization and the reduction of world poverty. This appeared in the Acton blog.


There is a problem with linking globalization with the reduction in world poverty. The problem is that globalization means different things not just to different parts of the world, but to different countries as well. To show this, all we need to do is compare two neighboring countries and what globalization meant to each. To India, as to the West, globalization means neoliberal capitalism--note that India has been starting to introduce some new controls. To China, globalization a liberalizing of the economy but that is relative to what the economy was. It is still pretty much controlled.

But problems loom for both countries. For example, not all sectors of India's economy have profited from globalization. The number of its farmers who went deep into debt as the result of the free market has resulted in the number of suicides to measured in the tens of thousands. In addition, air pollution in India, which was already a problem prior to globalization, has increased due to industrialization. In China, air pollution is a very serious problem.

But other problems have arisen with the increase of globalization is income disparity. That income disparity has significantly increased in the West is beyond dispute. Part of that is that income many Americans, for example, has stagnated or dropped. Part of that is due to the technological unemployment and the outsourcing of jobs to other countries.  In Europe, we also have austerity cuts. The combination of these two factors could suggest that  what we are seeing with the reduction of poverty is a shifting wealth from American middle and even lower classes to other countries.

Part of the global alleviation of poverty is the result of the increased labor supply which has lowered pay in the West while allowing for the existence of sweatshop labor conditions in countries like China. Here, sweatshop labor is defined not by pay but by working conditions and violations of labor law. So those working in sweatshop factories might be lifted out of poverty by their jobs but the working conditions are abusive if not dangerous or deadly.

Another problem with globalization is the multiple use of the term "comparative advantage." This has referred to a country using protectionism to build up an industry and then forcing free trade on other countries for products made by the newly established industry. This drives foreign companies involved in manufacturing the same kinds of products as the protected industry out of business in their own countries as they are forced to compete with the once or still protected foreign industry. We should note that comparative advantage is sometimes currently used to assign specific contributions a country can make to the global economy. These assignments are not made by the country itself but by the leaders of the global economy. Here we can see certain sectors of a country's economy disappear making that country dependent on the world to even feed itself. Haiti  found itself in that situation when in around 2008 when fuel prices rose, Haiti suffered a food crisis because its farmers had already been put out of business.

In addition, part of what was just said leads into the next problem with our current form of globalization. That problem is that foreign investors begin to accumulate power in foreign countries. Thus, the citizens of a given country lose democratic control over their economy and are thus ruled by foreign investors.

We could go on with other concerns but the point is when people try to present overlysimplistic cause and effect relationships between desired results and single variables, we should remember the saying:

Beware of Geeks bearing gifts

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

May 19


To Greg Forster and his article on separating marriage from the state because of society's new view of marriage. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition's website.


To me, it seems that the first front in the battle over marriage is status of our own marriages and those of our friends. But something has to be added when talking about the battle over marriage in the state. What needs to be added is that we live in a kind of democracy. Democracies can be  measured by the effectiveness that democratic procedures have in controlling the gov't and they can be measured by the degree to which the country belongs to all of the law biding citizens. So once we start using legislation to prohibit same-sex marriage and that is done for religious reasons, we are telling those outside our group that the country belongs more to us than to others.

But if we defend the equality of homosexuals while preaching the Gospel, won't we be fighting the battle over marriage while preserving/enhancing our democracy?

I hate commenting on this so much but it seems that we conservative Christians are obsessed with the subject and what others are doing behind closed doors.

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

May 20


To R.R. Reno and his blogpost on the Nationalism. This appeared in the First Things blog.


Are we forgetting American nationalism and how we call it patriotism? True, our nationalism does not revolve around ethnicity and there is a dispute as to whether it is to revolve around religion. We should note that nationalism is merely an instance of something more abstract. What is more abstract is that people tend to congregate in groups for obtaining significance and security. And that is a human trend. Where it becomes a problem is when loyalty to that group whether it be national identity, ethnicity, religion, race, or whatever, trumps commitment to principle. That is one kind of nationalism.

Another kind of nationalism involves group ownership of nationally located,  jointly needed resources. Here, we are talking more about self-sovereignty than compromise of principle. And this is where we should favor nationalism over the control of resources by financial elites. And we should note that the apartheid congregation of elites is based on the same principles of group identity that nationalism is based on. That is it is based on a search for significance and security, as stated above.