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

 Dec 15

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

Anthony Esolen's full article can be found at:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dec 22

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

Todd Pruitt's full article:

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

The Nashville Statement:

    https://cbmw.org/nashville-statement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jan 3

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

Kaylee White's full article can be found at:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For December 2, 2015

Nov 26

To Hunter Baker and his blogpost on how Christians should live their faith after the Obergefell decision. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition

I think there is a fourth option. What was listed above included two ways to coexist with the LGBT community in particular and society in general and one way to keep fighting the fight to control culture. There is another way to approach this subject that would seem to be another way to coexist but is more aggressively friendly than that. Rather than looking to control or to refrain from offending, we need to look to share society with those who are different as equals. This is more than just coexisting. This involves actively guarding the rights of those with whom we have great disagreement because we want them to have an equal place and voice in society.

With this way of sharing society with others as equals, we could still keep the orthodoxy and orthopraxy of the Benedict Option as well as be aggressive in sharing the Gospel and what God's Word says about sex as in the Gagnon option. However, our orthodox beliefs and actions will not interfere with our defending the equal rights of those from the LGBT community especially those who want to practice same-sex marriage in society. Our only stipulation should be that such marriage should not be allowed in any Bible believing church. 

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

To Joseph Sunde and his blog about Christian hospitality for the Syrian refugees. This appeared in the Acton blog

Though there are good things said in the article above about how we should approach the refugee problem, we should not be impressed with ourselves when we risk caring for Syrian refugees. Why? We should remember that with few people and resources than we have, Syrians  took in 1,000,000+ refugees from Iraq as they fled both our invasion and its aftermath. In fact, we might also want to personally investigate any connection between our interventions and refugees coming from where we intervene.

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

Nov 30

To Andrew Spencer and his review of a book on business ethics by Michael Cafferky. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.

Certainly, my comment here is going to be grounded in some ignorance having not seen the book at all, but it seems to me that Christian books that tell us how to act and think in the current business world would be like a Christian book that tells us how to own slaves in the pre Civil War South. Yes, one can treat one's own slaves back then or one's own stakeholders today nicer and even humanely, but the basic economic structure that allows one person to own another goes unchallenged.

So my hope is that this book does challenge the basic structure of our capitalist economic system. In particular, I hope this book challenges the way that Capitalism objectifies and thus makes workers disposable. I hope that this book challenges the notion that a business owner by virtue of wealth has no obligation to make one's employees owners  by virture of work. I hope that this book challenges the notion that a business owner by virtue of wealth has no obligation to give some power over the business to the community in which the business resides. For if all this book does is to tell the business owner how to own one's business, then the structural flaws of our economic system that cause so many wrong decisions by business owners will remain untouched. And the end result will be that this book will allow Christians involved with business to have their cake and eat it too.

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

To Bruce Edward Walker and his blogpost on how new IRS rules will allow nonprofits the option of recording the identity of any giver of donations over $250 by Social Security Number. Walker blamed this on Shareholder Activist trying to curb the power of dark money, something Walker denies is a problem. This appeared in the Acton Blog

The IRS proposal is less rediculous as denying our problem of how money controls politics. But why blame shareholder activists for IRS policies targeting all nonprofits? And when the proposed rules cite the option of a nonprofit filing Social Security numbers with the IRS, why be bothered? After all, if it is an option, then both the nonprofit and the donor have choices. That is certainly different from proposing the identification by Social Security number as a  requirement.

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

Dec 1

To Joe Carter and his blogpost describing how the effective marginal tax rate is hurts the motivation of people taking low wage jobs. In the blogpost, Carter uses a hypothetical example of a single family of two who go from the parent having no stated income besides gov’t assistance to a full-time $15/hr job

First, The calculation of the effective marginal tax rate is individual. It is only the median tax rate that is 31%. Picking a hypothetical case of a person without any explicitly stated income with a child dependent might significantly alter how much of that 31% effective marginal tax rate would apply to the case. The table in figure 1 from the CBO report cited above does not support Carter's particular hypothetical case. We should note here that the 31% is an estimate based on a simulation. 

Second, the purpose of the article is confusing. Is the purpose to argue for a higher minimum wage or for lower taxes or for fewer benefits? If it is an argument for lower taxes, where do we make up the difference seeing that our deficit spending increases and services are cut or threatened? If it is an argument for fewer benefits, what happens to those who do not get offered the $15/hr job? If it is an argument for a higher minimum wage than $15/hr, why not state that explicitly?

Third, the other benefits of having a job are not mentioned in the article. That starting a job that pays enough for people to support themselves which can lead to better jobs and higher pay in the future could an incentive for taking the $15/hr job. Here, we might want to point out that how people weigh the current monetary benefits of staying dependent over future benefits, both monetary and nonmonetary ones, that come from being employed will partially depend on the values taught by the economic system employed by the society. An economic system that places a higher value on maximizing one's personal profit will cause more people to weigh the difference between being dependent and working strictly by a 'what's in it for me' mindset. After all why should those in the lower economic classes have a different value system than the wealthiest in society?

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For September 23, 2015

 Sept 2

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost quote from Tertullian that talked about how we are to share our earthly goods. This appeared in Heidelblog.


Sometimes charity is like a bandage, it covers the wound but does not address its cause. Thus, bandages cannot prevent future wounds. That isn't to say that bandages aren't needed, it just says that we are to look into how to prevent future wounds too. For Martin Luther King Jr., to prevent future wounds of poverty we need to examine the systems that produce the many people who live in poverty to see what can be changed.

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

Sept 7

To Denny Burk's blogpost using a NYT article to state that Kim Davis did not need to be put in jail for her convictions. THis appeared in Denny Burk's blog.

We need to realize that she is not in jail over her beliefs, she is in jail because she defied a court order. As for her beliefs and those of my fellow religiously conservative Christians, they are being portrayed as something that suppresses the equal rights of another group. Such was was not tolerated when Jim Crow was being eliminated. Here, we should remember that some used the Bible to defend Jim Crow. Christian liberty is not the freedom to deny someone else their freedom.

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

Sept 8

To Dr. James Willingham's Sept 7 response to the part of my comment regarding those Christians who would seek to suppress the rights of others asking about the rights of those who want to commit murder. This appeared on Denny Burk's blog.

Dr Jim,
Tell me how the rights of those who want to commit murder compare with the rights of those who want to marry the person of their choice when the partners are consenting adults?

All you are doing with your analogy is showing your view of those from the LGBT community. That you would compare their rights to marry with a nonexistant right to commit murder. So can you guess why some from that community might not want to listen to the Gospel you cling to and represent

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

Sept 11

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost consisting a picture of the attacks on the Twin Towers titled 'Remember.' This appeared in Heidelblog

 

There are times when a pictue can say a thousand words. There are also times when we need at least a thousand words to help explain a picture. The picture above fits firmly into the latter category. For while most Americans see atrocities like 9-11 count as the beginning of the genesis account of the war on terror, we committed too many sins in the Middle East before the 9/11 attacks to believe that the war on terror started with what others did to us.

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

Sept 21

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost consisting of an interview with David Van Drunen about The Constitution and the Obergefell decision. This appeared in Heidelblog.

I think describing the different ways of interpreting The Constitution needs further clarification. Many see those who employ a more modern approach to the document as looking at The Constitution as a living Constitution that changes as times change. That is in contrast to those who want to interpret The Constitution more literally and in keeping with what they see as being the intention of the writers.

Instead, perhaps we should look at The Constitution, especially the amendments most of which were written well after the times of the founding fathers, as either being a document that uses explicit and concrete statements only to describe our rights or a document that uses a combination of explicit and concrete statements with abstract statements. Thus, we would use what we see as abstract as a source from which we can apply The Constitution to today's issues and derive rights which the founding fathers or those who wrote the amendments may not have anticipated.

Seeing at least some of the statements containing our  rights in The Constitution as being more abstract than concrete allows us to employ a degree of flexibility in terms of using the document to answer some of the questions being asked today without treating the document as a waxed nose in the hands of time. To see The Constitution as having only explicit and concrete statements gives us a rigid document that struggles to react to the new issues and questions of today.

I can see one of the concerns of those who see The Constitution as containing just explicit and concrete statements as a fear of losing continuity with founding fathers when we treat some of the amendments as being more abstract. Thus, they do not see added flexibility gained when we treat some of the amendments more abstractly as a benefit.

One should consider the source of the above statements because I fully agree with what I have read of the Obergefell decision. It granted rights which I saw as being owed to those in the LGBT community who seek to marry the partners of their choice with recognition of at least some of the tension many conservative Christians have over the subject. BTW, the Obergefell decision does not relieve those in the LGBT community the hardship of losing one's job because of one's sexual orientation which exists in 29 states.

Finally, if we religiously conservative Christians really wish to address this issue without providing any unnecessary stumbling blocks to those who would hear us preach the Gospel, then it seems to me that we would rely solely on preaching and teaching God's Word as a way of influencing the people in society on whether they would or would not enter a same-sex marriage.