Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For February 1, 2023

Jan 26

To Heidelblog and their blogpost that references a Heidelblog resource page with references meant to totally discredit the 1619 Project. 

https://heidelblog.net/2023/01/new-resource-page-resources-on-the-1619-project/

Actual Heidelblog Reference Page:

https://heidelblog.net/1619-project/

The above criticisms of the 1619 Project lack precision in its criticisms in an attempt to discredit the whole work. 

For example, Sean Wilentz, who is in the article that criticizes the project from the Left, offered specific criticisms of the 1619 Project in an effort to keep the whole project from being discredited. In other words, he didn't reject the whole project or the project overall. He saw a significant amount of value in the project.

One of the points of contention from the 1619 Project was the claim that the Revolutionary War was fought in order to protect the institution of slavery from being axed by British rule. And though such a claim is an overstatement, it is not without evidence. For while American elites who led the campaign to breakaway from the British Empire did not mention the protection of slavery as a reason for the Revolution, the newspapers at that time did frame a statement made in a particular British court ruling as a threat to the institution of slavery.

As for the National Association of Scholars, its name sounds like a neutral voice but in reality it is a political conservative advocacy group similar to the American College of Pediatricians. Thus, the neutral sounding name that suggests objectivity for the National Association of Scholars which is far from the purpose of that group.

I could go on, but here is the point. Like with Critical Theory and Critical Race Theory, some conservatives have targeted the 1619 Project to be completely discredited rather than to identify its contributions and errors to our understanding of history. The treatment of the 1619 Project by those conservatives provide examples of black-white thinking, which is a kind of thinking that we see in authoritarianism. And, if indeed, the analysis of the 1619 Project by these conservatives is from an authoritarian viewpoint, then the goal of this kind of conservative analysis of the 1619 Project is to gain control over enough people so as to  silence the Project.

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

Jan 27

To Pat Buchanan and the Imaginative Conservative blog that reposted a Buchanan article that was first posted in 2012. 

Just some loose thoughts here. 

First, conservatives don't have to impose their values to conserve their traditions and principles. But according to the above article, imposing their values on the rest of the people defines success for them.

As for Russell Kirk being a traditionalist, I say this to traditionalists from all ideological perspectives. Traditionalism is the other side of the coin from Narcissism. Both isms artificially elevate a set of time periods above all other time periods to the extent that it seems they believe that their chosen set of time periods has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them.

Buchanan's comments on the Civil Rights Revolution lack awareness. While he is quick to praise Martin Luther King Jr, much of what he also condemns was part of King's mission in life. In his interview with Xander Vanocur 11 months before his death, King defined the period of the passage of the '64 and '65 Civil and Voting Rights Acts as a struggle for dignity. King goes on to say that what he was working toward at the time of the interview was true equality for Blacks which was to be measured through the equality of results (see  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xsbt3a7K-8   ). 

Is Buchanan aware that King listed as the triplets of evil: racism, economic exploitation, and militarism? Is he aware that King said that to take down racism, we must also eradicate the other two evils?

In terms of what is bankrupting this nation, isn't it government spending on goods and services provided by corporations either in defense, pharmaceuticals, private prisons, and other goods and services. These items are provided by the same corporations that pay lobbyists to earn favor for their employers in the laws passed by our government.

As for the Vietnam War, what we used to justify our presence there, the Domino Theory, proved to be false. In fact, our involvement in Vietnam began around the time when the US rejected a democratic process that would determine whether the two Vietnams would be reunited. And the end of the Vietnam War showed that the War was always about reunification.

And what did Reagan revive? It was a belief in our nation but what is that belief based on? After all, the US has often interfered in the internal affairs of other nations including overthrowing left-leaning democracies and replacing them with dictatorships (for some examples see Iran in 1953, Guatemala in 1954, Greece in 1967, and Chile in 1973). Millions of civilians died in Vietnam because of our weapons and our intervention in that nation. Systemic racism in the US has survived the work of the Civil Rights Movement. And for the past several decades, wealth and income disparities have continued to increase between the classes and the races in this nation. Reagan's war against unions and embracing of neoliberal capitalism has contributed to those growing disparities.

Yes, some conservative values and practices have fallen out of favor for much of the nation. But if conservatives hold on to those values and practices, how is it that they have failed even when others have not? How have they failed unless conservatives judge their success by their imposition of their values and practices on others in this nation?

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

Jan 30

To Heidelblog and Dorothy Sayers for the part of Sayers's address that was quoted in a heidelblog post about Christianity vs paganism. 

Dorothy Sayers's full address can be found at:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/6ah7lgde0rrsd7m/sayerscreed.pdf?dl=0

One should only accept Sayers's claim that Christian and pagan are in a 'life-and-death' struggle if Christendom is Christianity. And the last time I checked multiple sources on this, including Heidelblog (see  https://heidelblog.net/2022/06/christendom-was-a-renewal-of-the-old-testament-theocracy/  AND   https://heidelblog.net/2021/11/christ-the-only-way-doctrinal-confusion-and-a-twofold-kingdom/     ). Christendom is not Christianity. Instead, Christendom is both caused by and causes confusion on the relationship between the Church and State. And thus the presence of heathendom does not put Christian and pagan in a dire battle with each other.

And so with the main claim of  Sayers's address resting on equating of Christendom with Christianity, I am confused why the Sayer's address is quoted from  here. After all, if Christendom is not identical with Christianity, how can we say that the replacing of Christendom with heathendom puts Christian in a 'life-and-death' struggle with pagan?

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

To Joseph Pearce and the reposting of his article on what was tragic in the Old South. His article presented a challenge to an opinion written by a Tennessee girl who denounced the South's history and its heritage. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

If the South's only major flaw was slavery, then was the Federal government overstepping its role, or unjustly attacking subsidiarity, in outlawing Jim Crow laws? Inquiring social justice warriors want to know.

There are a couple of problems with Pearce's article here. The first, of course, was limiting the South's sins to that of slavery. That is a problem because what drove or enabled slavery goes without criticism: the belief in white supremacy. And it was that belief that caused Jim Crow laws and culture to follow what was an all too brief respite from the racism in the South known as Reconstruction. 

But the mere existence of either slavery or Jim Crow shows the problem with putting the principle of subsidiarity on too high a pedestal. We can't afford to have local rights, whether they be parental rights, church rights, state rights or whatever else rights be independent from evaluation by universal values and principles. We can't allow the individual to violate the equal rights of others.

Another problem with Pearce's analysis here is to call the Federal Government a distant government. When each state has two Senators regardless of its size and each state is divided up into sectors according to its population and has its own representative, we can't call such a government 'distant.' We even have an electoral college that also helps balance out the voting power between urban centers and rural areas. How is that 'distant'?

Here I have to agree with the 'Tennessee girl' Pearce referenced far more than with Pearce. Then again, I am not from the South. But I've seen violations of equal rights in the North as well. We have enough stuff to be ashamed of here too.

 

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For August 25, 2021

Around Aug 18

To Bradley Birzer and his article that reviews a new book about war and propaganda in the US. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative Blog.

The Left here has been writing about propaganda and war for a long time. It is often mentioned in the writings and talks given by Noam Chomsky.  Chris Hedges has written and talked about government efforts to control narratives since WW I. In fact, Leftists like Helen Keller and Eugene Debs spoke out against entering WW I with the latter being incarcerated for sedition. Norman Solomon's book on the subject titled War Made Easty appeared in 2007.

Not that the above should make obscure the book reviewed here, it is that this is not a new subject to certain groups of people.

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

Aug 19

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost that uses multiple news items to talk about Christians and the government. This appeared in Heidelblog.

The conservative political bias on this blog is not usually as strong as it is in the above article. Take the part on Afghanistan. Absent is the fact that Biden was acting on Trump's peace deal with the Taliban. Also absent is the fact that Carter approved covert aid to the Mujahideen in July of 1979, 6 months before the Soviet invasion. Such aid raised the probability of Soviet intervention.

But what is also not noted here is that the Mujahideen was fighting then because of social reforms, which included rights for women, introduced by Soviet friendly Afghan regimes. We could place a lot of blame on Carter for that, but we should also note that Reagan greatly upped the ante in support for the Mujahideen. We should note here that after the Soviet Union left and quit providing aid for Afghanistan, it eventually fell to the Taliban. And guess who made up much of the Taliban back then. It was the Mujahideen that was supported by both Carter and Reagan.

What is absent from the rule of natural law mentioned above is that it is a Christian view of natural law developed when Christendom was the rage throughout Europe. And not only that, it is theology that tells us that natural law should govern nations, not the New Testament. This should be noted when it comes to laws we have regarding marriage and sex. As much as advocates for natural law were saying that we have 2 kingdoms, a lighter Christian dominance of society than Christendom over society  was, and still is, being advocated for.

We might also want to talk about the good old days when Christians could ignore government. The problem is such an approach to government demonstrates a lazy democracy rather than a working one. And the fact that we have expansion in gov't roles is sometimes a function of a working democracy as people put limits on others, such as business, for how they will interact with and affect their lives. 

Thing about democracy is this, we can talk about it as either a set of political  mechanisms employed by society to make corporate decisions, or we can talk about it as a state of being in which each group in society shares the state as equal to the other groups. In other words, the rule by majority is not used to oppress some minority. Thomas Jefferson warned against such oppression in his 1801 inaugural address. If we consider our democracy a stewardship so that there are minority groups being oppressed, as there were when Christians could ignore government, then practicing a lazy democracy is not an option for the Christian. For during the good old days that Clark mention was the Jim Crow era.

Finally, claiming that Fox News gives a Christian worldview, as claimed by a Baptist minister cited by Clark, can only be true if we conflate a white, American patriotism with the Christian faith. The trouble with that is that such a conflation  causes us to compromise the Scriptures.

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

Aug 20

To Pat Buchanan and his review of what was going on in Afghanistan 10 years after America sent troops in in the year 2001. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

Any commentary on Ameria's part in the Afghanistan War is deficient and incomplete without starting with Carter's July of 1979 decision to send covert aid to the same group that the Taliban would recruit from when it was formed in the 1990s. We should note that Carter's decision and aid took place before the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

Why did Carter send covert aid? First, he was sending that aid to the Mujahideen who opposed the social reforms such as rights for women started by some of Afghanistan's Soviet Union friendly leaders. Those reforms and rights were the same that the US was defending once we sent our troops in in 2001. While Carter's aid was relatively small, it helped the Mujahideen survive. Then Reagan upped the ante considerably and referred to these same Mujahideen as 'freedom fighters.' Again, theses same people opposed social reforms such as rights for women. 

So why was it right for the US to send aid to help those who opposed rights for women while sending troops to fight those who opposed those same rights for women? Apparently, the difference rests in which gov't is promoting and working for those social reforms including rights for women. If the wrong side is providing them, then we must support those who oppose such social reforms. If we or  our allies are promoting and working for such rights, then we defend those reforms and rights against the same evil people who would take them away..

Such is missing from Buchanan's look at our involvement into Afghanistan.

 

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For July 21, 2021

 July 15

To Jerry Salyer and his blogpost article that attempts to distance Orwell from today's woke progressives. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative Blog.

Did Salyer simply forget to mention that Orwell declared himself to be a Socialist and was at one time an editor at a socialist paper? At the same time,  Orwell's experiences in life  allowed him to escape ideological tribalism seen in his honest criticisms of socialists and, in particular, totalitarian rule whether it was on right seen in Nazism or the "left" as seen in what the Soviet Union called Communism. 

Orwell quite a bit of time living in the lower economic classes and gained sincere sympathy for them. 

As for patriotism and nationalism, their definitions depend on the point a person wants to make. When we define nationalism simply as self-rule, then who could object? The British did when it came to India as did the US when it came to a number of left-leaning democracies. But the above descriptions of nationalism shows its ugly side and should be outrightly objected.

But is patriotism really an obstacle or an enabler of nationalism. For how can one's belief that  one's own nation and way of life is the best not become an opiate for the ugly side of nationalism when one sees how interconnected and interdependent nations are on each other? Can't those dependencies and the differences between nations make those nations into at least potential threats to one's own best place in the world and thus justifying the ugly side of nationalism in the nation that is superior to others. 

And where does the belief in the superiority of one's own nation and way of life get its grounding in people who never travelled to other places? Here we should note that, in the definition of patriotism, the line 'belief in the superiority of one's own place and way of life,' does not appear to be a quote from Orwell. So is there is disconnect here between Orwell's view of patriotism and what Salyer attributes to him?

Having read very brief biographical material on Orwell, my own feeling is that either one must disagree with Orwell's views on patriotism or that there is a significant differene between Orwell's views patriotism and what Salyer described them to be. Here we should note that the part of the description of patriotism of the belief in the superiority of one's own nation and 'way of life' may have reflected Salyer's view of patriotism more than Orwell's.

One final note, the attempts to align or distance an independent thinker like Orwell with or against any group is more of an anti-Orwellian move. Why? It is because such an attempt is nothing more than an authoritarian tactic. And Orwell was quite opposed to authoritarianism. And that is especially true when it comes to using straw man descriptions of the group one is targeting like what Salyer uses for woke progressives.

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

July 16

To Pat Buchanan and his article that complains about the EU demanding that Hungary give equal rights to those in he LGBT community or Hungary must leave the EU. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

What if there was an EU back in the 1950s and the US was a member. But the leader of the EU told the US: 'Back equal rights for Blacks or leave.' Would Buchanan complain about that demand?

The basic idea around tolerance is that there are acceptable differences. And the question is whether we should insist on there being tolerance in a society which consists of believers and unbelievers. Without tolerance in a society, there can be no democracy. But Buchanan is arguing for is that tolerance in the EU means that the EU must accept those nations where Christians are allowed to show no tolerance for certain unbelievers. 

Those societies where a religious minority or majority are allowed to dictate their terms to unbelievers do not believe in freedom, they believe in privilege. For freedom - equality = privilege. What Christians are enjoying in those societies are not what some unbelievers are enjoying.

Furthermore, what Buchanan is defending is what some Muslims defend in nations like Iran and Saudi Arabia. If either of those nations were in the European continent and wanted to join the EU, would the EU be wrong in demanding that those nations treat their non-Muslim citizens as being equal to their Muslim citizens?

Finally, that Christians rule over society in the way that is being done in Hungary goes against the New Testament. For in a number of places, the New Testament describes society was a place where the Church has no dominion over nor should it.

Quite simply, Buchanan's approach is an authoritarian one. That is because Buchanan himself is an authoritarian. That is how he thinks the US should run. But not only the US, but all other nations too provided that he approves of the leaders who are ruling that way.

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

July 17

To R. Scott Clark and his blog article that tries to warn likeminded Christians that the language used by Revoice Theology and some Side B Christians about sexuality is a trap. This appeared in Heidelblog.

What Clark fails to notice is that there are faults on his side of the argument as well as that of the Revoice side. 

On the Revoice side, there is no adequate recognition that nature has fallen along with man when Adam sinned. A Christian who follows the Scriptures cannot say that because God, through nature, made them this way and thus their desires are not sinful if they are not carried out.

On the other hand, Clark oversimplifies the dilemma that Side B Christians face. First, he fails to recognize the injustice of the marginalization that those in the LGBT community face in society. While Clark touts natural law, it was natural law before nature fell. Homosexuality is well practiced in the animal kingdom and with benefits to some species. And though Paul correctly says that homosexuality is against nature as God intended, he talks about homosexuality in unbelievers as if it should not surprise anyone. And in I Cor 5, Paul describes a heterosexual sin in ways that make it appear to be a worse sin than homosexuality.

And what Clark doesn't seem to understand about repentance from some sexual sins, such as sinful sexual desires, is that repentance must always be described in the present, continual sense rather than the aorist tense. The way I remember Clark speaking about them in past articles, those currently struggling with homosexual desires should have already repented of those desires and those desires should be gone. We should ask if either Clark or his peers no longer struggle with unbiblical heterosexual desires. For it seems to me that while we are alive on earth, we will remain vulnerable to following to those desires until either we die or the Lord comes again.

It is the hardline position, such as one  that Clark takes, one that seems to support the marginalization of the LGBT community in society, for which Clark would use natural law to justify, that has helped push Side B Christians to embrace some of the unbiblical beliefs about themselves which they have.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For March 10, 2021

March 9

To Bradley Birzer and his article on Conservatism. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative Blog

To define conservatism in idealistic terms, which is done at the beginning of the article above,  is to presume its correctness. But in reality, conservatism is relative to one's situation. And not all that conservatives wish to preserve is good.

In the Soviet Union,  liberals were aligned with the West while conservatism  supported "Communist" totalitarianism. The word "Communist" is in quotes because its closeness to Marxism is very questionable. In the pre Civil Rights Movement South, southern white Conservatives clung to and passionately defended segregation and discrimination.

In other words, what Conservatives wish to preserve is not always good. But we have one more idea to consider. That idea is that no ideology is omniscient. So in other words, Conservatism has contributions to make, so too do Liberalism and Leftist thinking. And in order to prevent changing what is perceived is "good," Conservatism sometimes claims to have a monopoly on knowing what is good and thus rejects everything from Liberalism and Leftist thinking. And, as with any group, Conservative, Liberal, or Leftist, because of that claim to have a monopoly on the truth or the representation of a given group of people, Conservatism has sometimes sought its own dictatorship over people.

As for those French Revolutionaries who attacked the Roman Church, they were both right and wrong. They were right in perceiving that the Church had  sided with the aristocracy. But because they believed that they had a monopoly on truth, they were wrong in how they overreacted to the Church and others whom they deemed were not just enemies, but had nothing to contribute.

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

To Pat Buchanan and his article that contests the charges that the Insurrectionists of Jan 6 could be rightly called, ‘domestic terrorists.’ This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

Since the definition of terrorism is the use or threat of violence to achieve a political end, then the Jan 6 insurrection at the Capitol is the epitome of domestic terrorism.

Buchanan goes at great lengths to minimize the violence employed there such as focusing on what was known before the insurrection or possibly falsely claiming that Officer Sicknick died from a stroke or comparing more violent past insurrections with the one on Jan 6. Regarding the cause of Officer Nicknack’s death, the FBI has not released the cause of his death. But suppose he died of a stroke, does that imply that there was no significant violence at the Capitol? If Buchanan believes so, then he should explain how over 100 officers were injured during melee or why the officers there felt betrayed by their leadership. Or he could look at the damage done to the Capitol or account for efforts made by the some of the insurrectionists to find members of Congress, the building of a gallows,  or the chant of 'Hang Mike Pence.'

The motive of the insurrectionists was clear: to 'stop the steal.' And they were told by the President not to take it any more and that they must show strength. So they went there to stop a Constitutional process after Trump learned that Mike Pence was going to obey The Constitution rather than him. Trump had told the public beforehand that it would be a wild time on January 6.

Buchanan's article is an exercise in moral relativism driven by tribal loyalties to Trump, Trump’s Republican following, and Buchanan’s own conservative ideology. And given Buchanan's religious history, practicing moral relativism seems to be inconsistent. But then again, that is what tribal loyalty to other causes than one’s faith can do a person.

BTW, in addition, we should note how seven Republicans not only voted to convict him during Trump's 2nd Impeachment, some other Republicans voted to exonerate him even though they publicly stated that Trump was guilty of inciting an insurrection. Yes Pat, there was an insurrection and it was violent.


 

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For March 3, 2021

 Feb 24

To R. Scott Clark and his 2 sentence blogpost claiming that Deconstructionists are waging war with God and will pay the consequences. This appeared in Heidelblog.

Simple declarations employing fear-mongering is a preferred tool of authoritarians. Here there is not even the slightest attempt to rationally engage in a discussion on Deconstruction. Rather, we are expected to flee in horror from Deconstruction because Clark said so.

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

March 2

To Pat Buchanan and his article that speculates on whether Trump will be King (a.k.a., ‘President’) again. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative Blog.

The title of the article leaves in doubt whether the person choosing that title truly understands the office of the Presidency. Trump himself seemed not to understand the office itself since he accused everyone who disagreed with him, especially people from the other two branches of government as having significant character flaws.

Buchanan himself doesn't seem to have all of his facts correct. He seems to have forgotten how Trump had bragged about his supporters remaining loyal even if he shot someone in the middle of NYC.

While Buchanan claims that there was endless immigration across our southern border, not only did Obama have cages constructed to hold immigrant children, he had deported more people than any previous President (see  https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/obamas-deportation-policy-numbers/story?id=41715661 ).

Yes, Trump cut regulations and taxes and thus unemployment went down. But we should note that unemployment was continuing to go down under Trump because it had been going down under Obama. We should also note that Trump’s cuts in taxes, along with his spike in military spending, created a spike in the deficit.  And why Trump didn't order the significant updating of infrastructure under a good economy is unknown but it produced a lost opportunity. Trump's cuts in regulations allowed for more toxins to enter the environment as well as continued to increase the future effects of global climate change.

The media's treatment of Trump often revolved around playing back what Trump had previously said. Trump responded to media criticism just like any authoritarian responds to criticism: with insults and accusations.  Trump's calling the MSM the ‘enemy of the people’ was dictator’s response which helped insulated his followers from facts and thus contributed to creating the cult like following that exists today. That cult following has been criticized by Senator Sasse (Neb) as well as arch conservative columnist George Will with Will leaving the Republican Party until the cult is gone. In fact, traditional Republicans including some former officeholders are thinking about starting a new political party.

And while Buchanan reports that only 6 Republican Senators voted to convict him during the latest impeachment, it was actually 7. And it isn't difficult to see why the impeachment was filed. For even before the election, Trump claimed that the only way he could lose was if the election was rigged. Such expectations along with insulating his followers from outside news greatly contributed to the violent insurrection of January 6.

None of the above includes Trump negligent post April handling of the pandemic which up until that time, Trump’s response to the pandemic received mixed grades.

There are many more negative things that could be reported on Trump. But what is apparent here is that Buchanan found his penchant for authoritarian leaders well matched with Trump. And is to that extent that Buchanan himself seems to have tenuous hold on political realities.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For January 20, 2021

 Jan 18

To Pat Buchanan and his article that attempts to criticize the House’s 2nd impeachment of Donald Trump. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

Buchanan gives a tribal response to the reimpeachment of Donald Trump. And because it is tribal, it is also  authoritarian. And because it is authoritarian, it will employ aspects of all-or-nothing thinking like employing a black-white worldview and selective focus.

The issue revolves around whether Donald Trump incited insurrection. And in denying that he did, Buchanan did not report on everything Trump and his co-speakers said. Buchanan did not mention the claim that has been rejected by all of the courts, even those presided over by Trump appointed judges, that the election was stolen. and that people needed to 'take America back." And Buchanan not did report how Trump told the audience how to do what he wanted them to do, they had to show strength, not weakness. And we don't hear Trump contradicting Rudy Giuliani who said that there must be trial by combat or Mo Brooks who told the audience to kick butt. Nor does Buchanan remind us what Trump said to the Proud Boys during his last debate that they were to 'Stand back and stand by.'

Now ties are being found between the Trump campaign the the event that led to the invasion of the Capitol. Those ties are being discovered by the AP as it matches names on permits with those being paid by Trump's 2020 campaign (see https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-donald-trump-capitol-siege-campaigns-elections-d14c78d53b3a212658223252fec87e99 ). And none of that includes Trump's initial reaction to the invasion of the Senate.

And neither does Buchanan mention that the reason for the "hatred" of Trump starts, if that is to be believed, swith Trump's action to incite insurrection. In fact, there were sufficient grounds to remove Trump because of the charges in the first impeachment but the Republican held Senate restricted evidence and witnesses from being considered by the Senate.

Buchanan's article is not written to engage with the evidence, it is written to keep the sheep  in line. His inadequate evidence makes impotent the logic Buchanan attempts to employ when defending Trump

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

Jan 19

To John Horvat and his article that seeks to redefine religion from having freedom of choice to that of having control over one’s passions. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

The above article doesn't recognize the contradiction of Ryszard Legutko's statements on freedom. On the one hand, freedom that recognizes our right to do what we want but is limited by the harm that we do to others is accused of only promoting self-interest. In addition that freedom is said to promote doing 'whatever, whenever. and wherever.'

Likewise, the other definition of freedom is not freedom because it does not deal with the liberty to choose. Rather, latter definition of freedom is defined by the ability to escape the consequences of wrong choices.  Of course the defense for that definition is that true freedom is the ability to control the passions. But what about following the passions is wrong? Isn't part of what is wrong about following the passions is when following them leads to hurting others? If so, isn't that part of the first definition of following freedom? And if so, then don't these two definitions have something in common?

Religiously speaking, there is a point to defining freedom in terms of having the ability to control one's passions. But we can be so vigilant in controlling the passions that we come to believe that some legitimate natural passions are evil.

At the same time, not all who live in a society where we have the freedom of religion agree on which passions should be and how they are to be controlled. Thus, if the above article could lead to the threatening of our freedom of religion since a given religion would be given a place of supremacy over other religions in determining which passions should be controlled.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For June 24, 2020

June 19

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost video on Maoism both then and now. This appeared in the Heidelblog.

Though the totalitarian rule of Mao is blamed on Marxism by some, in reality, totalitarianism and other degrees of authoritarianism  can come from vanguard movements. And such movements can emerge in any nation regardless of its political system or prominent political ideologies.

Lenin and the Bolsheviks were also a vanguard operation--something they recognized about themselves. And as such, just like the Tsars before them, they portrayed themselves as representing the proletariat revolution that the dissidents to the Bolsheviks were brutally treated as enemies of the people. The Tsars before them had so portrayed themselves  in the same way as well and regarded those who dissented as enemies of Russia.

Though being less authoritarian than the Tsars, Lenin and the Bolsheviks, and Mao, both the Republican and Democratic parties act as vanguards with the former portraying itself as the vanguard for American traditions, especially conservative ones, and the latter one as the vanguard for the marginalized. In truth, both major political parties are bought and paid for by wealthy elites.

And as for the authoritarianism, Scott should comment on how Trump has threatened all protesters, including peaceful ones, who would protest his Tulsa visit with violence.

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

June 23

To Pat Buchanan and his blogpost that criticizes the tearing down of statues that celebrated America’s past heroes. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

Buchanan is right about the purpose of status. It is for paying tribute and honoring people.

But where Buchanan has problems is in charging America's youth and the left with hating America's past, its history and its heroes.  It isn't that the tearing down of statues by mobs, not by the government, is not an act of hate. But the question Buchanan never considers is this: Who hated whom first? Or more pointedly, who hated whom the most?

Whether we are talking about Columbus with his multiple atrocities against the natives he discovered in Hispaniola, Jefferson and Washington with their owning of slaves and desires on Native American land to the West, Grant with his fighting against Native Americans, Francis Scott Key with his owning of slaves and celebrating the terrorizing of American slaves in the 3rd verse of the National Anthem, and finally the Confederate leaders who not only believed in white supremacy but fought to defend slavery and the race-based practice of treating people as mere property. Even with Roosevelt and Father Junípero Serra practiced or promoted racism. Can Buchanan say that such practices and attitudes were not acting out of hatred for their victims? Or does Buchanan not ask such questions about past heroes?

Did Buchanan object to Russians tearing down statues of Stalin and Lenin or the American military tearing down a statue of Saddam Hussein? I don't think so. And if I am right, isn't Buchanan practicing a double standard by objecting to the tearing down of statues of those who caused the suffering of so  many people?

While I don't approve of mobs tearing down statues because that is our government’s job, is the tearing down of statues the epitome of hatred?

When we look at the atrocities practiced to make this nation what it is today, shouldn't we hate some of America's past? Or should tribalism with its moral relativity be the rule of the day?

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For June 3, 2020

May 30

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost on the ontology of Male-Female relations. In particular, this comment is concerned with his comments about Partriarchicalism and a side comment about how Dispensationalism refers to Reformed Theology’s eschatology and the Jewish people. This appeared in Heidelblog

First a side note. The pejorative use of the term 'Replacement Theology' shows a misunderstanding of both the Scriptures and Reformed Theology. The most descriptive term for Reformed theology as it applies to the two different peoples of God is 'Union Theology.' That is because under Christ, the true descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, that is the Jewish children of the promise and the Gentile believers in Christ become united in one body. What unites them into one body is their faith in Christ.

However, I find Clark's view of Patriarchalism to be overly simplistic and thus a projection of how he describes it. And unfortunately, one usually begs more than one question when one over simplifies an idea or movement. The historical definition of the term has to do with the amount of power a king assumes for himself. It is absolute power. In essence, the king becomes a civil pope for the nation.

And when we look at the history of male leadership of the nations, we find a dreadful account of arrogance and the abuse of power. And it is that arrogance and abuse of power, whether exercised by civil authorities men in other roles such as the heads of businesses or families which are the concerna of feminists when talking about male patriarchy. In essence, what is being protested is male authoritarianism. But sometimes what is obscured is men, especially white males, have no monopoly on authoritarianism.

Robert Jensen is a good source to read about what Clark calls patriarchalism--though I believe he uses different terms.

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

June 2

To Pat Buchanan and his article that states that instead of vilifying the police, we should recognize that they are essential for bring justice and peace. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

Buchanan makes the claim that because law and order are necessary for establishing peace and justice, and the police are necessary for establishing law and order, then the police are necessary for establishing justice and peace. And thus we should not vilify the police because of the riots.

But one problem with Buchanan's argument is that law and order does not always bring justice and peace. Why? As Martin Luther King Jr. pointed out, unjust laws  do not result in justice and can result in unrest instead of peace. In fact, it is the duty Americans to protest those unjust laws, though we should note that he insisted on peacefully protesting those laws.

Second, we should also consider the current case here. That how the police maintain law and order can result in the immediate loss of justice and the eventual loss of peace. Thus, we can assume that Buchanan is right in that without the police there can be no justice and peace. At the same time, depending on the laws and how the police enforce law and order.

Another problem with Buchanan's article is his scapegoating of liberals for the loss of law and order in Minnesota and elsewhere. But scapegoating is the result of over simplifying complex problems. It relies on reductionism and that reductionism moves us to practice all-or-nothing thinking. Here we should note that such thinking is a part of authoritarianism. And, just perhaps, authoritarianism can cause police officers who are its adherents to maintain law and order that are both unjust and eventually disruptive.

A mature look at the some of the riots we are witness is displayed by Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (see  https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-05-30/dont-understand-the-protests-what-youre-seeing-is-people-pushed-to-the-edge ). Rather than opportunistically scapegoating  a political party, part of Abdul-Jabbar's article discusses all of the different ways in which Blacks are discriminated against and marginalized. And that includes a racism in the justice system. After all, George Floyd is not the only  Black person to be  unjustly killed by the police.

We have a choice then between  being overly simplistic, and perhaps opportunistic as well, in how we see the protests and riotBuchanan makes the claim that because law and order is necessary for establishing justice and peace, and the police are necessary for establishing law and order, then the police are necessary for establishing justice and peace. And thus we should not vilify the police because of the current unrest and claims made.

But one problem with Buchanan's argument is that law and order does not always bring justice and peace. Why? As Martin Luther King Jr. pointed out, unjust laws  do not result in justice and can eventually result in unrest instead of peace. In fact, he believed that it is the duty Americans to protest those unjust laws, though we should note that he insisted on peacefully protesting those laws.

Second, we should also consider the current case here. That how the police maintain law and order can result in the immediate loss of justice and the eventual loss of peace. Thus, we can assume that Buchanan is right in that without the police there can be no justice and peace. At the same time, justice and peace also depend on the laws and on how the police enforce law and order.

Another problem with Buchanan's article is his scapegoating of liberals for the loss of law and order in Minnesota and elsewhere. We should note that scapegoating is the result of over simplifying complex problems. It relies on reductionism and that reductionism moves us to practice all-or-nothing thinking. Here we should note that such thinking is a part of authoritarianism. And, just perhaps, authoritarianism can cause police officers who are its adherents to maintain law and order that are both unjust and eventually disruptive. After all, authoritarianism is fear-driven.

A mature look at the some of the riots we are witness is displayed by Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (see  https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-05-30/dont-understand-the-protests-what-youre-seeing-is-people-pushed-to-the-edge ). Rather than opportunistically scapegoating  a political party, part of Abdul-Jabbar's article discusses all of the different ways in which Blacks are discriminated against and marginalized. And it is the discrimination and marginalization that has led to the protests and, in some cases,  riots. And that includes a racism in the justice system. After all, George Floyd is not the only  Black person to be  unjustly killed by the police.

We have a choice then between  being overly simplistic, and perhaps opportunistic as well, in how we see the protests and riots,, or taking a mature, well thought out view of the unrest in our nation.




 

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For February 15, 2017

Feb 8

To Joe Carter and his blogpost supporting the striking down of the law that prohibits political speech in churches. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.

A perspective that is missing here is that from Russia. The Russian Orthodox Church has supported Putin. So now Russia maintains laws that put strict limits on those from the LGBT community in terms of what they can say about their sexual orientation and Russia has passed a law that prohibits evangelism by other churches than the Orthodox Church outside of the walls of one's own Church. Can supporting politicians bring privilege to the Church? And if the Church has privileges, then is the separation of Church and State gone?

History tells us that one of the flaws of the Church is that it often supports wealth and power. It tells us this through the examples of the predominant Churches in France, Russia, and Spain prior to their revolutions. This led to the Church siding with tyranny. It tells us this with other examples, such as Chile and Guatemala, where the Church sided with wealth in Socialist nations whose governments were democratically elected with the result of the Church siding with tyranny of those governments were overthrown.

Striking down this law may explain why some evangelical leaders supported Trump in the first place. Now one only needs to see how these leaders and the evangelical movement benefits afterwards.

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

Feb 9

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost citing J. Gresham Machen’s opposition to the creation of a federal department of education. This appeared in the Heidelblog.

Why it is important that it was Machen who said what is recorded above is a mystery. For what we see is just a libertarian expressing his views regarding federal standardization and aid. We should note that Machen opposed a child-labor amendment and federal aid for roads. We should note that without the latter, we would have no interstate system and the ability for states and even regions to maintain infrastructure would depend solely on the resources of that region and state even though the stakeholders of such resources include many who do not live in the state or region.

Certainly, Machen is speaking as a libertarian. But I wouldn't want to blame everything he said on his libertarianism. I would also add that perhaps Machen's personal history in the Presbyterian Church influenced his opposition to all standardization in education especially regarding the teaching of morality. But a question I would have for Machen is this: Would today's educational standardization of morals which include racial equality be objectionable to him? Would he object to the teaching that we are all equal regardless of our race? The issue at hand is not racism per se, and such is not a minimizing of the importance of the subject, but on whether Machen's thinking at least sometimes unnecessarily followed all-or-nothing patterns. That to accept a part would be no different than to accept the whole. His rejection of liberalism seems to lean that way.

One final comment is due. Certainly, Libertarians would no doubt agree with Machen's position expressed above. But the problem becomes whether Libertarianism's rejection of Federal involvement in so many areas of life involves a denial of the differing degrees of interdependency that existed in society during the writing of The Constitution and Machen's time as well as with what exists during our time.

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

Feb 11

To Rev Ben Johnson and his blogpost review of the healthcare debate between Cruz and Sanders where Johnson states that Cruz highlighted the weakness of government run healthcare. This appeared in the Acton blog.

There are two problems with the article above. First, while wait times in Europe and Canada or determined by the provider, wait times in America are forced on people by their personal financial abilities. It is funny that that argument, which is a point Sanders brought up, was not mentioned above. The second problem is that the wait times are unfairly attributed to the government. It is unfair because the wait times are not due to inefficiency since single payer systems are more efficient than the health care system we have now because administration is simplified by single payer systems. Increasing competition by allowing people to cross state borders to purchase healthcare insurance, as suggested by Cruz, only increases the administrative part of providing healthcare because it adds to the mix of providers. And it is the number of providers that complicates the administration part of healthcare because each provider has its own system and rules.

In reality, the wait times in both capitalist and government systems are more due to the matchup between demand and available resources. When demand exceeds available resources, then wait times are longer. And so the European and Canadian healthcare systems have two options in alleviating wait times for medical procedures. First, they can invest more money into their healthcare systems. Second, they can reduce the number of people their systems serve. In America, the second option occurs naturally when  people who feel financially constrained put off obtaining healthcare services til a later time. And to show that point more vividly, we should note that before Obamacare, the number one reason for personal bankruptcies in America were due to healthcare costs.

We should note one more point about Cruz's position. He wants the private sector to solve the problem of people being able to access sufficient healthcare in a timely fashion. Thus, he wants to expand competition to force the healthcare insurance industry into offering better deals. But such a dynamic doesn't always work with publicly owned companies that are operated for the sake of shareholders who are more and more becoming the business owners' equivalent of absentee landlords. Do we really think that shareholders, who have become the only significant group of stakeholders recognized in today's publicly owned companies, will continue to invest adequately into health insurance companies as competition reduces the ROI?

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

Feb 13
To Pat Buchanan and his blogpost criticizing the courts for stopping Trump’s immigration ban and urging President Trump to ignore the courts and their power. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

Buchanan exhibits the worst traits of authoritarianism and tribalism in this article. For the validity of Trump's executive order banning refugees from 7 Muslim nations, according to Buchanan, rests in the authoritative position of the people commenting on it. Thus, Buchanan seems to say that Trump's executive order is correct because he is making a wartime decision as President while the decisions of the justices who have ruled on it are wrong because they are merely justices. In addition, Buchanan gives personal attacks on those who disagree. He did the same by unnecessarily attacking Elizabeth Warren who challenged the nomination of Jeff Sessions.

There is nothing in Buchanan's article that discusses the concerns of either side let alone that of the justices. And there is nothing in Buchanan's article that even mentions that there already exists a vetting process for refugees let alone mentions how effective that process is. Rather, Buchanan believes that it is time to reduce the power of our courts who use The Constitution to review our laws. And he promotes this position so that the power of the President can be increased and he has fewer people to be accountable to.

Certainly, if Buchanan was consistent, then he would have written similar articles defending President Obama's executive order on immigration during wartime when it was reviewed by the Supreme Court. But he didn't. Instead, he attacked him. And when he criticized Obama, he resorted to something he didn't use when he defended Trump's executive order on immigration, he mentioned the details on immigration to bolster his argument (see http://buchanan.org/blog/rogue-president-7159 ).

If we learned anything from Star Wars it is this, that those who have an insatiable desire for power use war or conflict as a camouflage for obtaining more and more power. Now that one of Buchanan's own is in the White House, he is arguing for his President to assume and exercise more power. Again, Buchanan has, in this article exhibited the worst traits of authoritarianism and tribalism.

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

Feb 14

To Joseph Pearce and his blogpost praising Trump’s protectionism as providing a hedge of protection for American economic sovereignty from foreign economic elites. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

Just for clarification, only a small group uses violence on a consistent basis to demonstrate for the nonconservatives. That group is Black Bloc. Most of the other nonconservatives are peaceful protesters. As for why nonconservatives didn't protest Obama's inauguration?  If the left didn't protest his inauguration, they did oppose his globalization. It is the Democrats who refrained from criticizing their own.

There are things to agree with here. Protectionism is a viable option for America to take provided that it allows other nations to do the same. That has not always occurred. But we should note this, while protectionism provides an economic wall that could possibly partially block the immigration of the influence exercised by foreign economic elites, Trump will not provide sufficient protection for America from being controlled by economic elites in general. This was made clear by Trump's promise to corporate leaders that he will cut taxes and regulations by over 70%. The problem here is that in so doing, Trump is removing a layer of protection from economic, workplace, and environmental exploitation for many Americans. The more one cuts corporate taxes to the extent Trump is promising, the more the tax burden is shifted to workers and the federal deficit is increased. The more one cuts regulations, because regulations primarily deal with pay, working conditions, and protecting the environment, the more that workers and workplace communities are placed at risk for abuse. And though Trump's protectionism might act as a wall that restricts the flow of control foreign investors might have over our nation, his promise to cut taxes and regulations by such a significant amount allows foreigners who invest in American businesses to benefit at the expense of all other stakeholders besides shareholders.

When we look at Trump's team of the "best" people, we are quick to discover that those with wealth will hold on to their power since they are well represented. All others, especially workers, are left unrepresented. This is perhaps why Trump stated that he had heard no complaints about DAPL.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For January 25, 2017

Jan 17

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost that opposes a state church. This appeared in the Heidelblog.

I fully agree that there should be no state church and that God's people are the elect from every nation who believe in Jesus Christ. But we would be fooling ourselves if we believed that there is no Christian meddling or privilege in the state outside of some kind of theocracy or Christendom.  That is because Christian control over and privilege in the state exists on a continuum where control over and privilege can still exist outside of a state church. I call one form of Christian control over and privilege in the state Christian Paternalism where there is a  broader mix of laws based on secular values and Christian values. Indeed, the controversy over same-sex marriage (SSM) brought this to light as many of my fellow religiously conservative Christians tried to draw a line in the sand justifying their opposition to SSM on natural law or on what is best for human flourishing. The problem with those justifications was that we see homosexuality in 1,500 species in nature on the one hand and the flourishing argument  allowed for law to be based on what is the best case scenario while ignoring what is an acceptable scenario.  Of course there were those who used the what is happening to the property values because of who is moving into the neighborhood argument.

In the end, opposition to SSM ignored the religious rights of those whose religion allowed for homosexuality whose view of natural law includes what is observed in nature. So though the previous state prohibition against SSM was not Christendom, it was due to Church control over the state and thus there existed a privileged place for Christians in society in determining certain laws. Here we should note that the opposition to SSM is just one example of an attempt to establish Christian Paternalism over our society.

BTW, it is ironic that Clark should be citing Calvin here because of how the religious persecution that existed in Geneva under his influence resulted in heretics and witches being put to death for religious reasons. And we certainly could not bring Luther in as an example either seeing how he called on German society and princes to punish the Jews for their unbelief lest they be complicit in that unbelief.

The concern for the freedom of the Church and the definition of who God's people are expressed in the article above are very sound and they serve as good reasons to reject not just Christendom and state churches, but Christian Paternalism as well. But in addition, we should note another reason why we should reject state churches and any form of Christian Paternalism.  That reason has to do with determining how we should share society with unbelievers. If we don't share society with unbelievers as equals, then we need to take into account the blowback to our Christian witness. That any form of Christian control over society can result in people not wanting to hear the Gospel not because of the content of the Gospel but because of the offense some unbelievers have taken to having their lives governed by Christian control over society.

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

The following comment is still awaiting moderation though it has been over a week since it was posted and the author of the blogpost has posted another article. Please visit the blogpost by clicking its link to see if the status of this comment has been changed.

To Justin Taylor and his blogpost republishing Martin Luther King Jr.’s letter from a Birmingham jail. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.

Just as racism was not King’s only core concern, neither is the letter from a Birmingham jail the only document one should read when remembering King. Two other documents that are as equally important are his speech against the Vietnam War (see http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2564.htm ) and his last speech given in support of the striking garbage collectors in Memphis (see http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mlkivebeentothemountaintop.htm ).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jan 20

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost quote of Romans 13, a passage that tells us to both obey the civil authorities and to love one’s neighbors. This appeared in Heidelblog.

Martin Luther King Jr had to ask the inconvenient question of what happens when loving one's neighbor comes into conflict with following unjust laws? Another question before us is how should one implement Romans 13 in a vastly different historical context than what existed in the First Century.

It seems that when celebrating the American Revolution, citations of Romans 13 are not in sight. But when regarding a government that is controlled by the political party that is most favored by religiously conservative Christians and their leaders, we quote Romans 13 implying how it should be carried out.

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

Jan 24

To Matt Carter and his talk  on how his church started to practice “social justice” by how it learned how to help the vulnerable in his city. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.

On one hand, Carter is talking about very admirable actions taken by his church and those actions are done in humility. Other churches should pay attention to what Carter's church is doing.

On the other hand, Carter is missing a foundational part of social justice that was practiced by both the OT prophets and the Apostle James. According to model of though Carter's employing, they also preached 'against the city.' In other words they cited others, especially those with wealth and power, for their sins of oppression against the vulnerable. Without this part of social justice, then one of Vladimir Lenin's criticisms of Christianity rings true. That criticism was that Christianity provided a cheap form of grace for those with wealth and power who were oppressing the vulnerable. It was cheap because those who oppressed only had to add to their repertoire acts of kindness and charity toward those they were exploiting. They were not required to change from exploiting others. In a sense, it is as if Lenin viewed those acts of charity without repenting from exploiting others as indulgences (see https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1905/dec/03.htm ).

In The Crisis Of Democracy the complaint was made that the Church had failed to fulfill its role as an institution of indoctrination during the 1960s. How was the Church to function as such an institution? It, along with educational institutions, the military, and the family, was to teach its people how to fit into society and respect the authority those elites from both the public and private sectors. However, we should note that the 1960s saw a great rebellion against injustice. Instances of injustice were seen in the immoral war in Vietnam as well as the Jim Crow society we had constructed. It could also been in the inequitable treatment of women. If the Church had fulfilled its role of indoctrinating the young rather than failing in that role, then those injustices would have been accepted rather than challenged.

Again, what Carter speaks about churches coming alongside of those who were there to help the vulnerable in the city is very admirable and should be highly valued. Other churches would do well to imitate what his church has done. But social justice isn't putting bandaids on wounds, it consists of challenging those institutions and those with wealth and power to repent from exploiting and oppressing others. Instead of talking about the Church and Social Justice, Carter would have been better to talk about the Church and the Social Gospel of which helping others is an indispensable part. But we should note that Social Justice is the calling of institutions and those with wealth and power to repent from harming others (see http://flamingfundamentalist.blogspot.com/2013/05/is-social-gospel-biblical-enough-for.html ).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To Pat Buchanan and his blogpost commending Trump’s ‘America First’ inaugural address. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

'America First!' without any mention of moral obligations to those in and out of America gives an eerie reminder of what was promised in Germany in the early 1930s. And for all nations to take this our nation first attitude without reference to any universal moral standards by which nations would restrain their behavior can serve as an invitation to a giant king-of-the-hill battle where the rule of force by the strongest nations reigns.

Certainly America has tried two basic approaches in responding to the world around it. It has tried isolationism, such as just prior to WW I, and imperialism. And both have failed. While isolationism inevitably draws us into conflicts because other nations are vying for more wealth and power, imperialism has proved to be neither feasible nor moral.

There is another approach. It was an approach that was promised by the creation of the UN but never carried out because the most powerful nations would have nothing to do with being restrained. And the worst culprit at refusing international restraint is the US because it was seeking an 'America First' foreign policy through the creation of empire. The UN offered a hope for alternate ways at resolving conflicts because it allowed for some measure of democracy to be used in forming resolutions. However, the existence of the Security Council ensured that only the weaker nations that were not supported by the most powerful would be subject to international law. And as for as long as we practice either isolationism or imperialism, we continue in rejecting  international law from controlling our actions and we head for the cliff of self-destruction.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For December 14, 2016

Dec 6

To R. Scott Clark and his short blogpost quote from Todd Pruitt who dismissed concerns over the tone used when Christians argue over the Trinity. This appeared in Heidelblog.

But the concern over tone succeeds in one area: concern over Christians bearing the fruit of the Spirit. We should note that the alternative to bearing the fruit of the Spirit is to produce the works of the flesh. And a question about our past is whether we will be passive authoritarians when reviewing how the first reformers fought over doctrine or will we be willing to objectively look and criticize not that they fought, but how they fought?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dec 8

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost that contained a short video clip of an Admiral comparing the troops they were honoring on Pearl Harbor Day with Colin Kaepernick’s taking a knee during the playing of the national anthem. This appeared in Heidelblog.

I am sure that what the Admiral said struck a deep emotional chord in conservative authoritarian types. What the Admiral failed to add is that none of the service men and women they were honoring publicly criticized the President either. Does that mean that we civilians should not publicly criticize our President?

What I believe many conservatives are really afraid of doing is to admit that the country and flag they love so dearly has not meant the same to all people of color as it has to them. Our country and flag has certainly not meant the same to many Native Americans as has to those conservatives. Neither has our nation and flag meant the same to all Blacks as it has to those conservatives. But since the Admiral is noting the difference between the service men and women he was honoring and Colin Kaepernick, we should note a similarity between the two. Just as it took courage to stand and fight against the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor 75 years ago, it took courage for Kaepernick to take a stand by taking a knee for the sake of those Blacks who still suffer significantly from the racism that continues to plague our nation. It would be much easier, and thus not require any courage, for Kaepernick to hide his convictions by conforming and standing for the national anthem. But he didn't and just like staying and fighting left our troops at Pearl Harbor vulnerable to the Japanese attack, so did Kaepernick's taking a knee left himself vulnerable to public scorn. And he continues to do that.

And we should note that when we are required to stand and salute the flag in some way, shape, or form at the playing of the national anthem or face scorn, then we are participating in a religious ceremony. The religion is patriotism and the god is our collective selves. And we should remember that authoritarian types are sensitive and become aggressive toward those who do not worship the same gods they do. Rather than pray in a closet, they prefer to wear their religion on their sleeves. But, and Christians should know this best, patriotism is a false religion. And we have often practiced or condoned some of the greatest injustices in history in the name of patriotism. We should also note that patriotism makes polytheists out of Christians--that is if consumerism hasn't done that already.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dec 10

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost quoting of Carl Trueman who stated that those who are followers of the Reformation should imitate the polemic style of the Reformers. This appeared in Heidelblog.

We should note something else about the Reformers if we wish to be their real followers. They were anti-Semites some of who worked so that the Jews would be punished by society for their unbelief. In addition, some sought to persecute and sometimes even kill Anabaptists. Witches and heretics were persecuted, prosecuted and executed as were adulterers. Should we pass laws that punish people for failing to attend church on Sundays?

When we strive to employ 'powerfully worded polemics,' as the Reformers did, are we bearing the fruit of the Spirit or are we seeking to embrace the same kind of authoritarian personality types that some of the Reformers had/suffered from? Is this seeking to emulate the Reformers in how they conducted polemics merely an attempt to rationalize the undoing of the shackles of self-restraint and conscience? And if so, are we asking if we should thus become Christianized versions of Donald Trump when he throws caution to the wind when answering his opponents?

So if we wish to be followers of the Reformation, should we seek to emulate how the Reformers treated people including what was listed above, or should we examine their actions, including the way they engaged in polemics, and use the Scriptures to judge them? Do all of the actions of the Reformers become canon law for us and thus equate what they did with what is taught in the Scriptures or are the Scriptures the only canon we use so that we would just both the Reformers and ourselves?

Remember that how we treat fellow believers is how we treat those for whom Christ died. We should also note how the Pharisees treated people in Jesus' day and compare that with how the Reformers treated people lest we replicate the sins of the Reformers--that is if they committed sins. 

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

To Mark Tooley and his blogpost that calls Evangelicals to develop a ‘public theology’ in the face of 2016 Presidential campaign. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition.

There are many good observations here regarding what appealed to the different groups. And the warning against political hubris is always important. But why must we Christians be forever aligned with the Republican Party? Yes, we need a public theology. But why assume that the Republican Party is seeking the common good when it surpasses the Democratic Party in serving the avarice and ambitions of those with wealth and power?

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

Dec 11

To Pat Buchanan and his blogpost on what the Trump election ushers in. He particularly focuses on the rejection of what science says about climate change and a new embracing of national identity the revolves around preserving wealth and demographics. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative.

The most telling part of Buchanan's article here says:

Their worry is not that the rising waters of the Med will swamp the Riviera, but that tens of millions of Arabs, Muslims and Africans may be coming across to swamp Europe, and that millions of Mexicans may cross the Rio Grande to swamp the USA.

Call them climate deniers or climate skeptics, but they see the establishment as running the Big Con to effect a transfer of wealth and power away from the people—and to themselves. Across the West, establishments have lost credibility. The proliferation of minority parties, tearing off pieces of the traditional ruling parties, points to a growing distrust in ruling regimes and a return to identifying with the nation and tribe whence one came.

A concomitant of this is a growing disbelief in egalitarianism and in the equality of all races, creeds, nations, cultures and peoples. The Supreme Court may say all religions are equal and all must be treated equally. But do Americans believe Christianity and Islam are equal? How could they, when Christians claim their faith has as its founder the Son of God and God himself?

We should list the areas of concern and disinterest. The areas of concern include a mass influx of people of color and the loss of wealth by those who live in the richest nations in the world. What is of disinterest is the scientific view of climate change, the evidence of which is more than adequate for over 95% of the world's scientists and its effects can be seen by untrained observers. So Buchanan complains that the conservatives who don't want to lose their wealth or see a significant change in the racial demographics of the nation but will ignore the warnings of science on climate change are not counted as intellectuals? In addition, what follows these concerns and loss of interest is a rejection of the equality of the races as well as creeds, nations, and cultures.

Before commenting, let's make one correction here. Americans never believed in the equality of nations. Whether they be liberals or conservatives, American political leaders, as well as vast majority of the people, believe in American Exceptionalism. Manifest destiny was built on American Exceptionalism and American Exceptionalism back then was an exercise in violent racism. And our politicians, whether liberal or conservative, have always put America first. They have just done so from different perspectives.
What causes despair here is that what follows the kind of concern for controlling wealth and who lives in our neighborhood as well as the rejection of what science says on climate change are not expressed as lamentations and with the blues. If we time warp Buchanan some 50 to 100 years in the future, would we see him showing no dismay at European immigration into the US while grieving over the immigration of people of color of other nations while he shows no concern for America's indigenous people? At this point, has Buchanan lost what the Scriptures teach about the love of wealth and how in Christ there is no Greek or Jew and that all people are made in the image of God? Doesn't Buchanan see that comes with this growing tribalism is an ever growing passionate embrace of moral relativity? And all of this is to be accepted in order for him to cling ever more tightly to what is needed to preserve his idea of America. And if Pat was to make a movie on the above narrative, he would call it Liberalism Must Die.

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

Dec 12

To K.A. Ellis and her blogpost about the need for Christians to transcend the loyalty they have to the groups they belong to in order to be fair in judging others and consistent in promoting causes and values. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.

It would be beneficial to understand what we are being called to transcend here. It is called tribalism. It occurs on a continuum as our loyalty to any group increases. The more that loyalty increases, the more it takes precedence over our commitment to absolute moral values and principles. The end result is that we gradually embrace a moral relativity that says what is right and wrong depends on who does what to whom.

We should also consider whether we are being asked to transcend authoritarianism because tribalism employs a kind of authoritarianism. Tribalism involves group authoritarianism where disagreeing with or even criticizing a group bring the same results as disagreeing with or criticizing a hero or authority figure. Here black-white thinking is involved because any disagreement or criticism is seen as total rejection or an aggressive attack on that person and all of that person's ideas. Thus, a call to transcendence includes a call to use nuance.

If we can see how we must transcend tribalism and authoritarianism, then some of the brilliant lines written by Ellis will make more sense. My favorite line is:

In other words, the seemingly opposed parties of “family values” and “social justice” tend to apply concern only to their defining issues. One would expect the same conservative Christians concerned over the global rise of Marxist views and methods to also speak up against the global rise of Alt-Right extremism, considering the similar historical record of both ideologies. One would expect progressive Christian voices to do the same in reverse.

And though that is my favorite part of the article, I should note that it is a bit unfair to Marxist views since Marxism is far from being a monolith. I say that as someone who has is a Marxist but disagrees with some of what both Marx and some of his followers say. And that makes me wonder if there are any who feel an affinity to the Alt-Right who could say something similar about their group and themselves. For here we should note that the use of labels encourages the use of Black-White thinking.

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

Dec 13

To Kyle Hanby and his blogpost that criticizes the tax breaks that Carrier is receiving to keep jobs in America as cronyism. This appeared in the Acton blog.


There are bigger problem with the Carrier deal than it fitting someone's definition of crony capitalism. Those problems have to do with business's social responsibilities and, in particular, the tax burden. The less businesses pay in taxes, the more the tax burden is shifted to private citizens especially the workers. And the problem here is that those who benefit most from tax funded services are the owners because they are the ones who profit the most from their business. But in reducing what they must taxes, we are either increasing deficits and/or making those who have less in financial resources pay for goods and services that help owners profit from their business.
What is missed in automatically calling subsidies and tax breaks 'cronyism' is determining whether there is favoritism. The above use of the term 'cronyism' is from a "free" enterprise perspective just as much as from Sanders' position, the deal with Carrier is not saving enough jobs or from Ryan's position that it is good to save those jobs. Free Enterprise means freedom from government control and some include with freedom from taxes. But that free enterprise, when compelled under the threat that companies will move their business operations, is free for the enterprise but forced on the public. Such is a form of extortion. And this is the problem with the analysis above. Just as the shifting burden is not included in analyzing the Carrier deal, looking at the effects on the general public of reducing or eliminating business's social responsibilities and public accountability that come through government controls including taxes is not included when talking about free enterprise.

Are there times when subsidies and tax breaks are not instances of cronyism? If such measures primarily serve the general public rather than the private good of selected individuals, yes. What is missed above is the necessity of favoritism in any subsidies or tax breaks that are implemented. In fact, without sufficient government controls over wages, the free enterprise aspect of inadequate minimum wage requirements necessitates the use of tax funded payroll subsidies through government assistance programs. And when this is employed primarily for the private good of owners, we have free enterprise and cronyism working hand-in-hand.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For August 24, 2016

Aug 17

To Bruce Ashford and his blogpost review of Os Guinness’s new book on how Modernity provides the biggest threat to Christianity and Western Civilization. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.

I have respect for Guinness but also feel free to disagree with him. I find that the greatest threat to Christianity is not modernity, in which he includes both modernism and post modernism, itself, it is how we interact with it. For in interacting with modernity, we need to distinguish that from which we can learn from that which we must reject. To deny that we have stuff to learn from Modernity puts us Christians at risk for having the arrogance Martin Luther King Jr. saw in the West during the Vietnam War (see  http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2564.htm  ):

The Western arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not just.

We should remember or learn how Christians treated each other before Modernity. We must know about how Christians persecuted each other, even to the point of death, and how they treated Jews. In addition, Christians weren't all that Christian toward the indigenous people they discovered when enlarging their Western empires. Even with the beginning of our own nation, many Christians persecuted each other and some defended slavery and/or owned slaves as well as participated in the ethnic cleansing of Native Americans. Western Christianity was basically racist and gives evidence of still being that way today. And Modernity has tempered that and has thus has induced some amnesia as evidenced by how we look at the sectarian violence between Muslims today.

Yes, we need to be alert to how Modernity can cause us to compromise our faith. At the same time, we must understand how Modernity has contributed to the Church in tempering the traits that we so easily condemn in others.

Now if I was Guinness, I wouldn't label Modernity as being the biggest threat to Christianity. That is because of the largest threats Christianity faced before Modernity which still exist today. Those threats are the love of wealth and tribalism. Both of these threats cause us Christians to compromise the faith regardless of the time period in which we live. Both the love of wealth and tribalism provide the biggest threat to Christianity because both so strongly challenge our priorities. And by challenging our priorities, they can cause us either to self-destruct or give into external pressure such as the pressures brought to us by Modernity. His apparent concern for both Christianity and Western Civilization indicates that what Guinness seems to be most leery of are changes in the status quo which are not always as much a threat to Christianity as they are to Western Civilization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Aug 18

To Denny Burk and his blogpost citing another article on how our children could be taken away from us over their personal transgender issues. This appeared in Denny Burk’s blog.

I think that the quoted paragraph is an overreaction. There is nothing that indicates the taking away of children over transgender issues. Yes, the medical community supports it, you find examples of that support on the Mayo Clinic website. But such provides and indicator for the public's reaction to those who feel not at home in their gender.

Let's face it, the pendulum has swung so hard in favor of those who hold to biblical values and views of gender that all we are seeing now is a reversal in the swing of that pendulum. And if we are anticipating drastic outcomes from that change in direction, perhaps that is an indicator that we pushed the pendulum too hard and far in our preferred direction.

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

Aug 20

To Pat Buchanan and his blogpost on how America is committing suicide. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

There are a number of points that are wrong with Buchanan's article. To start off with, he gives incomplete tax information. Though the statistics he cites are correct, he neglects to provide data on the income for the groups he is comparing. According to the same table of information he uses to quote the tax burden being paid by the top 1% vs the bottom 50%, the income gap is more telling of the story here. An example can be found here in comparing the adjusted gross income per return for the two groups while noting that the number of returns used do not include dependent filers. The average adjusted gross income for those in the bottom 50% for 2013  was $15,013 while the average adjusted gross income for those in the top 1% is $1,243,406. We should also note that while there were approximately 1.4 million returns from those from the 1% bracket, there were approximately 69.2 million returns for the bottom 50%. Here we should note that 19% of the adjusted gross income went to that approximate 1.4 million people while only around 11% of the adjusted gross income went to the bottom 50%, or approximately 6.92 million, of returns (see http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2015-update for source).

But what isn't mentioned at all by Mr Buchanan was the amount of federal assistance or money spent on polices  that benefited the corporations owned by the top 1%. Yes, Mr. Buchanan has a legitimate concern over the growing Federal debt; we should all share his concern. But what are the main causes for this debt? The statistics cited by Mr. Buchanan does not paint an adequate picture of the problem.

Having discussed that, Mr. Buchanan's expressed concern for the survival of the purity of Western Civilization while seeming to speak negatively of diversity and equality does not paint a flattering picture of his view. His view is one that seems to relish a past that lacked self-awareness. Yes, there is a conflict between a group of Trump supporters who share Mr. Buchanan's concern for the survival of the purity of Western Civilization and the rest of the world. Trump's supporters seem to share at least some of Buchanan's picture that past Civilization, a picture which seems to have been taken from the past and has become a focal point of their identity. But having that as the center of their identity puts them at conflict with changes that come from people trying to escape horrendous situations in their home countries. In other words, Trump's supporters are experiencing a problem that has occurred before. Here, we should speculate on how Buchanan would portray America's past if he was a Native American.

We should also note that like Buchanan's treasured past, his present lacks self-awareness as well. All one needs to do to verify this is to  look at the statistics on nations from which the most illegal immigrants come. With each nation, significant ties to the US can be found. from coups to trade agreements.

Mr. Buchanan's final words are about the eventual death of democracy in every nation. According to what he quotes from john Adams, this death is self-inflicted. Perhaps we could console Mr. Buchanan by telling him that democracy is not alone in terms of dying; all Empires eventually collapse as well.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Aug 23

To Tim Keller, Russell Moore, and Kevin DeYoung and their blogpost discussion on how to speak to our culture about sex. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.

Though Keller's statements on attacking narratives has significant merit and seems to be the best approach, all of it bears a similarity to Mitt Romney's speeches against Donald Trump in trying to reach those rebelling against an established order by supporting Trump. Though what Romney said about Trump was true, he we ineffectual because he didn't acknowledge the failures of his own group as he is a member of the establishment.

Likewise, though much of what was said, in particular what Keller said has merit, there is no acknowledgement  of the attempts by many Christians to do more than just speak about sex; we've tried to control how others have acted sexually and lived with partners. Of course some controls are necessary. But when saying that, many of us have, with animosity, tried to associate those in the LGBT community with those provide real threats to the community.

In speaking to people about sex, I think we Christians must acknowledge our failures in terms of how we have tried to control others and then we can apply what was said in the video.