Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blog For September 9, 2020

Sept 5

To David Deavel and his article that complains about a rush to judgment when Blacks are killed by the police which assumes those killings are murders. And the protests and riots that follow those deaths are examples of sentences passed before a verdict is released. The article seems to have trouble acknowledging that systemic racism exists in our nation and is evidenced by many of these police and other killings. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

The above article doesn't even identify the tip of the systemic racism iceberg that exists in our nation let alone warn us against the systemic racism that lies beneath the surface. And why the denial of systemic racism, as seen in putting the term in quotes, is not clear.

First, George Floyd was murdered by asphyxiation. The levels of fentanyl, especially since he was not in physical distress when apprehended, are irrelevant as they would be if he was shot to death before dying of any fentanyl poisoning. The kneeling on the neck alone for 8 and 1/2 minutes was enough to at least contribute to his death if not kill him by itself.  What Deavel seems to miss out on is not just the number of unjustified police killings of Blacks, some while in being defenseless in their own homes, or the number of Blacks who were pursued by pathological Barney Fife wannabes in trying to apprehend Blacks whom they deem as suspicious, we have racial profiling practiced by the police that adds to the problem. What else adds to the problem is a justice system that  that practices racial disparity in sentences passed on those who are found guilty. Or we could point to the various ways race-based  voter suppression is practiced in some states. Or we could point to past redlining and current gentrification in urban areas  as practiced in some cities. Or we could point to discrimination found in the job market where those with Black sounding names in the job market. Or we get the numerous 911 calls by whites made because they see Blacks doing normal things in what they suppose were white areas.

We who are White have no clue as to how the life experiences that many Blacks have had affect them. We have no way of understanding the rage that many, not all, understandably have. Nor do we recognize our own hypocrisy when talking about the presumption of guilt. How don't we recognize that the numerous ways by which we discriminate against Blacks point to our tendency to pass sentence before reaching a verdict? Another example of a sentence passed prior to a verdict being found is in the above article when it blames the rioting in Minnesota solely on the protesters when some of the destruction of property was done by a White Hells Angels member.

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

Sept 8

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost that condemns political correctness and tries to tie it closes to Marxism-Leninism. This appeared in the Heidelblog.


Besides the fact that Lenin was far more in line with Stalin than with Marx, I have a simple question: Can it be wrong for a white person to call a Black person the N-word? If so, isn't that political correctness at work?

The attempt to condemn political correctness because of some association not only fails, it misses the primary error of political correctness. And when one misses the primary error of political correctness, then one becomes vulnerable to repeating the error they were, in effect, condemning. The primary error of political correctness is not found in the foundational principles on which political correctness are based. Rather, it is in the implementation of political correctness. The primary error of political correctness is found in the all-or-nothing application of political correctness.

Like other attempts to correct long-term social injustices, those who implement political correctness often employ all-or-nothing thinking not just to eliminate current injustices, but to ensure that the social injustices do not reemerge. In essence, the way political correctness is implemented by many is to make it into a phobic reaction. That phobic reaction renders people unable to distinguish the harmless use of certain words from the harmful use of certain words in an effort to prevent all harmful uses of words.

As a result, both those who employ all-or-nothing think when asserting political correctness and those who employ such thinking when rejecting political correctness in its entirety are employing the same kind of faulty thinking. We need to understand why a given idea is unwelcome. If it is unwelcome because it actually contributes to the oppression of others, then why should we Christians welcome that idea and why should we Christians not welcome the efforts of political correctness with regards to that idea? But if a given idea as expressed by supposedly taboo words does not actually lead to oppression, then we can say that political correctness has gone to far rather than saying it is totally wrong.

The key to making political correctness work for everyone's benefit is to be able to make distinctions which serves as the  kryptonite to all-or-nothing thinking.

 

 

 

 

 

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For April 26, 2017

April 24

To Jim Campbell and his blogpost stating that Christians should support the religious freedom of all. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.

The issue here isn't whether Christians should support religious freedom for all, the issue is whether Christians here are supporting religious freedom for all--that is for all whose religion doesn't call on them to steal from or hurt others. And it is clear to see that the opposition to same-sex marriage by many of us religiously conservative Christians indicates that we don't support religious freedom for all.

Another indicator of our opposition to religious freedom for all can be seen in our response to the refugee crisis that stems from the wars in the Middle East. Those who oppose the influx of these refugees because of the either their fear of a possible change in religious demographics in our nation or their religious prejudices and xenophobia do not support the religious freedom of all. Rather, they support a maintenance of a certain demographic status quo.

What should be added to the second paragraph is this: the refugee crisis that has involved Europe and the Americas with allowing refugees and immigrants from the Middle East to enter started with the American invasion of Iraq. A parallelism between that and our problems with illegal immigration from South of the border because many of the illegal immigrants come from nations that saw either US supported regime changes or trade policies. How is it that in the name of maintaining a preferred status quo or demographic edge can we turn away those who come here because of what we have visited on their nations?

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

April 25

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost quote of Stella Morabito in Clark’s assessment of political correctness. This appeared in the Heidelblog.

But not only has freedom of speech been under attack, so have certain groups of people like those belonging to minority races, the LGBT community, and even real political leftists--this does not include the Democrats.

In other words, some use their freedom of speech to marginalize others and deny them of enjoying equality in society.
The real problem with political correctness is like the problem of how society embraces new technologies and social media. The problem is that we embrace these things in an all-or-nothing manner. After all, who objects to political correctness when it prohibits people from using the n-word on Blacks or racial slurs for those from other races? Or how many would object to political correctness when it prohibits people from using slurs on the LGBT community? Only those who engage in the same kind of thinking as those who exponentially increase the number of ways we can hurt the feelings of marginalized groups that don't exist. Regarding political correctness, are our only choices that exist are being either a hardcore bigot or an oversensitive snowflake?

It is only in the extreme applications of political correctness where people are robbed of either their equal rights or their freedom of speech. So perhaps we need to apply more wisdom to political correctness before we experience its real value

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

To Joe Carter and his blogpost on discussing economic equality vs economic fairness. This appeared in the Acton blog.

But what is economic unfairness? And can wealth disparity be indicators of economic unfairness?

As for the first question, is it fair for stockholders to receive preferential treatment over workers? Is it fair to pay at least some of the full-time workers poverty wages and rely on government assistance programs to make those wages survivable in order for stockholders to get higher dividends? And doesn't the concept of treating the stockholders as the only important people make those stockholders very similar to absentee landlords?

Or what about the communities in which manufacturing places or offices are located. They build infrastructure to provide for operation of company workplaces and their workers despite the fact that the location of those workplaces can change in order to increase stockholder dividends?

Or what about the environment and the impact that workplaces have on the environment? What is fair about companies not reducing their environmental impact in order to increase the returns for stockholder? How fair is that for the communities that bear brunt of the environmental impact workplaces have on them?
All this vague talk about economic fairness is only mentioned in the context of economic equality as if that is the only concern economic fairness runs into. There is wealth disparity, which is not the same as economic equality, poverty wages and business's dependence on government assistance, community investments in infrastructure for workplaces which makes communities more dependent on these same workplaces to maintain that infrastructure, and there is the environmental impact that company workplaces have on communities all of which relates directly on economic fairness especially when stockholder interests compete with these concerns.


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

To Joe Carter and his blogpost praising Walmart for helping the poor. This appeared in the Acton blog.

And yet, one word that seems to escape Carter's description of Walmart is the word 'tradeoff.' For example, the choices for shoppers increased with the introduction of a Walmart into a small town as they would with any town. But what about Walmart's choice of vendors for its own products? Do the workers for Walmart's vendors get paid living wages? How many Walmart vendors offshore at least some of their work? And what about Walmart's workers? We should note that its low wage workers cost the public billions of dollars in public assistance (see https://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2014/04/15/report-walmart-workers-cost-taxpayers-6-2-billion-in-public-assistance/#994d091720b7  ). Now the question becomes whether what Walmart paid in taxes fully pays for the pubic assistance that its workers rely on? If not, how is it that Walmart is not cheating the public by paying its low wag workers such low salaries and wages? And what about the mom and pop stores that Walmart drives out of business in more populated areas?

All too often cases are made by filtering the evidence. In this case, the only data looked at to consider Walmart's worth was that which made Walmart look good. However, in the business world, no product or, in this case, company, comes without tradeoffs. So why is it that Carter did not bring up the tradeoffs that occur with the operation of Walmart stores?


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

To Joseph Mussomeli and his blogpost on whether Russia is enemy or a friend. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

This article started strongly. It attempted to balance the polar views of Russia. It also mentioned how Russia is not alone in some of its deeds. But then something went adrift. That something was the defense of America's moral superiority to Russia.

We should note that insisting on the moral superiority of America despite its faults still allows us to adopt the role of the pharisee from Jesus's parable of the two men praying. But it does so with a twist. For while the pharisee from the parable proclaimed his own righteousness in absolute terms, insisting on America's moral superiority to Russia while admitting to having our own flaws is to play the role of the pharisee only in relative terms. "Compared to Russia, we are righteous" is the sentiment expressed here. Such a sentiment allows us to minimize our own faults by sweeping them under the carpet of a bigger sinner than us.

As for Russia, it has a history of changing the facade of its authoritarianism. The Tsars were followed by Lenin and Stalin. And while Gorbachev started to reduce the government's use of authoritarianism, Yeltsin and Putin reestablished that authoritarianism. In the US, we have built our society on the model that comes from the Hunger Games movie series. We have the Capitol being served by the districts. And we prefer to judge our nation by looking at the Capitol only. But that means that for those from the districts to claim any significance, they must do so vicariously by pointing to the Capitol. For example, how many times have conservatives defended the pre-Obamacare healthcare in our nation by pointing out that people from other nations come to America in order to be treated for serious illnesses without mentioning that most of those who come here for that purpose are wealthy? What those same conservatives did not point out were the outcomes for many not so well off Americans or that healthcare costs was the number 1 reason for personal bankruptcy.

We should also note what was not mentioned in the above article was when the US was entertaining the idea of introducing missile defense bases in nations that bordered Russia, several high Russian military officials threatened the introduction of such bases with the use of tactical nuclear weapons. We should note something else that the above article doesn't: that the introduction of our missile defense bases posed a significant threat to Russia's nuclear deterrence.

The point being that there is too much evil on both sides to want to claim who is morally superior. When there is enough evil on both sides, it is imperative for the people on each side to take the evils of their own nation seriously by trying to eliminate them instead of minimizing those evils by pointing fingers at other nations.




 

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For March 4, 2015

Feb 6

To David Robertson and his blogpost reviewing American Sniper The comment has been stuck in the limbo of awaiting moderation. This post appeared in the Wee Flea blog.

I would also add that the model of thought Chris Kyle’s father taught him is not Christian. This strict division of people into sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs denies the sinfulness of everybody and the complexity of people and situations. Finally, this model taught Chris to only see who America was affected by the actions of others and not the other way around.

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

Feb 23

To the comment section debate on the Wee Flea's blogpost about the number of Christians being martyred each year. The debate was between Brent and David Robertson. The later is the writer of the blog. This appeared in the Wee Flea blog.

Brent seemed to be intent on setting a trap and David Robertson kind of fell into it. But Robertson has some valid concerns about Brent and that he doesn't like the number of those killed in the first place. What can be gained here is that Muslim persecution of Christians isn't devastating as how some who use the numbers wish to imply. In addition, we need to be fair, we need to see where Christian supported gov't policies, regardless of the gov't, had persecuted Muslims whether because of the religion itself or because they were caught up in something political.

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

Feb 25

To Denny Burk and his blogpost about consent and 50 shades of grey. This appeared in Denny Burk's blog.

Mutual consent by participating adults is also a legal issue, not just a moral issue. And if we left it at that, we could better share how God's Word applies to the sexual orientations and practices which our cultures accepts. It's when we start legislating, that we've stepped over the line.

BTW, shouldn't we be asking ourselves whether we ourselves are obsessed with sex when we write so much about it but neglect to pay adequate attention many of the important problems in today's world?

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

To Eric's Feb 25 comment attacking me for being like a pharisee from the parable of the two men praying because I have challenged some conservatives and their thinking. His comment appeared with Bradley Birzer's blogpost on ideology and mass murder. This blogpost appeared on the Imaginative Conservative blog

Eric,
First, I've been up front in my above comment about the sins of the French Revolution as well as those of Lenin et. al. Please note that not all Marxists, Socialists, Communists are the same and there is plenty of historical documentation to show that. It is a historical mistake to equate the Soviet Union's Communism with Marx. And note that the key word there is 'equate.'

In addition, I have been up front here in saying I am a sinner who talks to fellow sinners. Now you have a choice. You either can admit that you are a fellow sinner too and thus what you say against me shouldn't discredit what I say anymore than your sinfulness would discredit what you say, or you can claim to be superior to me.

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

To Pat Buchanan and his blogpost criticizing Obama's telling of some of Christianity's dark times in history at the National Prayer Breakfast. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

The anger exhibited here by Buchanan is simply not Christian. It isn't how the apostles reacted when accusation were made against them. And it isn't how Jesus reacted when He faced accusations. And here, we should note Jesus' reaction foremost because He, not His followers, are the ones who make Christianity special. We, His followers, are sinners who must pray for forgiveness on a constant basis. 

Thus, to point our sins doesn't challenge the legitimacy of Christianity and the Gospel. After all, we aren't the ones who lived without sin, died a substitutionary death on the cross, and rose again from the dead. Our sins are the reason why God sent His Son into the world in the first place. That is why Paul said in Romans 3:27 that our boasting is 'excluded' because we are saved by faith in someone else than ourselves.

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

Feb 27

To Joe Carter and his blogpost description of the different kinds of patriotism and love of country one can have. This appeared in the Acton blog.


A few points need to be mentioned. First, I don't think this fully explains the differences in patriotism between people. For example, Pat Buchanan made the same claim about Obama as Guiliana did. Why did he make that claim? It was because Obama does not, according to Buchanan, recognize either our civilization or Christianity as being superior over their counterparts. Carter's projection that Giuliani's patriotism includes a belief in American Exceptionalism shows his own leaning as well as the expectations of what some have in determining the patriotism of others. 

According to Buchanan, proof of Obama's inability to see our superiority was seen in his willingness to list some of Christianity's past sins during the National Prayer Breakfast. And yet, Obama has demonstrated his belief in American Exceptionalism in both his public declarations and his policies. Thus, identifying the differences between the patriotism of people like both Giuliani and Buchanan and that of Obama becomes problematic. People like both Giuliani and Buchanan share old school, common core beliefs in American Exceptionalism, And we should note that belief in this Exceptionalism comes with baggage. That baggage includes a sense of entitlement to privileges which should be denied to others and the embracing of an active form of authoritarianism. The latter says that the exceptional one has the right, and perhaps even the duty,  to exercise control over others. And we should note that Obama has demonstrated both that sense of entitlement and that embracing of authoritarianism--though the latter is done to perhaps a lesser degree than what Giuliani and Buchanan do.

Now Carter makes two mistakes here and the first one revolves around the post-authentic label he uses. For while Obama refused to wear a flag pin after 9-11 because he didn't see it as being an authentic show of patriotism, Carter labels Obama as being post-authentic rather than Obama's perception of wearing the flag pin as being post-authentic. From that label, Carter distinguishes two kinds of patriotism. The authentic kind that relies on past traditions as guides for determining how one should make the necessary changes to the nation. The other, using Jonah Goldberg as a reference, post-authentic patriotism that is, relies on government to change the country because government is better than the people it serves.

In other words, Carter ends up with the age-old conservative view that we are in a battle between progressive big government vs its people--and we should note that, according to some conservatives, adding the word 'progressive' to big government is redundant. Such is an oversimplified view of the relationship between government and its people. And it is so because this authentic or conservative viewpoint assumes that elite rule only emanates the public sector. There is no recognition here of private sector elite rule over the nation. So Carter and Goldberg's view here understandably assumes an alien relationship between government and its people. It is understandable because government is rarely if ever seen as a possible democratic tool of its people. And though in many cases it isn't, it has the real potential to be.

But what is patriotism? Must patriotism include the belief in the superiority and exceptionalism of one's nation? If so, the real question that is begged here is that patriotism is a trait to be desired and honored. What else is left unsaid is what American traditions should be used as guides for the future. This is an important point because not all have experienced America in the same way.

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

To Joe Carter and his blogpost suggestion on how churches can help prevent people from being victims of predatory loans. This appeared on the Acton blog.

Yes, it's a great ministry and the idea is worthy of being practiced by other churches. But one question that arises is, with all of the other demands made on Churches and with all of the people in such need, can church created credit unions help enough people? But an even larger question looms here. Why can't the Church also demand that the Government steps in to alleviate the exploitation? For though churches can help, unlike government they are not the representatives of the people. So it seems that the people's should be representatives should also be involved.

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

March 1

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost about how a college could lose its accreditation and thus access to federal loans for student because of these college's biblical on homosexuality. This appeared in the Heidelblog.

The issue here isn't about our religious freedoms or our view of a particular set of sins. The issue here is whether a college that is receiving federal aid is potentially participating in the marginalization of a rightfully protected group of citizens. So perhaps the problem isn't the college's opposition to homosexuality per se. Perhaps the real problem is that the college has made an inadequate statement about homosexuality in that it doesn't distinguish how it believes homosexuality should be regarded personally from a Christian perspective from how it believes homosexuals should be viewed by society.

This is where the past context provided by many conservative Christians has produced a pendulum swing resulting in an oversensitivity about and overprotectiveness for homosexuals.

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

There was a March 3 comment to a post on the Imaginative Conservative that has now been posted. So the comment that was below is now deleted here. You can see the comment at the link below:

http://www.theimaginativeconservative.org/2015/03/progressively-redefining-human-nature.html

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For February 25, 2015

As usual, remember that these comments will contain more grammatical errors than the regular blogposts do.  Sorry about that.


Feb 20

I attempted to post the comment below on the Imaginative Conservative blog. Comments might have been closed at the time of my attempt to post the comment below. We should note that there are blogposts on the Imaginative Conservative blog site which were published earlier than the blogpost responded to here which do not have their comments closed. 

But we should also note that in another discussion attached to a blogpost on the Imaginative Conservative blog site, my response to the blogpost was posted. And this is despite the fact that the author of the blogpost was very upset with my views. So the omission of the comment below is a rare exception to the practices and policies followed by the Imaginative Conservative blog in its publishing of opposing viewpoints.

To Eric and his comment describing all Socialists as wanting to consolidate all power to themselves. This comment followed Joseph Pearce's blogpost on how the Great Britain has been corrupted by false gods and atheists. This appeared on the Imaginative Conservative blog.


Eric,
Again, in a desire to portray socialists as a monolithic group, you are showing a lack of awareness of what socialists have debated about since the Lenin hijacked the Russian Revolution. To help provide some additional information that might challenge that monolithic group some are tempted to give into, I provided the links below:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_jRd59qy0A

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsC0q3CO6lM

https://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1918/russian-revolution/ch08.htm

Below is a quote from the last link. The writer is a socialist contemporary of Lenin:

Lenin and Trotsky, on the other hand, decide in favor of dictatorship in contradistinction to democracy, and thereby, in favor of the dictatorship of a handful of persons, that is, in favor of dictatorship on the bourgeois model. 

and 

But socialist democracy is not something which begins only in the promised land after the foundations of socialist economy are created; it does not come as some sort of Christmas present for the worthy people who, in the interim, have loyally supported a handful of socialist dictators. Socialist democracy begins simultaneously with the beginnings of the destruction of class rule and of the construction of socialism. It begins at the very moment of the seizure of power by the socialist party. It is the same thing as the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Yes, dictatorship! But this dictatorship consists in the manner of applying democracy, not in its elimination, but in energetic, resolute attacks upon the well-entrenched rights and economic relationships of bourgeois society, without which a socialist transformation cannot be accomplished. But this dictatorship must be the work of the class and not of a little leading minority in the name of the class – that is, it must proceed step by step out of the active participation of the masses; it must be under their direct influence, subjected to the control of complete public activity; it must arise out of the growing political training of the mass of the people.

So the question is in criticizing the regimes like that of the Soviet Union, Red China, and so on, are you criticizing socialism or are you criticizing those who deviated from Socialism but kept the name.

As for my own view, I have a substantial amount of agreement with Luxemburg. But I disagree with her criticisms of Kautsky. That is because Kautsky didn't make socialism his goal, he made it the preferred means in eliminating oppression. At this point Luxemburg was too ideologically tribal to see Kautsky's point.

BTW, after he hijacked the Russian Revolution, Lenin criticized those Russians on the Left who opposed his consolidation of power.

Finally, counterexamples to your description of socialism can be found in the Spanish Revolution and the Paris Communes. Though not perfect, their methodology followed the practice of Socialism to a significant degree as opposed to the Lenin's Soviet Union or Mau's Red China neither of whom followed socialism.  BTW, to show that Socialism is not a monolith, there is debate between socialists regarding these issues. Some Socialists do follow Lenin. Some even follow Stalin. But many others do not. So your contention regarding how all socialists behave is neither historically nor theoretically true. And, btw, I am a Christian Fundamentalist and a Socialist. And there are other Christians who are Socialists as well. And many of my fellow Socialists accept me with my faith. In fact, Marx himself never advocated the elimination of religion unlike contemporaries like Bruno Bauer. For Marx, the abolishing of religion was really the abolition of the state from religious control.

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

Feb 21

To R. Scott and his blogpost quote comparing political correctness with communist propaganda and declaring that its purpose is to 'humiliate' its opponents. This appeared in the Heidelblog.


There are some problems with what Theodore Dalrymple said in the article quoted from. For example, he described his father as a communist who read people like Plekhanov, Maurice Hindus, and Edgar Snow. At the same time, he reported that his father personally acted like Stalin. But with the people he listed as those who influenced his father, only one of them, Plekhanov, was listed in the www.marxists.org website list of Marxists. And, btw, Plekhanov was opposed to dictators because the workers' interests could not be served by them The two others he listed were reporters who covered different communist areas but were hardly communists that I know of by reading. During WW II, Snow defended allied regimes that were not democratic because of the urgency demanded by the war.

So the question becomes, why is political correctness 'communist propaganda writ small'? Remember that political correctness came into being in order to protect those who were marginalized. And racial slurs were among the first terms deemed politically incorrect. Is that what Dalrymple is protesting? Or is he using these terms pejoratively? And he could do the latter by using these terms to refer exclusively to the extremes and abuses practiced in each group.

Finally, by categorically referring to political correctness and communism the way he does, is Dalrymple practicing what he is condemning? Is he making such a blanket statement about political correctness and associating it with communism in an attempt to 'humiliate' those who align themselves with either political correctness or communism? Whatever the reasons for his statements, he and westerners who agree with him are practicing the same kind of tribalism which he would condemn if it was practiced by any communists. In addition, isn't censoring opinions a way of silencing dissent?

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

To Linda Kimball's comment quoting Solzhenitsyyn on Communism and Marx and Lenin's view of God. This was part of the Heidelblog's post on political correctness.

We need to distinguish between the Soviet Union and Marxism. Marx himself was apathetic toward religion. While discussing it with Bruno Bauer, it was Bauer, not Marx, who advocated the eradication of religion. Marx was fine with it existing, he just wanted to see the abolition of the state from religion's control. You can read Marx's view in the link below:

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/jewish-question/

BTW, this isn't the only point of departure between Marx and the Soviet Union. See the following video links:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_jRd59qy0A

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsC0q3CO6lM

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

Feb 24


To Elise Hilton and her blogpost on how we need both economic freedom and other abilities and values to help a society flourish. This appeared on the Acton blog.

Let's remember what economic freedom has become. It has become code for freeing businesses from what society deems as their social responsibilities. Thus, when there is a problem regarding economic freedom, it could be on society's side of demanding too much or demanding the wrong thing. But the problem could also be on the business side of not meeting its legitimate social responsibilities. And when the problem is the latter, then economic freedom translates into privileged status for business elites as they are either harming society by their practices or they are getting a free lunch at society's expense.


A concrete example of such privileged status for some businesses can be found in how some companies use government assistance programs to subsidize their payrolls. Some banks do this as well as some big retail chains. And what happens is that these businesses pay poverty wages that require employees to apply for government programs for help with food assistance, medical care, and so on. Here, we should also check if these same companies are doing what they can to pay the least amount in federal taxes. All of this is being done to maximize profits for the business owners whether the owners are families or shareholders.

The stress which some place on economic freedom is really an argument against democracy and society's right to determine how its members will live with each other. Of course there is the other side of the coin. Societies can make such great demands on businesses that businesses can't survive. But considering that it is those who can afford enough lobbyists who currently have the ear of our government, any overreach from government is not coming from society as a whole, but from those with the most lobbyists.

So here, we might want to review whether the same culture that puts so much stress on economic freedom will also result in volunteerism and generosity, positive creativity, and values or does the current stress on economic freedom work against these other would be cultural assets. For here, if business does not fulfill its legitimate social responsibilities, then these other assets are part of the free lunch business is enjoying at society's expense.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For December 24, 2014

Dec 17

To Lindsey Carlson and her blogpost about the pitfalls of Christmas for parents. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website

Perhaps the most insidious hijacking of Christmas exercised by the world is not the one that replaces Gospel with the world's materialism in the celebration of Christmas, it is the one that tries to create a synthesis between the two. And all one has to do to see the corrupting power of this synthesis is to determine which would upset our loved ones the most. Would it upset them more to go through Christmas without worshipping God or would it be more bothered by going without the giving and receiving of gifts?

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

To Jeff Robinson and his blogpost on the discussion/debate amongst some Christian evangelicals about racism. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.

If we go back to Martin Luther King Jr. on racism, we will find a perspective that is no longer used today. According to King, the evils of racism, materialism, and militarism are inextricably linked. And that means that we cannot subdue just one of these evils. Rather, we have address all three if we hope to make a dent into any of them. So if preachers were to follow Piper's charge to address social issues, the issues they will also have to address include materialism and the economic system on which it depends as well as militarism and American Imperialism as well as government spending that goes to the military industrial complex.

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

Dec 20

To R. Scott Clark and his short blog quote criticizing Political Correctness. This appeared in Heidelblog.

Didn't PC come in response to prejudice? And if that is so in at least in some cases, to condemn PC without condemning the prejudice it is responding too results in maintaining the polarization that already existed.

Furthermore, isn't condemning PC efforts itself an imitation of PC and thus doing what PC is being accused of here?

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

Dec 21

To Bruce Edward Walker and his blogpost on how Fossil Fuels are the solution for poverty. This appeared in the Acton blog.

Unfortunately, the arguments supporting the continued level of use of fossil fuels assume two things: that the current level of use does not threaten the our future; and that the current economic system in which we live has no structural flaws. That our current level of fossil fuel use does significant harm to the environment is beyond dispute. One only needs to check objective data such as the environmental problems suffered in places like China or the rising level of CO2 in the atmosphere along with the rising level of CO2 in the oceans to see how our future is becoming ominous.

At the same time, we have an economic system that revolves around the love of money and the denial of all else. That love of money system might be lifting more people out of poverty but more statistics are needed before claiming that such a system is not causing more harm than good. This is especially true as wealth around the world is consolidating and authoritarianism is on the rise, especially in the West. In addition, while more people are being lifted out of a bare standard of poverty, many people are beginning to approach that level of poverty as well. What is most important here is not a snapshot of where we are, but having the ability to see where we are going. And where we are going with the current system is the continued valuing of money over people and the consolidation of wealth and power.

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

May 17

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


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

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

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

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

May 18

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Beware of Geeks bearing gifts

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

May 19


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


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

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

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

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

May 20


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


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

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