Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For May 28,2014

May 21

To Joseph Sunde and his blogpost on Decentralization of State authority. In  his blogpost, he cited Burke's analysis of the French Revolution and Kuyper's favoring of limited state authority. This appeared in the Acton blog.


Though I don't have Burke's book on the French Revolution and so I might be more easily mistaken in what I am writing here, it is always disturbing to hear people easily compare the American and French Revolutions in a self-flattering way as well so easily put down the centralization of government without questioning the centralization of wealth and power.

A comparison of the participants in the two revolutions should give reason for pause in comparing the two revolutions. One was a revolution against a local government while the other was against a remote one. And though both dealt with a lack of representation, the French Revolution saw pitting of the Church and Aristocracy vs the rest--or those with great wealth vs those with some to no wealth--while the other revolution was at least predominantly led by the local aristocracy because of actions taken by a remote government against it. Our Constitution was written in response to the discontent and even rebellion against the local aristocracy and was a move to centralize authority compared to what was. And finally, we need to compare the aristocracies of the two nations involved. Both had wealth but the French aristocracy was based on birthright while the other was based on economic class first and birth second--note that Madison's wealth was all inherited including his slaves. And our Constitution was written to preserve the place of the local aristocracy. In addition, because of today's situation, we should note that before the French Revolution, financial reforms were enacted that continued to shift the tax burden from the aristocracy to the 3rd estate.

We should also include that the post revolutionary history of our nation was equally bloody to that of the French Revolution if one includes the blood of those for whom our revolution was not intended to benefit: America's indigenous people and Blacks. And see, that is the problem when people compare the two revolutions. We compare the benefits vs costs of the two revolutions by only comparing what happens to those from our own group while the suffering of those outside of our group becomes invisible--much like the suffering of the third estate had become invisible to the Church and aristocracy in France before its revolution.

Finally, if you are going to limit centralized power, you must limit the consolidation of wealth. That is because power always follows wealth and so if you have controls on wealth, you have controls on power. And for those who want to claim the converse, realize that there is a difference between power and authority. Power is used predominantly by those with wealth to preserve and enhance their status and this can be done with or without a centralized authority. Centralized authority has its place and should fluid depending on the needs of all of the people but this should be under one condition. That condition is that the people have control over the centralized authority. And so far, the problem we have in this country is that we are such followers of our own economic aristocracy in hopes of either joining them or riding in on their coattails that we have abdicated our position by relegating democracy to just voting and limit that voting to one of two parties--such a system allows for a consolidation of power.

One more point needs to be made about the French Revolution and we could make this by comparing it with the Civil Rights movement in this country which was a revolution in its own way. The key problem with the French Revolution was that it came under the immediate control of elites who inspired the participants to externalize evil. And in the externalization of evil, they sought to conquer and remove those who were perceived as not being one of them. When we compare that with the Civil Rights movement here, the movement here sought to win over rather than conquer those who were oppressing others out of fear that one could become like one's enemy. In addition, while one was waiting to win them over, democratic controls were sought to stop the oppression.

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



May 27

To Ray Nothstine and his Memorial Day blogpost. This appeared on the Acton blog. 


I remember the first Army-Navy game I attended came after a traumatic event for the nation-- the assassination of President Kennedy. The game was played to show the nation that it could move on as Navy under Roger Staubach edged Army led by Rollie Stichwey. The game provided a small therapeutic exercise for the nation and the players of both teams greeted each other as brothers because many of them knew that their next stop would be in Vietnam.

And yet, why should military leaders who have had those under them become fallen warriors be the only ones who lament the loss of those they commanded? True, the President sends our troops into action but we can partially control him by how loud and often we voice our opinions. But to voice our opinions, we first need to be educated to see if the President is sending troops in harm's way to defend freedom or for less honorable reasons. The sensitivity of the commander who forever lives with the losses of those under him should be the sensitivity we should all have as we think about all, including civilian and combatants, who were killed or maimed in the wars and interventions that took place under our democratic watch. 

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

To Elise Hilton and her blogpost about the Pope and capitalism and free markets. This appeared in the Acton blog.


I don't see any problem with what the Pope has said about our current form of capitalism. But I do have a problem with those who oversimplify what has lifted people out of poverty. One of the biggest gains has been found in China and China does not have a free market. Another country where the biggest gains have been seen is India, a country that has a free market but there are serious free market problems there. Farmer suicides because of high debt is a significant problem in India and so is suicide among young people who are joining the work force.

Here, we have plenty of food but there is a question about the contamination of that food with pesticides and GMOs. In addition, laws have been passed that protect biotech corporations from legal liability. We have revolving door policy between biotech corporations and the FDA. And food corporations are fighting legislation that would inform customers of the presence of GMO ingredients.

In addition, in order to spread the free market, we have seriously damaged or killed the capability of some countries to produce their own food. Such vulnerabilities make countries susceptible to food shortages when fuel prices spike and it destroys their own sovereignty. In addition, free markets are killing wages and jobs here in America while opening up sweatshops overseas.

So I don't think overlysimplistic statements about the benefits of the free market are either appropriate or intelligent. Rather, they are disingenuous and manipulative.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For May 7, 2014

My apologies go to the Imaginative Conservative Blog for listing some of my comments posted to their blog as being blocked when they were not. This has occurred from the beginning of this series of blogposts. This was an honest mistake on my part stemming from changes they made in how they showed  whether a comment was to being considered. At the same time, it is my fault because the mistake was due to a lack of thoroughness on my part. Each post that was listed as blocked but was not now has a note immediately below it. Again, my apologies to the Imaginative Conservative Blog for my carelessness. 

May 1

To Matt Smethhurst and his blogpost on the importance of knowing the councils and the heresies. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition blog. 




This post is a good start in telling us what to study in church history, but there is another side of the coin which must be considered here. Being a christian is not just a matter of having right beliefs, it is also a matter of having right actions. Though in a different way than heretical beliefs, our false works can show our faith to either be false or to bring discredit to God. And we don't have to travel far in Peabody's Way-Back Machine or travel around the globe to see such examples.

Back in Civil War times, we had Christians who defended, in more ways than one, slavery. I've talked to Conservative Christians in today's world who defend business's use of sweatshop labor. We should note how American Christians of the past not only defended but took part in the ethnic cleansing of America's indigenous people. And we have American Christians who give automatic support to America's interventions and network of military bases. We should also be aware of how the Puritans once persecuted and even martyred Quakers. We need to ask ho are today's targets of Church intolerance.

Of course once we start our time and location travels, we should note the religious wars in Europe, the burning heretics and witches at the stake in Geneva, centuries of European anti-Semitism, European colonization of other countries which included the preaching of the Gospel by colonizers and oppressors.

I know that orthodoxy and heresy are important subjects to study. But we can't be content with them so as ignore orthopraxy and past abusive behaviors practiced by the Church. We could find that a more complete study of Church history better equips us to be faithful to spread the Gospel better than a partial history.


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

May 5

To Ray Nothstine and his blogpost about an interview with Russell Moore on religious liberty. This appeared in the Acton blog.


There is a problem with Moore's interview. That problem is though he recognizes the dangers of secularizing culture armed with state power and the power of the state to say to Christians that they must bake cakes for same-sex weddings, he seems completely unaware of religious cultures armed with state power and the power of the state to deny same-sex marriages. In other words, it's not the power of the state that is the issue, it is who is in control of culture. Take the issue of same-sex marriage as an example. While Moore complains about a strong state dictating that Christians must go against their religious convictions by providing services to same-sex marriages or paying for contraceptives in Obamacare, he seems to have no qualms over a state that is strong enough to deny same-sex couples the right to be married because such marriages are wrong according to Christianity. 

For as long as Christians seek a privileged status for Christianity in society, it will show itself to be an enemy of democracy. That is because in a democracy, rule belongs to everybody. But when a group has a privileged status, rule belongs to some. And that is what our culture war is about. For it seems that the secularization of culture equals the loss of the privileged status for Christianity and thus, according to many of my fellow Christians, the loss of religious liberty. And the more we protest this loss, the more we discredit our faith for at least being so very disingenuous. 

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

To Joe Carter and his blogpost calling Seattle's raising of the minimum wage foolish. This appeared in the Acton Blog


Let's see how many of those predictions come true and then look at why afterwards. For, will raising the minimum wage be found to be harmful simply because it was raised too much or too little?

But in the meantime, let's look at some current, tolerated foolishness. For example, it's foolish to only pay attention to unemployment numbers while ignoring how many of those employed are working for poverty wages. And it  foolish it is to allow many corporations to pay workers poverty wages and depend on gov't assistance to subsidize their payrolls while doing all they can to avoid paying taxes.

I find it odd that only the employment rate is being looked at by those who oppose raising the minimum wage or the minimum wage itself. Well, maybe not odd. The lack of concern with keeping the minimum wage current with the cost of living does show one's loyalties.