The comment below was published because it was awaiting moderation. It wass listed here because of the length of time in which it has been awaiting moderation. This comment has now been published.
Aug 11
To David Robertson and his blogpost podcast covering a number of issues such as Turkey, prostitution, and immigration. This appeared in Theweeflea blog.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aug 17
To R. Scott Clark and his short blogpost quote lamenting how court decisions requiring businesses to provide goods and services to bi-sexual party is the end of religious liberty. This appeared in Heidelblog.
How is it that preventing discrimination proves that the sky of religious liberties is falling? The same court principles that dismantled Jim Crow, which some used religious beliefs and the Bible to defend, are being applied to protect the those from the LGBT community from being discriminated against and marginalized.
For those who see these court decisions as a blow to religious liberties, let me ask the following question: Are you still free to attend the church of your choice and to use your religion to publicly protest these court decisions? If so, why complain that those from the LGBT community are now free to pay for goods and services from any business they choose to patronize?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aug 18
To Marc Vander Maas and his blogpost consisting of a podcast interview of Samuel Gregg on economic liberty. This appeared on the Acton blog.
The logic used to so pair economic and religious liberties is rather manipulative. To cite China first tries to prove the association by example and fails to consider what other variables could be involved, besides economic freedom, in the increase in religious interest there. One might consider another example where the market is much freer than that in China and see where religious interest is decreasing. This is occurring in America. And the reduction in religious interest also has been waning more in other free market societies such as in European countries. So if the correlation between economic freedom and religious interest seems to be inconsistent, how can a follow up to correlation, that is a cause and effect relationship, be established?
Describing the conversation as being manipulative can also be said of the distinction made between self-interest and selfishness, the relationship between work/risk and rewards, and envy. For example, selfishness was defined as being irrational in overemphasizing the importance of a desired object while self interest is rational. But isn't the importance of an object relative according to the person desiring it? More importantly, though, isn't selfishness related to self-interest so that rather than associating selfishness with an object, we should measure in terms of the degree self interest plays in determining our priorities and making decisions?
Likewise, note the association made between those who work the hardest or take the biggest risk with who deserves the most wealth. Currently in our economy, wages have either stagnated or decreased per the skill level of many jobs. In addition, wages can be, and have been, reduced simply by increasing the supply of labor and those who control that are those with wealth. But note how work and risk are put on the same level. Those making the most money are not necessarily those who have risked it all by starting up their own business, but it is made by those who risk what they have by playing stock market. And one of the ways to increase the reward shareholders receive from their stock holdings in a publicly owned company is to freeze or decrease the wages that many of the workers of that company make, And please note that the only time a publicly owned company receives money from the sale of stocks is from the sale of originally issued stocks.
Finally, envy is tied with the desire to redistribute wealth. But here, the redistribution of wealth has a similar role as the revision of history. Its fairness depends on the accuracy used in the beginning. It is not wrong to revise history when the original version was slanted. Likewise, redistributing wealth is fair when the original distribution of wealth was unfair. And whether the original distribution of wealth was unfair depends on how fairly the role of each person involved is valued and on how well were the interdependencies factored into the original distribution of wealth. Interdependencies include factors outside the company that contribute to its wealth. Physical and social infrastructures contribute to the wealth of companies. So does the quality of the society in which a company exists. And the question becomes whether the original distribution of wealth is fairly paying for the support it has received from the outside.
Those who assume that the original distribution of wealth was fair seem to be the ones who claim envy is behind the call for the redistribution of wealth. Rarely to the same people admit that the hoarding of wealth by the wealthy can be fueled by envy or related vices as well. And usually it is the same group that values risk over work and believes that labor depends more on capital than capital depends on labor. And here we should note the work of Thomas Piketty who has observed that more and more wealth is being inherited than earned.
Other points could be addressed, but it is enough to stop here. We should note that the more economic liberty is paired with religious liberty, the more likely that the association is because it is mamon that is being worshiped and served rather than God.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Joe Carter and his blogpost lamenting the percentage of people who would elect a socialist as President. This appeared in the Acton Blog.
Aren't we being a little selective when we only accuse those who have less of being envious? Isn't it possible that some who have hoarded wealth have done so out of envy of their peers? And what is wrong with the redistribution of wealth if the original distribution was unfair? Also, are people like Sanders objecting to the lack of income equality or to the degree of income and wealth disparity?
Finally, before putting electing a Socialist in such a bad light, wouldn't it be more informative to educate readers on the different kinds of socialist approaches and on one of the basic tenets of Socialism: workers' control of production.
www.flamingfundamentalist.blogspot.com
(Only one person pictured is a Christian Fundamentalist. And so which one pictured is not like the others)
Showing posts with label Religious Liberties. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Religious Liberties. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 19, 2015
Wednesday, July 1, 2015
Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For July 1, 2015
Since access to the comments on this particular post seems not to be working, there is a possibility that the comment below was not blocked.
June 23
To Christopher Yuan and his blogpost on how to discuss gay marriage. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.
If there is no room for civil disagreement on homosexuality, could part of that be because of religiously conservative Christians who have sought legislation to either prohibit same-sex marriage or allow for Jim Crow type discrimination against those in the LGBT community? Perhaps some from that community should be interviewed here to see the varying reasons for why there is less room for civil disagreement.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 24
To R. Scott Clark and his short blogpost quote talking about the rights of those individuals and businesses that wish to practice business according to their own views of marriage? This occurred in Heidelblog.
But are the people who are "standing up" for marriage infringing on the rights of others? In particular, are they infringing on the rights of those who wish to engage in same-sex marriage?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost quote claiming that Francis does not understand the Gospel by how he speaks about the poor. This appeared in Heidelblog.
If the love of money is sin and preaching repentance from sin is part of preaching the Gospel, then perhaps those who exclude talking about poverty are the ones who do not understand the Gospel. For what does Jesus say at the beginning of his ministry? He read from Isaiah 61.
Though Francis is not correct in everything he says, he is addressing points which Protestants who fail to preach to those with wealth and power should be addressing. So perhaps Conservative Protestants who claim that Francis does not understand the Gospel should consider whether they are playing the role of the pharisee in the parable of the two men praying.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 26
To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost quote about how our nation's founders believed in the principles of the Magna Carta. This appeared in Heidelblog.
But the liberties that the colonists lavished on themselves were shared with neither America's Indigenous people nor slaves. In fact, what liberties one enjoyed depended on economic class, race, and religion. At this point we need to realize that liberties - equality = privilege. And that is what most of our founders believed in: privilege.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Dominic Bouck and his blogpost on the end of democracy. This appeared in First Things.
Just as propaganda is defined by who is saying what, the presence of judialocracy is determined by one's disagreement with Court decisions. If we want to know what is destroying democracy, we will soon discover that it is the money spent on the executive and legislative branches that provides the biggest threat to our democracy.
Of course, another threat to our democracy is wearing rose-colored glasses to view our past. In reality, The Constitution was written in response to dissent and rebellion against the practices and policies of America's own elites--this stands in contrast to the Declaration of Independence which was written in response to the practices and policies of British elites. And the jest of The Constitution, when one reads about the historical context in which it was written and documents of that time, is easily understood as a protection of the status quo against which people were protesting. Here we should note that the Bill of Rights was not included in the original version of The Constitution. In fact, because of The Constitution, only 5% of the people were eligible to vote immediately after it became law. If we include the contents of The Constitutional debates with our understanding of The Constitution, we will discover that some key founding fathers opposed democracy and even the voting rights of all people.
When we finally add to the above the fact that The Constitution did not show kindness to people of color, we find that the founding of our nation well less based on law than we would care to admit.
It's the Supreme Court's job to analyze our legislation to determine if it violates The Constitution. That is a part of the structure of our gov't. And it poorly reflects on us when our opposition to the role played by the Supreme Court depends solely on our disagreement with its decisions.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 28
To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost quoting Justice Thomas on religious liberty in the light of the Supreme Court's decision on same-sex marriage. This appeared in Heidelblog.
What is it that is being protested here? The right of those who disagree with the Biblical definition of marriage so that they can engage in same-sex marriage. So when will we discuss the religious liberties of those who disagree with us on same-sex marriage? Or are we the only ones with religious freedom?
BTW, where was Justice Thomas' reference to due process and the Magna Carta when Obama signed the 2012 NDAA. In that law, American citizens can be arrested without due process at the discretion of the President. This provision of that law was written as part of the war on terror.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 30
To Bruce Edward Walker and his blogpost about Biblical principles of environmental stewardship. This appeared in the Acton blog.
There are problems here. As in many Conservative Christian approaches to subjects, we've sometimes defined reality before facing it. And thus the facts on the ground challenge our definitions. As a result, sometimes the unbeliever is quicker at recognizing the discrepancies between what exists and our definitions.
For example, has, in Acton's Environmental Stewardship study explicitly stated specific problems that human activities have had on the environment. Has this study talked about the increasing number of dead zones in the ocean due to the ocean's absorption of CO and chemical runoffs from the fertilization and other treatment of farmlands? Has Acton's study included the environmental destruction and increased health risks seen in the Appalachians from the Mountaintop removal of coal? Has Acton's study included the environmental hazards faced by local residents from the extraction of fossil fuels in Nigeria or the environmental problems that have come with fracking in the U.S.?
What have Acton's studies say about the consumption of fossil fuels and the growing environmental problems caused by such for both the present and the future?
By accusing the Constitution of vying for limited government power, is Acton aware of the context and purpose of The Constitution in that it was written to strengthen the federal government so that it could better respond to dissent and rebellions such what took place in Shays Rebellion? Is the Acton Institute aware of the following statement by Madison about the purpose of government?
They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority.
We should note that part of what preceded this statement was an expressed fear of Madison about the possibility of voting being opened to all classes of people in England. Following Madison's convictions here means that only certain elites should have the right to vote.
And, btw, how much of Israel's OT government should we use as a model for our government here when Israel's government was a theocracy constructed for what was for the most part a homogeneous population? And was the gov't of OT Israel as limited as the Acton Institute stated?
And what about democracy and the rule of the people? Such a structure seems to be out of sync with either Israel's OT government--even in the Deuteronomy passages cited and were falsely claimed to support the electing of rulers-- or what was described in the NT?
And what if certain sectors of the private sector keep growing, shouldn't government also grow so that it could keep all from the private sector accountable?
It seems that here, the references to the Scriptures, The Constitution, and limited government are there for appearances and are to be self-congratulatory. This is especially true when we are facing serious problems with the environment and the consolidation of wealth and power seen in the private sector.
June 23
To Christopher Yuan and his blogpost on how to discuss gay marriage. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.
If there is no room for civil disagreement on homosexuality, could part of that be because of religiously conservative Christians who have sought legislation to either prohibit same-sex marriage or allow for Jim Crow type discrimination against those in the LGBT community? Perhaps some from that community should be interviewed here to see the varying reasons for why there is less room for civil disagreement.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 24
To R. Scott Clark and his short blogpost quote talking about the rights of those individuals and businesses that wish to practice business according to their own views of marriage? This occurred in Heidelblog.
But are the people who are "standing up" for marriage infringing on the rights of others? In particular, are they infringing on the rights of those who wish to engage in same-sex marriage?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost quote claiming that Francis does not understand the Gospel by how he speaks about the poor. This appeared in Heidelblog.
If the love of money is sin and preaching repentance from sin is part of preaching the Gospel, then perhaps those who exclude talking about poverty are the ones who do not understand the Gospel. For what does Jesus say at the beginning of his ministry? He read from Isaiah 61.
Though Francis is not correct in everything he says, he is addressing points which Protestants who fail to preach to those with wealth and power should be addressing. So perhaps Conservative Protestants who claim that Francis does not understand the Gospel should consider whether they are playing the role of the pharisee in the parable of the two men praying.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 26
To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost quote about how our nation's founders believed in the principles of the Magna Carta. This appeared in Heidelblog.
But the liberties that the colonists lavished on themselves were shared with neither America's Indigenous people nor slaves. In fact, what liberties one enjoyed depended on economic class, race, and religion. At this point we need to realize that liberties - equality = privilege. And that is what most of our founders believed in: privilege.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Dominic Bouck and his blogpost on the end of democracy. This appeared in First Things.
Just as propaganda is defined by who is saying what, the presence of judialocracy is determined by one's disagreement with Court decisions. If we want to know what is destroying democracy, we will soon discover that it is the money spent on the executive and legislative branches that provides the biggest threat to our democracy.
Of course, another threat to our democracy is wearing rose-colored glasses to view our past. In reality, The Constitution was written in response to dissent and rebellion against the practices and policies of America's own elites--this stands in contrast to the Declaration of Independence which was written in response to the practices and policies of British elites. And the jest of The Constitution, when one reads about the historical context in which it was written and documents of that time, is easily understood as a protection of the status quo against which people were protesting. Here we should note that the Bill of Rights was not included in the original version of The Constitution. In fact, because of The Constitution, only 5% of the people were eligible to vote immediately after it became law. If we include the contents of The Constitutional debates with our understanding of The Constitution, we will discover that some key founding fathers opposed democracy and even the voting rights of all people.
When we finally add to the above the fact that The Constitution did not show kindness to people of color, we find that the founding of our nation well less based on law than we would care to admit.
It's the Supreme Court's job to analyze our legislation to determine if it violates The Constitution. That is a part of the structure of our gov't. And it poorly reflects on us when our opposition to the role played by the Supreme Court depends solely on our disagreement with its decisions.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 28
To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost quoting Justice Thomas on religious liberty in the light of the Supreme Court's decision on same-sex marriage. This appeared in Heidelblog.
What is it that is being protested here? The right of those who disagree with the Biblical definition of marriage so that they can engage in same-sex marriage. So when will we discuss the religious liberties of those who disagree with us on same-sex marriage? Or are we the only ones with religious freedom?
BTW, where was Justice Thomas' reference to due process and the Magna Carta when Obama signed the 2012 NDAA. In that law, American citizens can be arrested without due process at the discretion of the President. This provision of that law was written as part of the war on terror.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 30
To Bruce Edward Walker and his blogpost about Biblical principles of environmental stewardship. This appeared in the Acton blog.
There are problems here. As in many Conservative Christian approaches to subjects, we've sometimes defined reality before facing it. And thus the facts on the ground challenge our definitions. As a result, sometimes the unbeliever is quicker at recognizing the discrepancies between what exists and our definitions.
For example, has, in Acton's Environmental Stewardship study explicitly stated specific problems that human activities have had on the environment. Has this study talked about the increasing number of dead zones in the ocean due to the ocean's absorption of CO and chemical runoffs from the fertilization and other treatment of farmlands? Has Acton's study included the environmental destruction and increased health risks seen in the Appalachians from the Mountaintop removal of coal? Has Acton's study included the environmental hazards faced by local residents from the extraction of fossil fuels in Nigeria or the environmental problems that have come with fracking in the U.S.?
What have Acton's studies say about the consumption of fossil fuels and the growing environmental problems caused by such for both the present and the future?
By accusing the Constitution of vying for limited government power, is Acton aware of the context and purpose of The Constitution in that it was written to strengthen the federal government so that it could better respond to dissent and rebellions such what took place in Shays Rebellion? Is the Acton Institute aware of the following statement by Madison about the purpose of government?
They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority.
We should note that part of what preceded this statement was an expressed fear of Madison about the possibility of voting being opened to all classes of people in England. Following Madison's convictions here means that only certain elites should have the right to vote.
And, btw, how much of Israel's OT government should we use as a model for our government here when Israel's government was a theocracy constructed for what was for the most part a homogeneous population? And was the gov't of OT Israel as limited as the Acton Institute stated?
And what about democracy and the rule of the people? Such a structure seems to be out of sync with either Israel's OT government--even in the Deuteronomy passages cited and were falsely claimed to support the electing of rulers-- or what was described in the NT?
And what if certain sectors of the private sector keep growing, shouldn't government also grow so that it could keep all from the private sector accountable?
It seems that here, the references to the Scriptures, The Constitution, and limited government are there for appearances and are to be self-congratulatory. This is especially true when we are facing serious problems with the environment and the consolidation of wealth and power seen in the private sector.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
This might not seem true especially regarding the piece on Amnesty International and prostitution because many on the Left see the sex industry as a matter of freedom. But there are voices on the Left that have condemned that position and who favor the solution suggested in this program that we criminalize the purchase of sex rather than the selling of it.