Comments Which Conservatives Have Blocked From Their Blogs For October 29, 2019

Oct 18

The comment below is put in the sometimes eternal status of pending. It was posted and then put on pending. A shorter version of this comment was posted.

To Gene Veith and his blogpost on the tendency for multiple sides to lean towards totalitarianism. This appeared in Cranach.

Unfortunately, the conservative perspective partially sabotages the argument against totalitarianism here. That is immediately seen in the claim that Communists and Nazis agreed on totalitarianism. We should note then that totalitarinism can come from the left and the right, that was one of the points that came from Orwell's book, 1984.

Regarding communism, it was the Bolsheviks who wanted totalitarianism. But the Bolsheviks were not the only communists. THe Mensheviks and others, such as the Kronstadt sailors, wanted a bottom-up democracy that the actual soviets could provide. The Bolsheviks were oppotunists who ruled in a similar way that the Tsars ruled.

But regarding the problem with the conservative perspective here, conservatives can only see the threat of totalitarianism as coming from government. They don't see how private elites can rule over society either directly or by making government their proxy. And we should note that the controlling motivation for many of those elites is to maximize personal profits. That motivation comes from the belief that pursuing self-interest is one's only moral obligation. Again, we should consult 1984.
Another problem with the conservative approach here is perception. Take the following paragraph as an example:

So is there anything outside of the scope of the government in the United States? Today the government is a prime mover in the economy, decides moral issues, finances the arts, operates a vast educational system, sponsors scientific research, has a say in what you do with your private property, regulates how business must operate, supervises our food supply, approves what medicine we can take, and insinnuates itself into other areas of life

The conservative approach says that the role of the government is to protect its people from 'crime and conquest' and other social spheres whose growth and success are needed by society. But isn't government protecting us when it regulates our property like our cars and isn't government protecting us when its regulations prevent businesses from poisoning the environment or exploiting the people? Do we want only private sector elites to control research? Just remember how scientists representing the tobacco industry denied that smoking posed significant health risks. We should also note that in most of the spheres mentioned, government is not the only participant. Government's participation in the arts, education, research and so forth coexists with participation from the private sector.

Note that in the basic conservative premise are the seeds of totalitarianism. Government's job is to protect people, not represent.them. That was the approach of Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Castro, Hugo Chavez, Kim Jung-un, and past leaders of Red China. We can look at any government that is strongly controlled by single ideological group as being on its way to totalitarianism. That is because those who sieze control become the final judges as to what protects the people.

I agree with Veith when he says that democracies can become totalitarian. But then why not accept the, from what I am told is, the cultural Marxist view of democracy? That democracy is not just a set of political procedures, it is a state of being where all people equally share society and the state. To view government as representing all of its people instead of just some majority, is to hold the silver bullet that can kill any totalitarianism.

The real indicator of possible totalitarian possibilities for any government is not found in government's size, but in its fidelity to all of its people. A government that has other lovers than all of its people will venture off into totalitarianism. And the question is whether an ideology that has a penchant for authoritarianism, like conservatism has, can adequately battle totalitarian urges by itself.

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

Oct 29

To Rev Ben Johnson and his blogpost that calls the Chicago Teacher strike immoral. This appeared in the Acton blog.

Actually, the opposite argument could be better made. To underfund public schools is immoral because it sabotages government's attempt to adequately educate public school students. One way of underfunding is to divert funds from charter schools, which by themselves could never replace public schools. In addition, private charter schools lie outside most of the constraints of a community's democratic processes.
Underfunding results in attacks on teacher morale, increased class sizes,  reduced resources, and attacks on student morale.  in an age where public education must respond to the infringements from poverty on the educational experience of the students both at school and at home, diverting funds from the public schools to charter schools where the later could never replace the former in terms of serving all students is both illogical and morally questionable because it sabotages the attempts to educate the vast majority of students.

And we should note one other thing. The push for charter schools by conservative religious sources could very well be an anti-government? Why sabotage such government services? It is because the government lies outside of the power of the Church to influence. And that is a fearful prospect when it comes to educating children. In short, the religious support for charter schools could be nothing more than another theater in the turf war between the Church and the secular world.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For August 15, 2018

August 12

To R. Scott Clark and his citation of W. Robert Godfrey description of the differences Machen saw between religiously conservative Christians and liberal Christianity. This appeared in Heidelblog

What we need to consider, if we want to avoid the sin of the Pharisee from the parable of the 2 men praying, is if there are wolves among both conservatives and liberals. What we need to consider is if we need to continually build hybrid theologies from the best of what both liberals and conservatives have to teach.

Certainly liberals need to pay attention to the conservatives' emphasis on the supernatural character of Jesus, His substitutionary death for His people, His literal and physical resurrection from the dead, God's judgment of the quick and the dead, and the inerrancy of the original autographs of the Scriptures.

But conservatives need to acknowledge that many of the social concerns liberals have are implied by the Scriptures. That while Machen identified some legitimate divides between liberals and conservatives, that he overreacted to other differences and that, out of anger for how he was personally treated, he portrayed liberals and liberalism in all-or-nothing terms and thus implied that we religiously conservative Christians have everything to teach liberals and nothing to learn from them.

How Machen treated liberals has become a model for how conservatives and non-conservatives have come to regard each other in other spheres besides religion. And the result becomes a self-righteousness that causes people to unnecessarily attack those who are different.

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

August 13

To Rev Ben Johnson and his article claiming that Socialism dehumanizes the poor. This appeared in the Acton blog.

First, we have socialism and we have socialism from the Marxist perspective. While the former might revolve around the controlled redistribution of wealth by the state, the latter does not. In fact, socialism from the Marxist perspective revolves around the redistribution of power from the bourgeoisie to the workers--a feat that has not occurred in the "socialist" governments of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Hugo Chavez, and others.

Second, socialism's track record has been interfered with primarily by the US. As Iran was moving to the left with the nationalization of oil reserves, the US and Great Britain orchestrated a coup to replace a democratically elected leader with a brutal dictator. As Guatemala's new democratically elected leader President Arbenz was promising land reform, the US overthrew him and turned the nation over to a dictator in 1954. As it looked like Greece was about to select a leftist government in 1967. the US stopped the process and installed a military dictatorship. And the last example that will be mentioned but not the last that occurred is what happened in the first 9-11 in Chilé in 1973 when the democratically elected leftist leader President Allende was replaced with the brutal dicator Pinochet who was later indicted for crimes against humanity for how he treated many of his own people.

Yes there are other examples, but none of them were ever mentioned in the writings of those who wish to denounce socialism and one must wonder, but not too hard, why.
The dehumanization of the poor comment misrepresents what Marx was saying. But what he said about Capitalism cannot be argued against by the results. That Capitalism makes workers into disposable objects of profit. Workers, in Capitalism, become commodities like any raw resource commodity would. This is amplified in today's neoliberal capitalism where we have economies designed to profit shareholders before anyone else and sometimes at almost everyone else's expense. Workers are put at risk for exploitation as is the environment, he latter of which Marx didn't foresee.
For sure, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Hugo Chavez and some other revolutionary "socialist" leaders or their political descendants did dehumanize those not in the politically privileged class. But that didn't come about by empowering workers, it came about by destroying workers' democracy. it came about by elite-centered governments, something of which socialism has no monopoly. It was Marx who relied on the workers to bring about his utopia and he was wrong. But his emphasis on empowering the workers and redistributing power from the bourgeoisie to the workers is what we can gain from him. And it seems that by not mentioning that power battle between the bourgeoisie and the workers, that apologists for today's Capitalism want people to overlook that imbalance in power in order to continue to support the dominance that the bourgeoisie continue to have over the workers. And today's attacks on the environment  by Capitalism and the way of life it promotes adds another reason for opposing Capitalism, especially today's neoliberal capitalism.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

August 14

To Joseph Mussomeli and his attempt to use King’s message on equality to attack programs like Affirmative Action. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

The basic theme that Mussomeli eventually  gets to his theme that despite our past abuses of people from different races, women, and economic classes, we should not employ affirmative action to readdress those wrongs. And somehow he reduces Martin Luther King, Jr.'s message to his dream speech in order to refer to King as an opponent to affirmative action.

But what really bothers me about the above rambling article is how it reduces King's message. Below is a quote from his speech against the Vietnam War. In that quote, King offers an explanation of why we still have such a racial divide and what is inseparably linked to that racism. He also offers a partial solution to our problem with racism: a change in the social morals of soceity (see http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2564.htm ):

I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin the shift from a "thing-oriented" society to a "person-oriented" society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.

For as long as society values things more than people, we will be competing in groups for those things. And the groups we will be competing in will be primarily defined by both our race and our economic class. And sometimes we will be competing as members of one gender against another gender. So if people are more important to us than things, we will be more willing to share power and opportunities with those from other races and classes and we will recognize what they have to contribute that we don't. And that is the message that Mussomeli needs to bring balance to his attacks on practices like Affirmative Action.

However, that message of sharing is not strong enough in Mussomeli's article to either address the problems with programs like Affirmative Action or reflect what King thought about how we undo past and current abuses of others.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For February 7, 2018

Feb 5

To Rev. Ben Johnson and his blogpost about David Bentley Hart’s article on the evils of wealth and class problems. This appeared in the Acton blog.

With growing wealth disparity in many nations that have adopted neoliberalism (a.k.a., Acton's free market economy) as well as growing wealth disparity between nations, perhaps we should look at what the Scriptures say about wealth and David Bentley Hart's assertion about wealth..

James 2:1-7

My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. 2 For if a man comes into your assembly with a gold ring and dressed in fine clothes, and there also comes in a poor man in dirty clothes, 3 and you pay special attention to the one who is wearing the fine clothes, and say, “You sit here in a good place,” and you say to the poor man, “You stand over there, or sit down by my footstool,” 4 have you not made distinctions among yourselves, and become judges with evil motives? 5 Listen, my beloved brethren: did not God choose the poor of this world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which He promised to those who love Him? 6 But you have dishonored the poor man. Is it not the rich who oppress you and personally drag you into court? 7 Do they not blaspheme the fair name by which you have been called?

James 5:1-5

Come now, you rich, weep and howl for your miseries which are coming upon you. 2 Your riches have rotted and your garments have become moth-eaten. 3 Your gold and your silver have rusted; and their rust will be a witness against you and will consume your flesh like fire. It is in the last days that you have stored up your treasure! 4 Behold, the pay of the laborers who mowed your fields, and which has been withheld by you, cries out against you; and the outcry of those who did the harvesting has reached the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth. 5 You have lived luxuriously on the earth and led a life of wanton pleasure; you have fattened your hearts in a day of slaughter. 6 You have condemned and put to death the righteous man; he does not resist you.

I Timothy 6:9-10

9 But those who want to get rich fall into temptation and a snare and many foolish and harmful desires which plunge men into ruin and destruction. 10 For the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil, and some by longing for it have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.

Matthew 6:19-21

19 “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. 20 But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys, and where thieves do not break in or steal; 21 for where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

Ecclesiastes 5:10

10 He who loves money will not be satisfied with money, nor he who loves abundance with its income. This too is [n]vanity

Hebrews 13:5

5 Make sure that your character is free from the love of money, being content with what you have; for He Himself has said, “I will never desert you, nor will I ever forsake you,”

Matthew 6:24

24 “No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and [m]wealth.

I Timothy 6:17-19

17 Instruct those who are rich in this present world not to be conceited or to fix their hope on the uncertainty of riches, but on God, who richly supplies us with all things to enjoy. 18 Instruct them to do good, to be rich in good [m]works, to be generous and ready to share, 19 storing up for themselves the treasure of a good foundation for the future, so that they may take hold of that which is life indeed.

When we read the above Scriptures, can we say that David Bentley Hart was that far off when he called wealth an 'intrinsic evil.' OF course, if we don't want to take the warnings and instructions that the above Scriptures give about wealth, let's consider some Church history. During the pre-revolutionary times of France, Russia, and Spain, the dominant branch of the Church had sided with wealth and power. And thus when those respective revolutions came, the Church was prosecuted and the reputation of the Gospel was tarnished. We might want to note one other thing, class envy is a reaction. It can be, and often is, a reaction by those in the lower classes to being exploited by those in the upper class. So while the title implies that class envy is an evil, it neglects to mention that class envy is sometimes caused by evil.

We seem to have a repeat in America regarding the dominant branch of the Church siding with wealth and power. While the Roman Church sided with wealth and power during the pre-revolutionary times of France and Spain and the Orthodox Church sided with wealth and power in the pre-revolutionary times of Russia, it is the conservative Protestant Church, assisted by conservative Catholics, that is siding with wealth and power. This sets the Church up for unnecessary persecution and the Gospel up for discreditation in the future. Who would have though that that could happen in America?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Feb 6

To Joseph Pearce and his article that celebrated Brexit and its breaking away from the Big Brother of the EU. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

I supported Brexit and I wasn't the only leftist who did. But not all people supported Brexit for the same reasons. Despite that, the Brexit decision provided an example of victory of democracy over an economic siren call.

What we see in Pearce's article here is what we saw in Trump's Presidential campaign when he opposed the TPP. While correctly noting the danger of one big brother, he pretended that no other big brothers were left to come calling. But there were. In fact, Trump's stand against the TPP and criticisms of NAFTA didn't imply  that he even stood against every global big brother (see https://zcomm.org/znetarticle/trump-challenging-neoliberal-agenda/ ) contrary to what he wanted us to believe.

What we see with Trump's  approach to the economy is an effort to let other big brothers take the place of the big brother who was standing behind the curtain Pearce was pointing at. Those other big brothers benefit greatly from the elimination of regulations that was protecting the environment and workers. In addition, the bulk of the the benefits of Trump's tax cuts go to these same other big brothers. And lest we blame everything on Trump, we should note that these same other big brothers had already been receiving plenty of attention from our elected leaders to the tune of forming an oligarchy (see  http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746  ). And all of that was before Trump became President.

Too many times, we are told to believe that there is only one big brother to be leery of. In reality, there are too many big brothers all of whom want to watch over us. Some of the big brothers compete with each other to be our rulers while others secretly collaborate to share power over us. This analysis is not a sign of paranoia; rather, it is recognition of the corrupting power that the love of money has over all of all of us. And the only way to beat back all of the big brothers vying to rule over us is for us not try to be big brothers over those who are in lower economic classes than we are. We need to value people as being more important than things. Here we should note that Martin Luther King Jr told us what constituted those things: gadgets, profits, and property rights. For as long as those things are more important to society than people, then society will be looking for a non-empty set of big brothers to look and rule over them.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To R. Scott Clark nd his blogpost quote of a judge’s decision that exonerated the decision of a Christian baker to refuse to create a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. This appeared in heidelblog.

The religious freedom to do what? The comparison with selling tires to an LGBT customer is provides a more valid comparison than the judge recognized. Just as selling tires is not something sacred, since the cake is used in a reception rather than a worship service, there is nothing sacred about the cake either. In addition, the comparison made with a hypothetical baker who favored LGBT rights being forced to make and sell a cake for a Catholic wedding is not a good comparison to use to support Miller's refusal to create the cake. For favoring LGBT rights does not make one object to heterosexual weddings in any Church let alone the Catholic Church. Rather such a comparison illustrates a case where one is forced to provide goods and services with a group one hates. Thus, that comparison provides some insights into either what the judge saw in the defendant Cathy Miller or the judge's own attitudes toward the LGBT community.

Likewise, finding who suffers the greatest is not well thought out if the rights of the same-sex couple are being violated. For being refused the provision of goods and services that are provided to the general public because of the group one belongs to can cause great harm. The marginalization suffered by Blacks for being refused the provision of goods and services during Jim Crow caused great internal harm. That factor alone seems not to have entered the judge's consciousness.

In addition, it would be interesting is to determine whether Cathy Miller's company baked cakes for heterosexual weddings that she had religious objections to. For if such examples can be found, then it would be clear that Miller refused to design a cake because of the sexual orientation of the couple for whom the cake is designed rather than for the religious reasons that were claimed.

The views expressed by the judge grants religious freedom to be used as grounds to discriminate. And it is that association of religiously conservative Christianity with discrimination that is plaguing our faith. It produces stumbling block after stumbling block to non-conservatives who might otherwise listen to the Gospel while many a religious conservative feels religiously righteous in discriminating that might be motivated by a desire to prove one's religiosity. But here, we must hasten to remember past displays of religious expression used to discriminate against others.  For not only were religious beliefs used to defend the discrimination practiced during Jim Crow, Martin Luther called on all German Christians to punish the Jews for their refusal to believe in Christ. He stated that if these German Christians did not do as he suggested, then they would be complicit in the refusal to believe in Christ practiced by many Jews. That same fear of complicity seems to be the reason that Cathy Miller and other Christian vendors, who have found themselves in her situation, are employing in her refusal to provide cakes for same-sex weddings.

The issue that the judge did not take up is how should we share society with protected groups with whom we disagree. For if we do not seek to share society with them as equals, they will correctly interpret our actions as efforts to seek privileged places over them by either elevating ourselves or lowering the status of those protected groups we disagree with.




 

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For January 31, 2018

The number of blogs being referenced in this series has been decreasing because of the increasing number of conservative blogs that now prohibit users being able to comment on their articles.

 Jan 27

To Caroline Roberts whose blogpost mentioned some writers who support free markets. She focused on the point made by Jacques Ruff as he saw moral reasons for promoting free markets. This appeared in the Acton blog.

So the argument for free markets are for the sake of morality? But whose morality?

If regulations prevent the exploitation of workers, are the markets free? If not, then how is an argument for markets to be free from protecting workers from exploitation an argument based on morality? The same applies for regulations that prevent the exploitation of other stakeholders besides workers, how is an argument for markets to be free from those regulations an argument based on morality? And what about regulations that are passed to protect the environment? How can an argument for markets to be free laws that protect the environment be based on morality? We could refer to the works of Ha-Joon Chang who points out that we have no free markets in an absolute sense. And those who oppose him claim that Chang is arguing against a straw-man because no one is promoting markets that have no regulations.

Thus, the problem becomes whether one could argue for markets that are free in a relative sense. That is besides some basic, predefined standards, is an argument for markets free from that set of issues a moral one?

Thus, what is really being argued for by those who favor free markets is the existence of a relative free market that works for all nations in all circumstances. We could call this the Ultimate Relative Free Market. It is a relative free market because it subscribes to necessary set of regulations designed to ensure that the market does no injustice as it functions as efficiently and effectively as possible. But it is ultimate because it provides the answers for the  markets of all nations regardless of their time, location, or economic circumstances.

But the search for such a free market, however, is a pathway to the dark side of human hubris. For one has to admit that to say humans can conceive of such a market is claiming that they can produce an infallible economic machine even if that machine is based on what they have observed from nature. And once they have produced such an infallible machine, then they can claim the moral authority to pressure any nations to embrace such a machine for the "flourishing" of its people regardless of the wishes of the people. But the quest for creating and promoting such a machine has only led to ideological tribalism. And as anyone who is familiar with the concept of tribalism will tell you, the more tribal followers become, the sooner morals, along with Elvis, leave the building.

The free market did not make America into the economic powerhouse that it once was or even is today. For most of our history, our nation has employed forms of protectionism which allowed our nation to build certain industries to the extent that they could successfully compete with their counterparts from other nations. And though we should readily acknowledge that because protectionism worked for us in the past, that that doesn't imply that it will always work in the future; what we must ask is, how is it that we can deny developing nations the right to employ protectionism if it helps that nation develop? And, equally so, how is it that we should now believe that some forms of protectionism will never work for us again or that there is an Ultimate Relative Free Market in the first place? Somehow, I am missing the moral argument here.

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

Jan 29

To Bradley Birzer and his blogpost on modern conservatism and how it seeks for a free society through the controlling influences of its institutions. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

What is sad is when we view those from other ideological circles has having nothing to teach us. At that moment, we resemble the pharisee from the parable of the two men praying.
What seems to be the tension in the conservatism described above is the following:

The job of every conservative, then, is twofold. First, he must fight “tirelessly” against the “centralized, omnicompetent, and unitary state” and all that goes with it: debt as well as empire. Second, he must do everything possible to promote that which makes the free society not just an ordered one, but a good one: the intermediary institutions of family, church, friendship, business, and school.

The tension comes from fighting against a state that is too big while living where a free society results from conformity to society's key institutions. . We should note that  conservatives are not just for any kind of family, they are for the kinds of family promoted by the Church. And likewise, conservatives are not just for schools general, they are for schools that do not undermine the Church.

But what will conservatives resort to when diversity rears its ugly head? They will look to the state either to enforce that conformity, as they fought against the legalization of same-sex marriage, or they will look to the state to allow them to withdraw from that diversity, as seen in legislation that seeks to allow Christians in business from serving either same-sex events or members of the LGBT community themselves.

For as the secular becomes more and more influential and/or as people see alternative views of family life, the need for the conservative view to rely on the state to protect its interests grows and the society becomes less free. This is why many conservatives adamantly attack multiculturalism and diversity. It is because the conservative vision of society does not adjust well to too much diversity. And the options that conservatives seek to alternatives to their idyllic vision is for the state to enforce conservative standards or for insular conservative communities to retreat within their shell. Thus, in the end, the control that conservatives are afraid of the state using is to be used by their institutions.

And the diversity that is seen as a danger inside the state is even greater outside the state. For the state must not only avoid ruling as an empire, it must escape being ruled over by others. Thus, careful alliances must be made and emerging threats quelled. But in accomplishing the latter, sometimes empires emerge.

Finally, the conservative view of the state is always one of an alien entity that seeks to force its way on people. The conservative view rarely, if ever, portrays a state as being ta representative of the people even though it is one of the few institutions that can adequately protect people from being exploited by the business world. For such a recognition could give an institution that is independent of the Church too much power.

Certainly there are individual parts of conservatism that have much to teach everyone. But what is unrealistic in much of conservative thought is the belief that it can escape diversity. For the more it tries to do that, either domestically, regionally, or globally, the more it must choose between either clinging to state power to control others or retreating inward into its own small world.

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

Jan 30

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost ranting about the current state of our public schools. Clark blames certain changes over time for whatever demise he sees in our school. He wrote this article to justify Christian parents as they take their kids out of the public schools.

To blame changes in the quality of education on a narcissistic culture that breaks from the culture Clark seems to miss misses the irony of the claim. It also misses some historical information. In particular, the year in which Clark was finishing public school saw the publication of a very important book called The Culture Of Narcissism. In other words, Clark grew up and had satisfactory public education experiences during a time in which narcissism was already significantly present. So, with regards to his article, Narcissism isn't a new feature. And when we consider what we were told about our nation being so exceptional and the protector of the free world, how could we not embrace narcissism during those times.

And as Clark would like to speak against  the changes that occurred during the 1960s and 1970s, the times before the 1960s were insufferable for a great number of Americans. Blacks, in particular, were sorely oppressed during America's Jim Crow era. Authoritarianism ran rampant as people were told what Americans were suppose to believe and what they were to see as a threat. The Vietnam War was an immoral war that interfered with the Geneva Accords. The Geneva Accords was an agreement where the question of the reunification of Vietnam was to be determined democratically. Our nation rejected those accords and tens of thousands of Americans as well as millions of Vietnamese paid for our rejection with their lives.
As for the government paying for everything, LBJ's War on Poverty, though incomplete because the war effort competed for government funding, did produce vast reductions in poverty. However, it was diminishing economic opportunities, especially for many living in certain urban areas, that necessitated the government programs Clark objects to.

And Clark's comments about the therapeutic culture, though containing some seeds of truth, should, for the most part, be seen as a turf war in the understanding of people between conservative theologians and psychologists. Likewise, his support for spanking in school shows the physical side of the authoritarianism he so favors. Yes, schools need to enforce codes of conduct. But spanking is not necessary to do so. Allowing public schools to expel students who threaten others by their lack of self-control or to fail those who do not do the academic work restores the level of discipline required by schools to function without using corporal punishment. I finished public schooling before Clark did and corporal punishment would not be tolerated in my school. And yet, at the time when I was a public school student, our schools functioned very well.

Clark's 'Christian America' suffered severe deficiencies prior to the 1920s when it allegedly began to fall apart. Again, you had Jim Crow. You had the exploitation of labor. You had a government that jailed anti-war activists and manipulated popular opinion against leftist political ideas. BTW, the jailing of anti-war activists was done by a liberal President. We had a nation that began to participate in conflicts in order to expand the American empire. And the justification for expanding our control had a significant racist component.

If we were to compare the 1960s with today, we could use a line from a Martin Luther King Jr. speech against the Vietnam War that identifies a common thread running in both time periods. King said:

I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin the shift from a "thing-oriented" society to a "person-oriented" society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.

What has been true throughout all of America's history is its tendency to value things more highly than it values people. And as that trend grows stronger over time, the intrinsic value of  each person becomes more and more diminished. People are relegated into becoming objects of gain. And when a person can no longer be useful enough in helping others obtain their desires, they are discarded either through neglect or oppression. Isn't it the objectification of people that is driving the attitudes of those who practice loose sexual morals? Here, we need to note Marx's criticism of Capitalism that showed how workers became disposable in Capitalist economies. One doesn't have to agree with Marx's proposed solutions to understand that dynamic.

Though there is much validity in what Clark's objects to in our public schools, he blames the wrong parties for those results. And as for whether Christian parents should take their kids out of school, there are logical cases to be made both for and against that practice. However, the problem with Christians withdrawing from the public square is that it increases our insularity from society and the world. And in increasing our insularity, we become less effective ambassadors for the Gospel because we start becoming the equivalent of those past Christian leaders who persecuted the advancing scientific discoveries of those days.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For January 10, 2018

Jan 5

To Sean Fitzpatrick and his blogpost containing his analysis of the Luke Skywalker character in the movie The Last Jedi. In that analysis, Fitzpatrick expressed frustration with how the movie did not portray Luke as the kind of hero Fitzpatrick wanted him to be. Fitzpatrick blamed post modernism for that faulty portrayal of Luke. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

What Sean Fitzpatrick seems to have missed in the latest portrayal of Luke Skywalker in The Last Jedi is that Lukei's reluctance to continue being a hero indicated an idealism just as much, if not more, as a turn to post modernism and losing belief in his own superiority. For in failing in how he reacted to Kylo Ren, Luke saw himself, as well as the rest of the Jedi, as complete failures. Guilt for being imperfect haunted Luke. Evidence of this interpretation can be found in what motivated Luke to re-enter the fight: it was Yoda's words. Yoda told Luke that along with teaching others how to use The Force, sharing one's own failures was part of training Jedi Knights. Thus, contrary to what his guilt told him, Luke was qualified to teach those with The Force how to become Jedi Knights.

Authoritarianism loves idealism, even if it admits that the ideal isn't real. It still embraces it. It still sees it as a necessary part of one's beliefs especially those beliefs in one's own or a hero's superiority. And thus authoritarianism results in a denial of either a hero's failures or the significance of given failures. Otherwise, heroes cannot be considered to be superior to others. Idealism embraces that kind of black-white, all-or-nothing thinking. Thus, one failure can mean complete darkness for those who embrace such thinking. This was Luke's dilemma. He was an idealist who could not deny how he failed Kylo Ren. Fitzpatrick wanted Luke to be able to deny the significance of his failure with Ren so he could see himself as being superior to others. And that is the real difference between what Fitzpatrick wanted Luke Skywalker to be and how the movie portrayed him.

Fitzpatrick doesn't see the harmful black-white, all-or-nothing thinking that is a part of idealism and authoritarianism. Nor does he see the harmful effects of believing that one's heroes are superior to others. That might be because he is too involved with authoritarianism himself. His embrace of authoritarianism might be why Fitzpatrick wants to blame post modernism for Luke's loss of confidence as portrayed in the movie. But to do that, one must cut the movie short. One must stop the movie before Yoda convinces Luke to re-enter fray.

In addition, if what I wrote about idealism, and thus authoritarianism by extension, is true when I said 'idealism embraces black-white or all-or-nothing thinking,' then Fitzpatrick's frustration with how the movie portrayed Luke Skywalker provides a window in what he believes about his real life heroes. That is that Fitzpatrick will deny either failures committed by his heroes or the significance of those failures. For to admit to those failures or their significance would disqualify his heroes from being heroes, from being superior to others. And such is a real fear for authoritarians. So perhaps such a fear has led Fitzpatrick to embrace the Dark Side when it comes to promoting some of his heroes.
Another indicator that Fitzpatrick is a bit of an authoritarian is that in talking about Achilles, with whom Fitzpatrick compares the old and new Luke Skywalkers, he never questions the morality of a nation going to war because its queen was kidnapped.

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

To Rev Ben Johnson and his blogpost about how Iran and Venezuela were trying to destabilize the West by spreading Socialism. This appeared in the Acton blog.

Socialism will 'degrade the pillars of Western Civilization'? Which form of socialism is being referred to here?  For though there is a greater social consciousness in Islam than in much of Christianity, it is difficult to believe that Iran knows what Socialism from the Marxist tradition is. And I refer to the Marxist tradition because Lenin was mentioned in the article.

One of the key components of Socialism from the Marxist tradition is the idea of the proletariat dictatorship. For without that, according to Marx, there is no socialist transition into the utopia he thought he saw. So when we look at Iran and its government, what would it know about Socialism from the Marxist tradition? Though there have elections, we know that Iran is run by a religious elite. So what would Iran know about Socialism except to fund some organizations that claim to be socialistic.?
As for Maduro and Venezuela, the same question can be asked and has been asked by some leftists. I believe it was at the 2015 Left Forum, there were concerns expressed that Chavez had not really followed through with Socialism because he had not put workers into positions of power and decision making. Yes, people there were happy that resources from profits made by its oil industry were being directed toward the people. But that alone does not make Socialism. That is the very criticism that Rosa Luxemburg leveled at Lenin's regime.  She labeled it a bourgeoisie dictatorship and with good reason. Power was seized by the Central Committee and the local soviets were dismantled. The power structure Lenin employed was a top-down structure used by the bourgeoisie to run their businesses. Furthermore, even some of Lenin's supporters complained about his purges and Lenin himself verbally attacked the Leftists, a.k.a., the real Marxists,  them 'infantile.' We might also note that other important Socialists besides Luxemburg opposed Lenin. And we also have the Mensheviks who walked out of the 2nd Russian Soviet Congress in protest of the Bolsheviks. And yet, despite all of the infighting and divisions and the non-Socialist power structure employed by Lenin, Johnson talks as if Socialism is a monolith after the pattern set by Lenin and was responsible for 100 million deaths even though that number is usually attributed not just to the Soviet Union, but to Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge and Red China. And that number includes those killed in wars and famines.

Johnson might be interested in learning that libertarian Socialism does not even believe in the state. But despite that and what was mentioned above, again, Socialism/Communism are responsible for 100 million deaths and Iran and Venezuela are doing what they can to spread Socialism to the West to destabilize it. What Johnson doesn't mention is that Iran has been threatened with military action and even war by either the US or Israel for the last 20+ years. The US has military bases surrounding Iran on both its western and eastern borders. This is not to exonerate Iran. It is a religious dictatorship. But if Iran was trying to destabilize the West, wouldn't that just be an example of turnaround being fair play? Something similar could be said about Venezuela since it was alleged that the 2002 coup that attempted to overthrow Chavez was supported by the US. The coup failed when the people gathered in too big of a mass for the military to respond in order to oppose the coup. It is also suspected that the US has played a role in destabilizing Venezuela. So again, if Venezuela wanted to spread Socialism to the West to destabilize it, would it not be just another example of turnaround is fair play?

Besides, not all Socialists and forms of Socialism eliminate religion in public life. However, US trained military or paramilitary troops had attacked Liberation Theology advocates and priests in Central America during the 1980s. What does that say about the US and its relationship to religion. And of course, even in Lenin's day, there were Socialists who called to the Church to join their struggle against the exploitation of workers in Russia.The article by Johnson lacks precision in order for it to be informative of any real threat to the West. It cannot adequately identify Socialism as well as it ignores the context that conflicts between the US and the governments of Iran and Venezuela provide. The above is nothing more than persuasion piece that relies on the lack of details and an emotional appeal.

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

Jan 6

To Joe Carter and his blogpost that supplies information that he thinks people should know about raising the minimum wage. This appeared in the Acton blog.

It's so easy for some conservatives to criticize the idea of raising the minimum wage, if not the idea of having the minimum wage itself, while regarding their own economic ideologies as being above reproach. And that is the problem here. Our current economic system is regarded by some as a kind of Biblical canon while we weigh the tradeoffs of raising the minimum wage. And if keeping the minimum wage low benefits those with wealth to the detriment of those who live on the minimum wage, then we can say that these same conservatives are merely supporting those with wealth rather than giving a fair assessment of the minimum wage.

Chris Rock had an excellent insight on the minimum wage while reflecting back on when he was paid minimum wage. He said something to the effect that when an employer paid him minimum wage, it was like the employer is saying  that he/she would pay him even less per hour if he/she was allowed--so much for the intrinsic value of the worker. And when we consider the ever widening gap between the pay of the CEO and the not even lowest paid workers of many major companies, we see how the worker is being devalued more and more by our economic system. On average, the CEO at 350 of the top companies makes 271 times the amount made by the average worker in the same company (see  http://fortune.com/2017/07/20/ceo-pay-ratio-2016/ ) and that amount sometimes reaches more than 1,000 times what the median worker makes (see https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ceo-worker-pay-gap_us_55ddc3c7e4b0a40aa3acd1c9 ).

But CEOs are not the only competition  workers face in getting a slice of the pie from the companies they work for. Many top companies also must show that they are maximizing the ROI for their investors. In fact, investors, many of whom never put a dime into the companies they invest in, are seen as having a higher claim on a company's wealth than its workers have.
And thus we come to the argument expressed by Carter and supported by others that too high an increase in the minimum wage could cost workers their jobs. And when we consider that many companies use government assistance programs to subsidize their payrolls while doing all they can to reduce or avoid paying taxes some of which support those assistance programs, we see that to not be able to step back and critically look at one's own economic ideology and the current economic system is akin to being the proverbial bull in the china shop. In addition, when Carter states that 'Almost all economist agree that significant increases to the minimum wage or attempts to bring it in line with a “living wage” (e.g., $12-15 an hour) would lead to significant increases in unemployment,' he is disingenuously saying that the economic system that gives many workers a choice between employment with poverty wages or unemployed is above reproach.

One could also add to Carter's quote that it is wrong. Over 100 economists, with some from Ivy League schools while some are from other prestigious schools like MIT, the University of California Berkley, Penn State, Michigan State, NYU, and USC, all of which are top 100 economic schools, dispute Carter's claim as they call for raising the minimum wage to $15 per hour by 2024 (see http://www.epi.org/economists-in-support-of-15-by-2024/ ).
Now I am not writing as one who supports raising the minimum wage to $15 per hour. Why? Because such legislation overlooks another serious problem that workers in low wage jobs and employers face. That problem is that there is too little communication between the two about each other's needs and too little power given to workers in determining  work issues like pay. To have the government set the minimum wage at $15 per hour eliminates the need for employers and employees to talk to each other face to face about each others' needs. And robbing employers and employees the opportunity of communicating face to face with each other prevents employers and employees from have a chance to be more vested in each other. Requiring that companies raise the minimum wage to $15 per hour does not give workers a greater voice in how the workplace should be conducted. Setting the minimum wage too high doesn't empower workers, it empowers the government.

Instead of the government raising the minimum wage to $15 per hour, it should set its sights on a more modest increase while requiring companies and workers to negotiate wages higher than the modest increase. The divides between employer and employee is not just in pay, it are in communication and in power. Automatically raising the minimum wage too high does nothing to close those divides.In addition, many companies must realize that the divide between the pay of its top employees and the average employee increases wealth disparity and that, according to the IMF, hurts economic growth.
 

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For January 3, 2018

Dec 29

To Rev Ben Johnson and his blogpost on how an economic principle could restore civil discourse. This appeared in Acton blog.

A significant part of the unfounded confidence in one's own views or the views of one's groups and the rising intolerance for the views of others comes from authoritarianism. The source of authoritarianism can come from cultural values as well as tribalism--we should note that tribalism is nothing more that group authoritarianism. We should note the following about authoritarianism:

1. Truth depends more on the credentials of the source than the facts and logic employed by the source.

2. Hostility and aggression toward those who question one's traditions and authority figures are natural reactions

3. The perception that the world is a bipolar place consisting of us vs tehm. Thus, truth, and the world, is very simple and black-white thinking is common.

The first studies of authoritarianism were prejudiced toward conservatives by listing conservative overreactions to other views as the list of traits for authoritarianism. This has changed because of the obvious existence of authoritarianism in non-conservative circles. We should note that religiously conservative Christianity tends to inadvertently promote an authoritarian culture for its adherents. And certainly, religiously conservative Christianity isn't the only religion/ideology that does so. As mentioned before, tribalism also incorporates authoritarianism. That is because the strong group loyalty that defines tribalism promotes authoritarian reactions to internal and external challenges to one's own group

The only way economics can help overcome this authoritarian-driven overconfidence in one's own view and hostility to the views of others is when hybrid economic systems are developed. For without hybrid economic systems, economic ideological tribalism reigns and incorporates the thinking that Martin Luther King Jr. attributed to the West in his speech against 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.

If we replace the word 'Western' with a fill-in-the-blank,' we can see how far reaching King's statement becomes even in addressing the subject of the above article. The question becomes for us religiously conservative Christians is this: Can we put aside some of our misinformed religious beliefs about the world in order to learn from others?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost on the similarities between defending slavery in the old South and defending abortion on demand. This appeared in the Heidelblog.

I don't see the degree of connection between defenders of a woman's right to an elective abortion and slavery that Clark does, but the denial of the humanity of slaves and the unborn child is a definite connection.
One has to wonder whether  the denial of the humanity of the child has to do with attempts to correct another abusive relationship: the dominance of men over women in society. And in the desire to eliminate all such domination, denying the humanity of the unborn child became necessary for some, not all, to eliminate all such dominance. This might be similar to some Zionists who deny equality for Palestinians because their Zionism is a correction for Anti-Semitism such as that which occurred during the Holocaust and those who oppose Israel's brutal occupation against the Palestinians who are tempted to deny the Holocaust because of how it has been used to excuse the oppression that occupation has caused. Here, both truth and people become collateral damage from attempts to correct the oppression and exploitation  of other people.

Thus, if we who oppose a woman's right to an elective abortion want to influence others, not only do we have to speak out for the unborn, we have to speak out for women who have been dominated by men either by individuals or through systems that run society.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To Viktor Orbán, who is the Prime Minister of Hungary, and his Christmas speech article that defends his nation’s treatment of refugees who were fleeing from the Mediterranean. Here we should note that the refugee crisis which has seen hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of refugees descend upon Europe was initially caused by the 2003 invasion of Iraq. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative Blog.

Christianity is a culture and civilization? And the commandment to love one's enemies involves a commandment to love oneself? Here we should note here that the Greek version of the whole statement does not command us to love ourselves. Rather, it assumes that love of self is a starting point. In addition, loving oneself is, by the Scriptures, contrasted with trusting God to take care of us. And then we are not to mix with people from other cultures lest we lose Christianity despite the fact that the Great Commission requires the Church to go out to the whole world to make disciples for Jesus? And what about the many Europeans who are not Christians? Are such people true Europeans? If not, are they a threat to Europe?
This article by Victor Orbán is a ruse for Christians to feel both free and obligated to lord it over others in society to the point of promoting discrimination and oppression against others. This article is really written as apologetic for Hungary's sometimes barbaric treatment of refugees whose plight was the result of their own doing. If Christianity is a culture and a civilization, as Orbán claims, then, since it also stresses salvation for the individual, is everyone who lives in a Christian culture and civilization saved? And does acknowledging that we Christians are not perfect really explain the centuries of religious wars within Europe, the almost 2 millennia of Anti-Semitism, along with European imperialism and colonialism that included Europeans lording it over those in far away land along with practicing ethnic cleansing?

We fulfill the Great Commission by preaching not commanding. We are called to serve others rather than presuming to be their masters. This message by Orbán is like a tick bearing Lyme disease. Only the malady being spread here is just another form of authoritarianism. Authoritarianism is a disease that can easily result as a conservative Christianity subculture--note here that different forms of Christianity can have or promote their own cultures without Christianity being that culture. That authoritarianism not only shows little regard for those who are different, it is downright hostile toward them. And in that, we should recognize that the Christianity of which Orbán speaks is not the Christianity of the Bible.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For December 6, 2017

 When the first comment below was written, the article had a comment section though no comments were posted. That may no longer be the case.

Nov 14

To Kevin DeYoung and his blogpost on the recent revelations of the sexual sins of harassment  and molestation that accompany our public figures. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website

As with other social sins, what we are seeing with the all of the sexual sins from harassment to molestation is an all-or-nothing approach to the the problem. For a long time, it was tolerated and now all forms of sexual misbehavior from an inappropriate sexual comment to blatant molestation are receiving the same degree of public condemnation. And with that all-or-nothing approach is practiced by a society that is very punitively oriented. And it is that reliance on punishment that all but guarantees the problem will continue at levels that are too high. For the all-or-nothing approach to punishment will inhibit people from admitting they need help in controlling their behavior. And the all-or-nothing approach to punishment will give others a sense of well-earned self-righteousness.

My attack on our misuse of punishment should not be interpreted as a desire to tolerate sexual harassment and molestation. Nor should it be construed as a rejection of ever using punishment in responding to these sexual sins. However, we need to address our overuse of punishment in society. Inappropriate sexual behavior is not the only problem behavior that is promoted by our faulty approach to punishment, racism is another sin that is enabled by our overuse of punishment.

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

Dec 4

To Rev Ben Johnson and his blogpost that says because the Puritans survived by trade, we should follow their example and employ free market and trade polices. This appeared in the Acton Blog.

What can really be learned from the Puritans' experience with collectivism and trade? Can we conclude that collectivism never works because it didn't work for the Puritans? Those who know logic would look at the question as a ridiculously rhetorical question. For how does one example prove that collectivism never works? This is especially true since collectivism vs individualism exists on a continuum so that most nations  employ neither a purely individualistic free market systems nor a collectivist system. We should also note that there are a number of different collectivists systems. So what can we conclude from the Puritans who eventually used the Bible to justify the taking of land from the Native Americans they use to trade with?
What do the Puritans trade or market experiments teach us? They can only teach us how their trade and market practices worked for them in their particular situation. We should note that from near the beginning of the nation, the US embraced  protectionist trade policies and those policies helped the US develop industries that eventually became competitive with their counterparts from other nations. The US employed protectionist policies from its beginning as a sovereign state through WW II and even employed protectionist policies during the Reagan Administration.  So what does the above lesson teach us about free trade and markets in general?
We should note that free markets foster the idea of comparative advantage where each nation's economy should revolve around its current strengths. And such works great for developed nations like the US. The problem comes when a nation wants to develop for whatever reason. For development flies in the face of maintaining comparative advantage and protectionism allows that development to take place. To prohibit nations from employing protectionism in order to develop not only "kicks away the ladder," as some refer to it, that allowed currently advanced nations to grow and diversify their economies. It enforces an economic caste system on the developing countries. In other words, strict adherence to free trade only serves those nations that are wealthy and developed. And what we have to realize in the light of Johnson's attempt to use the Puritan's situation as an example for all to follow, the situation in which the Puritans and their Native American neighbors does not consist of the complex relationships that exist between developed and undeveloped nations in today's world.

Finally, we should note the difference between free markets and trade with Democracy. For the more that  Free markets and trade limit government intervention, then the more they limit democracy when a government is a working democracy. We should note that not all governments that profess to be democracies are actual democracies. An example showing how free markets and trade limit democracy can be seen in the WTO threat to put exorbitant sanctions on the US because the US used the democratic process to require meat manufactures to label the country of origin each product was from. Thus, the WTO worked against the democratically expressed wishes of the American people. Another example could have been seen if the US joined the TPP. For the TPP allowed corporations to sue governments if governments passed laws that were perceived as costing corporations profits. And those lawsuits would be heard not in a nation's court of laws, but in TPP tribunals. Also we should note that the coup that replaced a democratically elected leader in Chilé with a military dictator did so, in part, in order install a free market system in that nation. Such is another example of free markets butting heads with democracy. Of course, we should note that since the US has become more and more a free market nation, not only has wealth disparity in America increases, but the US is now classified by some as an oligarchy rather than a democracy (see http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746 ).

We should note that the Puritans' relationship with its neighboring Native Americans up until the Puritans took land from them  did not show all fo the complex relationships that nations, both developed and undeveloped, can have. Thus, using the Puritans as a sole example for how we should act today while forgeting how our nation relied on protectionism in order to develop its industries is not conducive to employing sound logic.

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

To Joe Carter and his blogpost praying the profit system as the only viable economic system despite any injustices it incurs. This appeared in the Acton Blog.

The above article by Joe Carter is saying that because of the growth and development that the profit system enables, justice is no longer a relevant issue when determining economic policies. We should note that Carter is following the words of the economist Arnold King in saying that.

Yes, there are many problems with Carter's article. But perhaps, the greatest problem is seen when comparing what Carter says with a statement made by Martin Luther King Jr when he spoke against the Vietnam War (see  http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2564.htm  ):

I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin the shift from a "thing-oriented" society to a "person-oriented" society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.

We should compare this quote with what Carter is advocating because the criteria Carter is using is purely materialistic. This goes back to a comparison King made between Communism and Capitalism. While King denounce Lenin's materialism, he noted that Capitalism has its own kind of destructive materialism that is different than Lenin's. Carter's criteria for measuring the value of the profit system is purely materialistic and does not include the different kinds of harmful relationships, such as racism and war, that being so focused on things can cause between people. Thus, perhaps materialistic criteria should note be the only criteria used in determining the value of the profit system.

We could also add that we could employ the profit system in some areas of our economy and society rather than in all. Such would recognize that, like all other systems, the profit system carries tradeoffs and thus does not provide the sole solution to all of our economic problems.


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

To James Kalb and his blogpost that pits the Left against a sound understanding of human nature. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

The first problem with Kalb's article is that it oversimplifies as much as it misidentifies the left. Hope and Change was not the left, it was liberal.  In addition, what the left observed about conservative Christianity is that it sides with wealth and power while claiming that it has all the answers to the ultimate questions of life.

The second problem with Kalb's article is that his conservatism becomes comparable with how Martin Luther King Jr saw the West when he spoke against 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.

With the way Kalb writes about the left in the article above, could we not easily substitute the word 'conservative' for the word 'Western.' And if so, don't conservative who would agree with Kalb join him as he speaks just like the pharisee from the parable of the two men praying spoke (see https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+18%3A9-14&version=NIV)? When we consider all of the violence that has been visited on others in the name of Christ, can conservatives who believe they are the vanguards for Christianity honestly believe that they have everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them while maintaining a significant degree of mental health?

Finally, when we talk about the left and human nature, aren't also dealing with how we should share society with others? The Conservative answer to that question is that we must share society as having a privileged status that entitles them to exercise some degree of supremacy over others. But how does such a self- image not promote violence?

But we might also want to question the conservative grasp of reality. For isn't their emphasis on limited government merely code for saying that they want to elect a government they can ignore. In addition, doesn't their emphasis on limited government carry with it the idea that when human nature can contain such vast amounts of greed, that those with the most wealth and power require the least accountability? Isn't such an idea contradicted by history?

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For July 12, 2017

June 20

To Joseph Pearce and his blogpost about how health care should be solved through a subsidiary approach rather than through socialism. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative website.

The above article sounds more like a turf battle between those who want the local communities to solve our problems vs the larger communities as represented by our various government associations. An indicator of this interpretation is seen in the the emotional rejection of government intrusion in providing health care. Of course, the context for that rejection includes government requiring Christian employers to provide kinds of healthcare options to employees that go against their conscience. But in addition to the turf battle, how the government solution to health care, or pretty much anything else dealing with individuals who live in families, is so negatively presented, it is pretty clear that all-or-nothing thinking is being employed here.
On a practical side we need to ask if local resources adequate to help everyone with health care. And we might especially ask that question for people who choose not to belong to the Church. And if they don't choose to follow Pearce's religious views, isn't our government obligated to represent them when they are in need? We might also note how Pearce sees the government as being obligated to follow the Roman Church's social teaching. Certainly, the government should listen to all proposed solutions. But what kind of religious liberty do we have when our representative government is required to follow Church teaching?

Another indicator that all-or-nothing thinking is employed by Pearce is his definition of socialism in his subsidiary vs socialism model of thought. We should note that, at least from a Marxist perspective, large government programs does not make socialism. Marxist socialism puts the first emphasis on who is in control of both government and the workplace. Thus, when big government interferes, if workers do not have an equal or dominant voice in making the decisions, it isn't socialism. But that is besides the point. That the local has absolute sovereignty over any larger community where the larger community involves local, state, or federal government is the giveaway to such thinking. All this amounts to is a greater division within our nation than what exists. For our division is no longer just in terms of ideology, but, according to Pearce, it should be in terms of local communities as well. For Christians to fully benefit from what Pearce is proposing, then Christians would have to move into Christian communities. But then how could such Christians practice virtues like charity when they only participate in their own voluntary communities.

But the local having precedence over the larger communities is not consistently followed by Pearce. For in joining Christian co-ops, one is joining a larger community. Thus, this isn't even a local community vs the world turf battle. Rather, the battle is between the communities one volunteers to be a member of vs society as represented by the various forms of government from local government to the federal government. And such does not provide a solution for everyone.

Pearce does well in recognizing the state of health care coverage before Obamacare. And he has a very legitimate concern over Christian employers having to provide for abortaficient drugs and abortions in their employee health care plans. But his all-or-nothing thinking has not created a viable approach for those who choose not to belong to the Church for certain, and possibly for those for whom Pearce wrote this article. For ties to the larger communities that are represented by governments aren't so easily cut nor should they be.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

June 26

To Dante Stewart and his blogpost on his grief and other reactions to the verdicts of the police officer who killed Philando Castile. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website

Justice is delayed here and at least sometimes that delay is provided in order to give us a chance to repent.

But I think that it is not enough just to attribute the tragedy of the verdict to general truths such as our world is fallen because of sin and that there is much darkness around us. We also need to look at the specific, immediate causes of the shooting and the verdict. And one of those immediate causes has to do with the rise of authoritarianism especially as that rise has emanted from the 9-11 attacks. For some from the West who desired more power have used the 9/11 attacks to make their power grab more acceptable to the masses. In turn, their power grab has sparked an embrace with active authoritarianism by law enforcement and lawmakers and a passive authoritarianism by the populace.
Take away that authoritarianism and we will find more people be willing to ensure that those making or enforcing our laws become more accountable for their actions. Should note, however, that taking away that authoritarianism will not take away sin and darkness from the world. Taking away that authloritarianism can reduce the some of the ways in which that sin and darkness are manifested. 

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

June 28

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost about Senator Sanders unconstitutionally using a religious test in determining whether Russell Vought is fit to hold the office President Trump appointed him to. This appeared in Heidelblog

What is missing here is the original point that could be made. I am not saying that Sanders made this point and I certainly disagree with Sanders analysis and response. But what is missing is Vought's criticisms of Hawkins from Wheaton.  While Vought seemed to have ignored Hawkins distinctions in contexts in how she was answering  questions. Vought himself was associating Christianity with a narrow mindedness and intolerance by his indiscriminate response to her. And because of that association, Sanders unnecessarily saw Vought's confession of faith, as right as that confession was, as a red flag warning of intolerance. Thus all of us who take the label of Christian might be warned that doing so associates all that we do and the stands we take with Christ and the Gospel.

And it isn't that Sanders had to look at Vought's treatment of Hawkins to see an orthodox confession of the Christian faith as a red flag of intolerance; we Christians ourselves have provided multiple reasons why that should be the case. For example, when many of us opposed the legalization of Same-Sex marriage in society or when people have heard many of us supporting Trump's travel ban while ignoring the record that the US vetting of refugees program has compiled, we were wedding orthodox Christianity with intolerance of others in society.

This whatever we do or stands we take we associate with Christ and the Gospel is what we should take away from Sanders' inappropriate response to Vought's confession of faith. But on the hand, with what some of us have associated Christianity with, who could blame Sanders?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

June 29

To Albert Mohler and his blogpost on whether we should opt for religious freedom despite the discrimination against the LGBT community it practices. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition Website.

Considering that Jim Crow had its Christian apologists who used religion and the Bible to defend the segregation and marginalization that Jim Crow promoted, it seem that we've had this debate before. In fact, integration was called 'Communism' by some Jim Crow defenders.

If we consider the history of the LGBT community in this nation, we find that many religiously conservative Christians have spent centuries marginalizing the LGBT community. Why? Because it was their way of exercising control over the situation. Society was employed by the Church to be an extra disciplinary arm to marginalize those who were homosexual.
So there comes two questions here. First, is it possible to preach BIblical standards on sexuality without stating, implying, or suggesting that one group is superior or inferior to the other?

Second, If the answer to the first question is no, then is what is being suggested merely an imitation or returning of the favor by one group of the other?

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

July 4

To Joe Carter and his blogpost on American Civil Religion and Christianity. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.

Carter's objection to veneration of the nation within the walls of the Church are most appropriate. And yet, this mixing of veneration of other gods with the Christianity can occur outside God's House as well. We should note that we call ourselves Christians, whatever we do or whatever causes we work for or whatever ideologies we adhere to are now associated with Christianity. Thus,  when we associate Christianity with any political or economic ideology, we can also tarnish the glory of the Gospel. And this is especially true when we Christians uncritically embrace political or economic ideologies.  That means that we all have mixed records in terms of what we associate with the Gospel. And failure to show where our favorite political and economic ideologies differ from the Scriptures results our dishonoring of the Gospel by the associations we make just as correcting those ideologies can result in honoring the Gospel.

The above is illustrated by the context of Rousseau's comments, which Carter cites, on Christianity and the state. That context found that the Church during part of Rousseau's time had aligned itself with the aristocracy in passing legislation that favored the two over and against the 3rd Estate--that is the common people of France. Thus, Christianity was understandably seen as an enemy of the people by many who believed and fought for the French Revolution. And that process of the Church becoming an enemy of the common people is all too easily repeated when Christians uncritically adopt political and economic ideologies. For many of those ideologies will involve supporting privilege over equality.

Despite his oversight, Carter makes an excellent point in stating that there is too great a divide between American, or that of any other nation, civil religion and Christianity. However, we can work for a set of civil moral standards. That is what Martin Luther King Jr. worked for. Unlike civil religions, civil moral standards do not necessarily violate a Christian's worship and following of Jesus. But they can if we adopt those standards without examining them in the light of the Scriptures.

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

To Russell Moore and his blogpost on how religious freedom is for non-Christians too. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.

I find Moore's take on freedom of religion to be Conservative-American-Christian-centric rather than Christian. One can see that in the underhanded, uncorrected statement it makes about Islam when Moore writes the following:

Some would say, based on their reading of the Qur'an, that non-violent Muslims are inconsistent Muslims, the equivalent of cafeteria Catholics.

And yet, there is an area in which Moore's exploration of religious liberty shows his limited perspective. That area involves equality for the LGBT community. For here, we need to ask whether  opposing Same-Sex Marriage and equality for the LGBT community is a violation of religious freedom. After all, there are those who have no religious qualms over homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage. In fact, some of them claim to be Christians. And allowing Same-Sex Marriage and working for equality for the LGBT community doesn't prohibit us from teaching and sharing what God's Word has to say about marriage and about homosexuality.

As Christians, we need to broaden our perspective of religious freedom and how we see the world. And we need to see that such a broadening can easily occur without our having to compromise any teachings from the Bible. But what we might find is that broadening those beliefs might result in limiting the esteem we have for ourselves.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

July 9

To Joseph Pearce and his blogpost denouncing Obama’s and Clinton’s opposition to Russia while hoping that the Trump can further America’s friendship with Russia. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

I've now seen attempts by both the left and right to support a non-contentious relationship with Russia. Those on left do so out of opposition to US imperialism and perhaps from a romantic notion that today's Russia is carrying some continuity with yesteryear's Soviet Union. Here, the reason for someone on the Right who is supporting deepening a friendship with Russia is for a reason that might not be identifiable. The stated reason has to do with opposing globalism.

It's not that I agreed with Obama's and Clinton's approach to Russia. They were increasing the chances of a nuclear exchange by the kind of conflict they were pursuing. But one only needs to see how dissidents and journalists (see https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/03/23/here-are-ten-critics-of-vladimir-putin-who-died-violently-or-in-suspicious-ways/?utm_term=.ff04a2465ea4  and  https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2017/05/02/dozens-russian-deaths-cast-suspicion-vladimir-putin/100480734/ ), political opponents of Putin (see http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/27/why-putins-opponent-was-arrested-and-what-it-means-for-russias-future.html ), and the LGBT community have been treated to see that Russia is not furthering freedom and democracy. We should also include Putin's treatment of Chechnya in this list. And perhaps that is why Pearce is supporting a closer relationship with Russia. Just perhaps, Pearce sees Russia as providing an internal example for us to follow where freedoms are taken away and the Church is given greater pull in the State to dictate certain laws. Should note that Russia recently passed laws that  prohibit evangelism by churches that do not belong to Orthodox Church. After all, it appears that Pearce is impressed by Putin's leadership style.

One other point to make here. To say that globalism threatens the sovereignty of all nations is imprecise. Globalism can take many forms. The globalism pursued by the Democrats certainly did weaken national sovereignty of all nations. All nations would be partially controlled by foreign elites. But how much better is it really when the nation is ruled by domestic elites instead? And what kind of general public is served when sovereignty is enforced is defined and enforced by a strong arm leader?


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


July 11

To Rev Ben Johnson and his blogpost on Europe’s possible responses to the US dropping out of the Paris Agreement. Johnson claims that the Paris Agreement includes a ‘market distortion’ because of how developed nations, like the US, should help undeveloped nations in cutting emissions with funding. This appeared in the Acton blog.

Trying to respond to what could be catastrophic climate change in the future is a market distortion? Here the question to be asked is whether the market exists as a piece of a pie or is it the whole pie? If it is the former, why make the 'market distortion' moniker such an absolute judgment as if no other concern should ever change how the market operates? If it is the latter, then all of life must answer to the reality dictated by the market.

As for EU revenge for dropping out of the Paris Accords. Since dropping out can hurt the welfare of others, isn't the call for EU revenge simply a call for sanctions? And aren't economic sanction simply an economic tool that the US so easily uses on other nations whose behavior our leaders disapprove of?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To Joe Carter and his blogpost that rhetorically asks if the Free Market should be used to provide health care. This appeared in the Acton blog.

The free market mantra is maximize profits for oneself. So what could go wrong with letting the free market provide for a basic necessity in life? Try people either putting off or not getting treatment for what could be life threatening diseases because of the healthcare costs? Or health care costs becoming a leading cause for personal bankruptcies is something else that can occur. We should note that the free market does its job in reducing or eliminating waiting lists for certain procedures by filtering out those who could not afford them.