Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For August 9, 2019

Oct 8

To Michael Matheson Miller and his blogpost on how to combat consumerism. This appeared in the Acton blog.

We need to face the fact that consumerism is a product of Capitalism. That doesn't meant that consumerism needs Capitalism to exist, but the converse is true. Markets must always expand if Capitalism is to survive. Thus, people need to buy more and more and what is it that they are buying but goods and services that are designed to feed our pleasures and ensure our comfort.

Thus, Capitalism promotes a consumerism that is not only bad for us as people, it is harmful to the environment and contributes to climate change. The drive to maximize profits is incentivized by an increased ability to consume. And thus either curbing or replacing Capitalism could help reduce consumerism, but then again it might not. For we should note what Martin Luther King Jr. observed in that both Marxism and Capitalism promoted their own unique kinds of materialism.
Now the rules for combating consumerism listed in the above article might give temporary help to some, but it was what Martin Luther King Jr. said that provides the stake in the heart of consumerism. In speaking against the Vietnam War, King said the following:

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.

Unless we learn to count people, remember those creatures each of whom is made in the image of God, as being more important than our possession and wealth, we will never defeat the 3-headed monster that included materialism. And unless we become a person-oriented society, the rules listed above will provide no permanent relief from consumerism.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To Rev. Ben Johnson and his blogpost that talks about how St. Nikolas thinks Christians should view technology. This appeared in the Acton blog.

While Johnson states that technology is morally neutral, that has not been regarded as being always true by scientists. The creation of the atom bomb, for example, was seen as being wrong once it was completed even by some who participated in its development. In fact, the development of the atom bomb caused Bertrand Russell and Albert Einstein to write a manifesto that declared that because of that bomb, people must choose between either relying on fighting wars or survival.

We should also consider that just because something is morally neutral doesn't mean that it a wise choice. When I taught my introduction ot Information Technology class, the first term I would teach my students is the word 'trade off.' The term means that when choosing a particular option, there are benefits and detriments that come with that choice. And that the mature adult way of deciding between options is to compare the trade offs for each choice. Unfortunately, too many of us want to fall in love at first sight with each new piece of technology than to measure its trade offs.

Then there come something that a fellow activist and very important friend of mine, Rita Corriel,  said to me. She said that we often measure progress by how far we can distance ourselves from nature. This perspective helps point to the trade offs that we should look for in each new technological product. For when our reliance on technology separates us too far from nature, we will pay a severe price both physically and personally.

Thus, there are other concerns besides the morality of using a new piece of technology that determines whether we should use it.


 

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For September 25, 2019

Sept 21

To Bradley Birzer and his article on who was the American of 1775. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

One should note the following from the article above. First, there was no one American in 1775. There were various Americans from those who owned no land to farmers. From bondholders to slaveholders, From who lived in the cities and those who didn't. There was no one American because Americans were not a monolith. Even those who lived on the farms or in the cities were diverse just as slave holders were a diverse group. And perhaps Birzer acknowledges this when he mentions

Second, guess who wasn't an American in 1775. Those who weren't Americans were Native Americans who land America stole and blacks many of whom were enslaved, all of whom were considered to be inferior to white Americans. I guess that that could be chalked up to the new prejudices that Americans embraced. We should note how American Blacks were in 1775 by noting when they were respected as having the right to vote.

So was America really a world unto itself? Were we really that unique or just narcissistic for thinking so? Benjamin Barber wrote in his book Fear's Empire that the claim to uniqueness, especially in terms of being the unique source of good in the world, has been the claim of multiple nations, not just the US--remembering that America is really a hemisphere divided into North America, Central America, and South America. Perhaps that tells us about the status of our claim to being unique source of good in the world.

Conservatives, in an effort to preserve tradition, like to selectively look at the past. And in so doing they either erase or minimize our past atrocities. But those past atrocities should not feel special because of the treatment they receive. Too much loyalty blinds all of us to the atrocities and other faults that we practice in our groups regardless of the groups we belong to. That is true for conservatives, liberals, and leftists.

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

To Rev Ben Johnson and his article that challenges claims that cuts in government funding was responsible for 120,000 people dying from inadequate healthcare. Johnson goes on to support a free market approach to healthcare. This appeared in the Acton blog.

In other words, don't change how we do things here is the message of this article. But whether the claims being examined above are true or not doesn't affect our need to change.
First, let's talk about austerity in general. That and the movement of capital is part of neoliberal capitalism. But the IMF states that in a choice between debt and austerity measures, it is better to choose debt. Austerity measures hurt the economy because they amount to a consolidation of wealth rather than true growth in wealth. The short of it is that Neoliberal capitalism has not delivered on its promises and has been viewed and harmful (see https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2016/06/ostry.htm  ), not helpful, to both a nation's economy and its political life.
If memory serves, in a another report the IMF also stated that the growing wealth disparity caused by Neoliberal capitalism, not only hurts economic grown, but causes political distrust and unrest. We only need to look at our nation as providing evidence in supporting that claim.

Second, here is the real kicker. Political conservatives constantly cry fiscal responsibility when public funds under the government's control mostly go to people as individuals. But they act like drunken sailors when it comes to spending public funds that things provided by corporations. What we see in this article as well as other Christian defenses of Neoliberal Capitaism is a near fatal repeating of history where the Church sides with wealth an power in times that eventually saw revolutions. The pre-revolutionary times of France, Russia, and Spain serve as examples once their revolutions took place.
Third, we might want to look into the specifics of the claim that cuts in funding contributed to, not caused the deaths of 10s of thousand of people in Great Britain. There is a difference between saying that a factor contributed to from saying that it caused.
Fourth, the free market approach to healthcare has provided sterling results for the wealthy and those fortunate enough to have garnered good healthcare. But for many others, the free market approach has either denied them adequate healthcare to their physical detriment or has caused others to suffer significant financial hardships and even bankruptcy. 




 

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For September 18, 2019

Sept 16

To Rev. Ben Johnson and his blogpost that uses quotes from the UN’s new chief of the World Meteorological Organization to downplay the threat that climate change poses to us. This appeared in the Acton Blog.

Besides some misquoting and quoting from questionable sources, a selective focus was employed by the writer of the article. One UN Climate Chief, that is the Executive Secretary of the UN Framework on Climate Change, seems to be passing a different message than the one above, and she is not alone . She states that the world's way of life as it is now will lead to 'catastrophe' (see https://apnews.com/a0baaad17de744ca875711d92e173442 and https://phys.org/news/2019-04-climate-chief-current-path-catastrophe.html ). Though not joined by all top scientists, she believes that we have 12-year period of opportunity to avoid a climate change of no return. The disagreement among experts should at least raise red flags about climate change to those who are truly objective. We should note that there are others, especially some religiously conservative Christians, who see conspiracy theories of a new call to socialism behind the warnings.
We should note that current effects of climate includes the displacement of millions of people from severe weather to the risks that come with an increased number of heatwaves. Heatwaves not only pose multiple health risks from stress to diseases especially to the vulnerable, but they can also cause increases in the disruption of basic services like electric power and thus water infrastructure. Heatwaves can also increase the number wildfires. In addition, we have already seen a dramatic spike in Category-5 hurricanes during the early part of the 21st century--13 to be precise. No other 20-year span has seen even close to as many such storms as have occurred during this part of the 21st century.
Other environmental factors include the destruction of coral reefs from coral bleaching, a reduction in oxygen in the oceans, a threat to peatlands and a rise in sea level. Climate change is seen as playing a role in the recent increase in global hunger as it affects food supplies. Climate change is seen as playing a role in increases in ocean acidification which threatens marine life and increases in sea and atmospheric temperatures (see https://library.wmo.int/doc_num.php?explnum_id=5789 ). The increases in those temperatures is seen as main factors in the decrease of ice in both polar regions. We should note that continual increases in sea levels threaten the health and even safety of those who live near the oceans especially those who live in large urban areas located near the oceans. Changes in temperatures causes a loss of permafrost which, in turn, causes increased emissions of greenhouse gases.

It isn't that we can see precisely into the future, but we can accurately see the present and we have more than adequate understanding of the dynamics involved with what affects the climate and the oceans. And none of the signs we see are promising. But perhaps the biggest obstacle we have is the perspective we gain from the financial world. For the financial world under the control of our present day neoliberal capitalism has taught us to only look at short-term returns. The problem emphasizing short-term returns when it comes to climate change is that by the time those returns overwhelmingly convince us that there is a problem, the trap has sprung and it is too late. The Scriptures are right in saying: ' For the love of money is a root of all [g]sorts of evil, and some by longing for it have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs>' (see I Timothy 6:10, https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=I+timothy+6%3A10&version=NASB )

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

Sept 17

To Bruce Frohnen and his blogpost on the purpose of The Constitution. Frohnen projects a conservative idealism in both the document and its framers. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative Blog.

Besides the small contradiction that exists in the article, Frohnen kind of projects conservative idealism when describing the purpose of and the context in which The Constitution was written.
The small contradiction can be seen in his statements that The Constitution was written because Americans were seeking less government and that it was written because the American people blamed a weak federal government.for trade and tax wars. To be specific, it was those with wealth who blamed a weak government for the widespread dissent and weak response to Shays Rebellion. One only needs to compare the demographics of the rebels in that rebellion with the participants at the convention that produced The Constitution to understand the true context of the document.

One could also look at Madison's fear of opening the electorate to all classes of people in England. He was afraid that this would lead to agrarian reform. Thus he said that the purpose of government was to:

protect the minority of the opulent against the majority

Remember that initially senators were not elected by the people. That and their length of term in office was immunize the Senators from the opinions of the voters according to Madison. And there we should remember that only a very small percentage of the people could vote then.

Conservative idealism paints a similar picture of the framers of The Constitution as the Scriptures do of the Apostles. In reality, many of the framers of The Constitution were driven more by self-interest than idealism--that is many, not all. The tax revolts didn't cause one state to threaten another. Again, those revolts threatened the place that the wealthy had in society. Federalist Paper #10 shows the disregard that people like Madison had for democracy as well as those who disagreed with policies established to favor the wealthy.

 The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States...A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it

and following shows the preference for the Union over the states:

Hence, it clearly appears, that the same advantage which a republic has over a democracy, in controlling the effects of faction, is enjoyed by a large over a small republic,--is enjoyed by the Union over the States composing it.

Finally, we should note that Frohnen only recognizes power in the government. What he doesn't seem to understand is that power can centered in the elites from the private sector. And that is what can occur when the government is under the control of the wealthy regardless of its size.




 

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For September 11, 2019

Sept 10

To Greg Weiner and his article about conservatism in The Constitution and how it should guide how the different branches of our government should act today. This was posted in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

Though the article is mostly concerned about the procedural approach by certain parts of our government and those parts of article merit a certain level of applause, there are other issues that come into play.

First and foremost, conservatism is presented as the ideal or standard of perfection as is The Constitution. The problem is that such an approach makes a religion out of conservatism and ignores the history of The Constitution and its framers.
To make a religion out of conservatism usually results in making it into a cult because it causes conservatism to serve as its only external reference point. As for The Constitution, we need to remember that most of the contributors to The Constitution were wealthy and were in the process of writing this document in fear losing their place in the nation because there was widespread dissent over the recession at the time and there was Shays Rebellion. Thus what the framers of The Constitution wanted was a stronger federal government that could respond to future rebellions while forming a new kind of government that would still serve their interests.
Spreading democracy was not the concern of the framers of The Constitution. Rather, they used the term 'democracy' as a pejorative on those who espoused specific policies that challenged the place of the then elites in America. And we could say, though to a lesser degree, of the above article's use of the term 'presentism.' The framers wanted to guard against impulsive decisions but called  certain ideas they opposed impulsive and dangerous. In other words, they were merely speaking as politicians like today's politicians do. And losing sight of the frailties and human faults of the framers is a weakness of the article above.

We should note that The Constitution as originally written supported white male supremacy as well as upper class supremacy. While the latter is not stated as explicitly as the former, it is found in how it silently supported the conditions of its time where, for the most part, only white landowners could vote while Blacks in general could not vote until almost 100 years later and women could not vote until well after that.

Some other matters of concern was the description of Trump as a populist. In reality, Trump has always been an elitist who campaigned in populist clothing. Both Trump's past and his policies bear witness to that. Trump's past clearly shows that he has always been well connected to political and financial elites. And the primary beneficiary of his present policies as well as many of the people he has put into power over government agencies have been financial and corporate elites or those who serve them.

Something else to note, that the above article could serve as a source of criticism over the Republican lawmakers who so obstructed President Obama during his presidency.  Mitch McConnell didn't care as much for creating policies as he did for trying to make Obama a one-term President.

We should also note that the conservative approach to trade was, for the most part, not close to being followed until the latter half of the 20th century. For our nation used protectionism from its beginning to build and make its industries competitive with those from the rest of the world. That protectionism does not necessarily endorse Trump's protectionism, but it shows that the conservative approach to trade wasn't followed for most of our history and with good reason.

Finally, again, there are parts of the above article that deserve praise. Not that those parts describe what is perfect, but those parts do help in telling the different branches of government what some of their proper roles are. It is that other parts of the above article also merit criticism for their distorted view conservatism, and The Constitution and its framers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To Rev. Ben Johnson and his blogpost that attempts to link the Left with witchcraft. This appeared in the Acton blog.

Besides falsely describing the Left as a Monolith, Rev. Johnson's article misses an important question. That question is, what happens when unbelievers show more interest in biblical concerns more than Christians do? How does that reflect on the Gospel.

I suppose that Rev Johnson wants to associate all of the Left with witchcraft. Such is an authoritarian approach because such attempts to discredit the Left by attacking its credentials rather than responding to the specific points made by those on the Left. We should note that many from the Left, both past and present, have never been involved with witchcraft. Some of those people include those involved with Liberation Theologians, Martin Luther King Jr, Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, or Karl Marx to name a few. But by associating witchcraft with the Left, he gives an excuse to Christians to pre-emptively dismiss the Left before having to judge the facts and logic of their their claims. Again, such an approach is authoritarian because authoritarians tend to believe that truth is more determined by the credentials of the source rather than by the logic and facts of what they say.

Perhaps Rev. Johnson should read what Martin Luther King Jr. said about communism (see pages 93-94 of http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/ows/seminars/aahistory/Pilgrimage.pdf ):

The late Archbishop of Canterbury, William Temple, referred to communism as a Christian heresy. By this he meant that communism had laid hold of certain truths which are essential parts of the Christian view of things, but that it had bound up with them concepts and practices which no Christian could ever accept or profess. Communism challenged the late Archbishop and it should challenge every Christians—as it challenged me—to a growing concern about social justice. With all of its false assumptions and evil methods, communism grew as a protest against the hardships of the underprivileged…The Christian ought to be challenged by any protest against unfair treatment of the poor, for Christianity is itself such a protest, nowhere expressed more eloquently than in Jesus’ words: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor, he hat sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, to preach the acceptable year of the Lord.”

And he should finally read what Romans 2:1-3, 12-15 says (see https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+2%3A1-3%2C12-15&version=NASB ):

Therefore you have no excuse, everyone of you who passes judgment, for in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things. 2 And we know that the judgment of God rightly falls upon those who practice such things. 3 But do you suppose this, O man, when you pass judgment on those who practice such things and do the same yourself, that you will escape the judgment of God?…12 For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law; 13 for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified. 14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having [o]the Law, are a law to themselves, 15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them

Finally, we should note that the authoritarian approach to persuasion is one that relies on manipulation rather than on asking people to make up their own minds by first fully examining the facts and logic of what others say.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For February 6, 2019

Feb 4

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost and its rejection of this age's reliance on feelings to define oneself. This appeared in Heidelblog

see also https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2019/02/49239/

That the world has overemphasized the role of feelings in how we define ourselves cannot be argued against. But many overreactions are legitimate responses to abusive situations and that is the issue that the Church must also deal with. It isn't enough to point out the log in someone else's eye; one must also acknowledge and deal with one's own logs. Otherwise, we will, however tragically ironic, be acting as the Pharisee from the parable of the two men praying.

For centuries, the authoritarianism promoted and practiced by the Church, especially the conservative Church, is partly responsible for the overemphasis that today's culture placed on therapy and on one's own feelings. And by authoritarianism, I am not talking about society's responses to God, I am talking about how resistance to overreach by human authority figures in the Church is responded to with hostility and aggression by those in the Church. Unfortunately, the result of the Church's authoritarian response to Psychology resembles more of a turf war for the hearts and minds of those who need healing rather than attempts to correct points of error.

BTW, regarding Trueman's article, it reinforces the above interpretation the Church's authoritarian approach and its unfortunate reaction to today's Psychology. For his model of thought is similar to the model of thought used in the pre modernism/modernism/post modernism division of history but with a few exceptions. One key exception neglects to mention that post modernism rejection of the metanarratives from both pre modernism and modernism comes from the authoritarian use of those metanarratives by many to enslave or even slaughter others. To condemn post modernism, which is analogous to the combination of Trueman's Second and Third World descriptions, is to act as that Pharisee from the parable of the two men praying (Luke 18:9-14, see  https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke+18%3A9-14&version=NIV  ). How ironic a position to taken by those whose faith is solely in God's mercy and grace rather than in their own merit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Feb 5

To Rev Ben Johnson and his blogpost that condemns Socialism as being based on envy, ignorance, and faith. This appeared in the Acton blog.

The first problem with the above article is its factual accuracy. When asked what should replace what Amazon's project, the response was not a "guillotine.' It was one of several responses, not the response. Another response was 'public housing.' In addition, how literally we should take the guillotine response is unknown. Further inquiries and examination of the context of the statement are needed to know what was meant.


The next problem is how much we should generalize the answer of a few to a diverse group like young socialists is problematic. Why? Socialists, even if they are in the same age range, do not make up a monolith. Yes, there are nasty socialists who, as Johnson claims, dehumanize their opponents. There are others who don't. But how does the dehumanization of opponents make socialists, young or old, unique in today highly tribal political culture? Noting that one doesn't have to call for another person's execution to dehumanize them, conservative pop media centers have been dehumanizing their opponents for decades by describing them as having nothing but sabotage to bring to our society and political landscape. Here we should note that marginalization is significantly  dehumanizing just as other actions can be.


And the resistance to Bezos isn't solely because he is offering people jobs. The resistance to Bezos involves how many of his employees are treated as well as the negative impacts that Amazon has brought to the American marketplace. Of course, one needs to expand the participants of that marketplace beyond the conservative model of buyer-seller to see the harm Amazon does. But that doesn't include all of the reasons to resist Amazon's proposed location in NYC. One was the tax breaks being offered to Amazon to locate there. While consuming all sorts of taxpayer funded infrastructure, one must examine whether Amazon  shareholders were getting a free lunch out of what they were called on to pay in taxes vs what the company would consume. When companies get significant tax breaks to locate in any area, the tax burden to support that infrastructure is shifted more and more to workers who don't have as much wealth to support the local tax base as wealthy executives and shareholders have.


What is the alternative to the young socialists or the free market recommend by Johnson? First, we should realize that if the Scandinavian model is what the young socialists are calling for, we know Bernie is calling for it, it isn't socialism, at least not from the Marxist tradition (see https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydorfman/2018/07/08/sorry-bernie-bros-but-nordic-countries-are-not-socialist/#628d9eaf74ad ). Marx's first concern was not the redistribution of wealth, it was about the redistribution of power in what Marx called the 'proletariat dictatorship.' Thus we should note that a command economy does not socialism make. If power is not redistributed to the proletariat, then there is no socialism regardless of any command economy. The nation whose economic system approximates what Marx wanted the most is Germany. That is because though it has no proletariat dictatorship, its codetermination laws redistribute power in businesses with 500+ employees to the workers by seating democratically elected workers to executive boards.


Finally, Johnson understates the problems with the Free Market. Besides not making any distinction between the different forms of Capitalism, he fails to mention the ever growing wealth disparity that today's form of Capitalism, which is Neoliberalism, is producing both within nations and between nations. Apparently, self-enforce virtue is not rule of the day. And why should we expect it to be when the basic ethic of Capitalism itself is to maximize personal profits? We should note that since political power follows wealth in Capitalist economic systems, as wealth disparity grows, so grows the disparity in political power between the highest economic class and the rest. This has already been observed in America (see https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746 ).


What is sad about the Acton blog articles is this: in the name conservative Christianity, there is an well-intended and focused venture to tightly binding conservative Christianity solely with an economic system that far benefits the wealthy at the expense of all other economic classes. The contradictions involved with conservative Christians engaged in this kind of undertaking are exposed in the Scriptures such as in James 5:1-6, see https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James+5%3A1-6&version=NIV ) and in (Jeremiah 22:13-17, see https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=jeremiah+22%3A13-17&version=NIV ). At the same time, only Socialism is said to be based on envy, ignorance, and faith. The first part of that statement seems to condemn the desire for more weath by those who live in poverty while remaining silent on those who already have more than enough who then look to accumulate even more even thought it is at the expense of those who have much less. Doesn't such a view rely on ignorance and faith?




 

Comments Which Conservatives Bllock From Their Blogs For October 3, 2018

Oct 2

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost blaming the problem Millennials have with perfectionism on the influence of social media. This appeared in Heidelblog.

The article is beyond belief. Why? When mentioning a real problem, the problem Millennials have with perfectionism, the parents of Millennials do not even receive honorable mention. How is that possible?
One reason why may be possible it is because it is us baby-boomers who, for the most part, are the parents of Millennials. Parents still have a significant influence on how their children grow up, especially with how a child reacts to changing social and cultural conditions. Plus, has Clark forgotten about 'Helicopter Parents'?  Clark is correct in starting off by saying that he was not critiquing Millennials. But he should have followed that by saying that saying that this was a partial critique of those who raised Millennials.

As for neoliberalism, Scott seems to have a selective memory regarding what fostered neoliberalism and what it produces. Neoliberalism started after America supported a military coup in Chilé in 1973. That coup overthrew the democratically elected government of Salvador Allende after Allende, with support of many of his people, had decided to pursue a more leftist agenda. America's government, because of business interests there, wanted a free market. And so a dictator was installed so that a free market could follow. And, btw, that dictator was eventually indicted for committing crimes against humanity which involved crimes against his own people. Since then, free markets have been following the growth of authoritarianism in governments. Some of that growth in authoritarianism has occurred right here in the U.S. (see https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746  ).

Furthermore, neoliberalism's free markets have caused growing wealth disparities throughout the world. Some of those losses have occurred right here in the U.S. (see https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746  ). Of course that doesn't include the fact that workers support their families in a shareholder economic world where these workers are seen as disposable objects for profit. Even if the produce a significant profit for their owners, if a higher profit can possibly be made elsewhere, workers can lose their jobs. So many jobs offer no job security because workers can be easily replaced by having their jobs offshored  or by technology. Do we really believe that the angst caused by such an environment was never passed down to the kids?


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

To Paul Krause and his blogpost about how Christianity must significantly change culture for its own good. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative.

I look at articles like the one above as a defense for Church to assume more control over society and culture. The defense for such actions are deductively made, but that defense becomes unraveled when induction, via examining history, is employed. Church history does not tell many positive stories of the West when the Church was dominant. For when Christianity is seen as revolving around a region, it all too soon becomes a vehicle that promotes self-worship instead of the worship of God.

The self-worship seen in Western Civilization when the Church was a dominant force included colonialism and imperialism along with white supremacy. In America, the ethnic cleansing of Native Americans from the land, race-based slavery, and Jim Crow were strongly promoted and then defended with perceived tenets of the Christian faith along with the Scriptures. But America has always been more Protestant than Catholic. But not all parts of Europe were that way. And  what we find in history is the lust for power, the use of violence, the embracing of intolerance, and the hoarding of wealth. These practices were seen as entitlements if not morally obligatory. Thus with the proclamation of the Gospel was the claim that white men must rule over women and people of color.

The problem with articles like the one above is that they either explicitly or implicitly promote Christian supremacy over society. That means instead of Christians sharing society with all others as equals, Christians must seize the day so as to save any pagan society from itself. But who was there to save Christian Europe, and parts of the rest of the World, from the Church? Thus came the problem that civilization changed from being Christian to being more atheistic because of the failures of the Church when it was in charge.

The NT Scriptures command us to preach the Gospel and to promote justice. And they warn us against meddling too much in society in terms of personal matters. Finally, Jesus warns us against  'lording over others.' So we need to be very careful when we Christians attempt to change society and culture lest we imitate our forefathers in how they tried too hard to influence society and culture.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To Rev. Ben Johnson and his blogpost citing a German Socialist party’s claim that Jesus would be a Socialist had he been on earth today. This was posted in the Acton blog.

It certainly is wrong of the Socialist Party to speak for Jesus on the issue of voting. But regarding the problems brought to us by Capitalism, Marx, not necessarily all of his followers, was on target especially regarding neoliberalism--today's form of Capitalism. We live in a shareholder economy where the traditional definition of stakeholder has been reduced to shareholders and possibly a few key decision makers. The traditional business definition of stakeholder consists of all who are impacted by the business. That includes those who are included in today's definitoin as well as workers, the community in which a business is located, customers, and others. To give an example, a while ago, the then CEO of Exxon was asked if Exxon should be concerned about the effects of their prices on their customers. He clearly stated that the only people Exxon is accountable to are the shareholders.

With today's new definition of stakeholders, all others are considered to be disposable objects whom a business could choose to care about. But when a business follows the maximize profits ethics, which is a popular ethic followed by those who reject the traditional definition of stakeholder, what follows is that not only do we work with the redacted definition of stakeholders, but that that ethic is cannibalizing ethic that devours all other ethical and moral guidelines. Thus obeying the law depends on belief that either the business can get away with it or that being caught will not impact the ROI.

We should note that with neoliberalism, we see an ever growing wealth disparity and that results in an ever growing political power disparity. Growing political power disparities destroy democracies.

Finally, I am not sure why Marx said that religion is the opiate of the people, but do know why Lenin said it. He spoke from observation on how those following the Christian religion enabled the exploitation of workers and others by those with wealth. He wasn't speaking from an ideological point of view as much as observational one. It is one of the few things he got right. 




 

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For September 26, 2018

Sept 25

To Joseph Sundee and his blogpost that tries to show a strong tie between free markets and free press as he denounces the interest some have in democratic socialism. This appeared in the Acton blog

There might be a strong correlation between economic freedom and press freedom, but correlations do not imply cause and effect. And we might ask whether press freedom only measures infringements exercised by government, not by financial elites. This is true since most of our major news outlets are owned by financial elites.

Sundee's article reduces freedom to individual liberty forgetting that democracy is an exercise in social freedom. Thus to try to limit democracy in order to enhance the liberties of business is to say to the people that they can't make rules that control how business interacts in society. Thus to argue for free markets against government regulations in a government that is a working democracy is to attempt to limit what the rest of society can say to business. It is a limiting of social freedom and subjugates the rest of society to business. And at this point, we should note that society is a pie in which business is merely a slice and not vice-versa.

Since the Acton blog is a religious blog, we should remind it that Church history tells us multiple tragic stories of when the Church supports those with wealth and power. Those stories include what happened to the Church when it supported wealth and power in the pre-revolutionary times of France, Russia, and Spain. And we could include Chilé in as different way since its revolution saw a democratically elected leader overthrown and replaced with a brutal, military dictator who ushered in free markets. We should also note that the economic freedom enjoyed by Ayn Rand's family took place under the dictatorship of the Tsars. And that the Provisional Government that replaced the Tsars in the February, 1917 Russian Revolution was controlled by the Capitalists who insisted on continuing Russia's involvement in WW I despite the disastrous consequences that it brought to the people. So bad were those consequences that it welcomed Lenin's hijacking of the Russian Revolution.

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

To Rev Ben Johnson and his blogpost that attempts to portray a the fully  autonomous individual with what is opposite from his “Christian” understanding of America’s Constitutionalism and its reliance on natural law. This appeared in the Acton blog.

My impression from reading about the Homo Economist is that he is a person who promotes the free markets of neoliberal capitalism. We should note that, along with Bolshevism, neoliberal Capitalism relies on the strengthening of a federal government that shows less and less interest in the concerns of those who live outside the circle of financial elites. On the other hand, there is that Johnson's reference to 'ordered liberty' and an unsupported assertion that The Constitution depended on natural law.

Those last two references give the appearance to support a conservative vanguardism. And that vanguardism, if it is defined by the blogposts, that appears in the Acton blog would give almost free reign to businesses despite any objection from society while it mandates that a Christian interpretation of natural law would deny equality in society to the LGBT community. Why the latter? It is said that acceptance of the sexual revolution clashes with religious liberty. Where does that clash occur? It occurs when laws demand that Christians treat those from the LGBT community as equals in the market place and  in society. Here we should note that many religiously conservative Christians, especially in the South, were dragged kicking and screaming into accepting the basic tenets of the Civil Rights Movement.

So perhaps Homo Economists and making the federal government stronger for emerging vanguards are conditionally positively related rather than existing as polar opposites. After all, the history of neoliberal capitalism shows a tendency to rely on oppressive government actions to protect its venture. The first 9/11, the one that occurred in Chilé serves as one of several examples.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To Paul Krause and his blogpost that claims that real humanism comes from Catholic anthropology. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative.

It seems to me that if any one group wants to claim credit for being the original source or key contributor to real humanism, then that group must not only use logical deduction to prove its point, it must also use induction. That is it must include a history of actions that could be defined as humanistic while showing a minimal or non-existent list of actions that would be defined as opposing humanism.

It is the neglect of using induction to prove that real humanism is heavily dependent on the Church regardless of the branch (Orthodox, Roman, Protestant). The history of the Church is filled with a lust for power and possessions. It shows that the Church has sided with wealth and power and participated in exploiting, sometimes brutally, the vulnerable way too many times. It shows how the Church has condoned colonialism as it used it to spread its influence and domination.

Today's Post Modernism is, in large part, due to the failure of the Church in promoting true humanism in its actions. And the Church should not feel alone, Post Modernism also faults Modernism with its dependence on science and reason for the same failure. This is why Post Modernism has rejected the metanarratives of both Pre Modernism, where faith is the rule, and Modernism, where reason is the rule. And though Post Modernism is wrong in rejecting the metanarrative of faith, its observations about the failures of faith to bring real humanism into the world are on target.

The lesson here is that we can't use deduction to come to conclusions that the use of induction cannot support. The Bible has a parallel to such logic: 'faith without works is dead.'

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For May 2, 2018

April 29

To Bradley Birzer and his blogpost that gives a completely negative critique of Marxism. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative website

There really isn't that much difference between the above critique of Marx and other conservative criticisms. According to those criticisms, Marx had nothing of value to teach us. That he seems to be a godless person who misunderstands having been disillusioned with capitalism and thinks that  he has discovered a  way to utopia. However, the history of nations that have tried his ideas like the Soviet Union, China, Laos, Cuba, etc shows otherwise.

The above critique is different from the one given by Martin Luther King Jr (see pg 92-95 of  http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/ows/seminars/aahistory/Pilgrimage.pdf ). Like the above criticism, King rejects Marx's materialism and he seemed to have strongly associated the totalitarianism of the Soviet Union with Marxism and he rejected that. He also rejected Marx's relative morality though I am not sure that that didn't come more from the Soviet Union than from Marx. I like much of King's critique of Marxism but he errs when he seems to identify it with Bolshevism--the Soviet Union's Communism.

But what we should note about King's critique of Marx is the value he sees in Marx's writings and the criticisms he has of Capitalism. And that King believed that we should pursue what is best from both Marxism and Capitalism. For whereas one ideology forgets that life is individual, the other forgets that it is social.

So what value did King see in Marxism? King agreed with the William Temple, a late Archbishop of Canterbury, who said that Communism was able to identify and cling to certain Christian truths. Those truths included waiting for a utopia and wanting social justice. And here we should note that while Marx reduced the overall theme of history to that of class struggle, it is obvious that class struggle plays a staring role in the saga of man's inhumanity to man. And it should be obvious that man is incapable of creating any kind of utopia. Despite that, Marx clearly shows how Capitalism objectifies labor power and makes workers into disposable objects for profit.

King also notes how Capitalism causes us to focus on success in terms of material goods instead of human goodness toward each other. It isn't that there are no capitalists who don't help, it is that the system trains people to perceive and treat others in the world as expendable things.

One more point should be made. While  Christian Capitalists rightfully fault Marx for believing in a utopia, they also condemn themselves for the same belief when they defiantly claim that Capitalism can be neither replaced nor improved on. The only difference is that Marx wrongfully believed in an absolute utopia on earth while such Capitalists wrongly believe in a relative one.

One other point should be made. That the list of nations trying some form of Marxism includes far more nations that the ones listed above. Those are nations where the US, and sometimes some allies, has supported or orchestrated coups where a democratically elected leftist in government were replaced by brutal tyrants and dictators.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

April 30

To Russell Kirk and his blogpost on a 10-point description of Conservatism. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

The above description of conservatism by Russell Kirk contains both ambiguities and contradictions.
Contradictions include not favoring 'absolute political dogmas' while celebrating America's rejection of all forms of collectivism. Another conservative contradiction exists in the expressed disdain for the centralization of power while maintaining privilege and status and allowing power to collect in the private sector. Here, a bit shortsightedness and overreaction to the Soviet Union back then might explain the inconsistency. Kirk seems to say that conservatives only object to the consolidation of power in the public sector while, through the maintaining of privilege and status, allowing power to consolidate in the private sector. For Kirk should realize that in Capitalism power follows wealth, the consolidation of wealth leads to what is expressly feared: the consolidation of power as seen in oligarchy.

Ambiguity exists in determining whose moral law will set the standard and serve as the code for society. In addition, what are the specific differences between improving the world and seeking any dreaded utopian dream. Or when Kirk describes Conservatives as protecting everybody's right to keep what is theirs, how does he determine what is someone's property when it comes to fair wages?

Much of what Kirk wrote here was in revulsion to the Soviet Union. But how much about the Soviet Union did Kirk really understand? Did he understand that many socialists themselves opposed the Soviet Union? Did he understand that according to some socialists, Lenin and/or Stalin were rejected? Would that have made a difference in what he wrote?

Despite the above, more problems with conservatism can be found in its working definition rather than its ideal definition. For conservatism's working definition amounts to conservatives looking solely to the past to understand today's world and how to solve its problems. Such works against the conservative principle of accepting the universal law of change.

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

May 1

To Rev. Ben Johnson and his blogpost that challenged France’s President Macron’s call for change in the US during his speech before a joint session of Congress. This appeared in the Acton Blog.

Though I have to agree with Rev. Johnson's objections to Macron's approach to fake news, Johnson is off the mark when he criticizes Macron's call to the US to follow the climate agreement. Yes, there have been problems with the current approach to addressing climate change in Germany and the UK. But what does that mean? Does that mean that we give up on addressing climate change? Does it mean if government cannot "get it right" with their first approach, that gov't will never get it right? The conservative response to Social Justice issues, and climate change is one of those issues, is to reduce reality to what favors their perspective. This includes ignoring other realities. The reality being ignored by Rev. Johnson is the future reality if we do not change. And that future reality is becoming more and more certain as we observe either the disappearance or breakup of Arctic and Antarctic ice. It becomes more certain as we see the continued melting of the permafrost and the release of methane gas. It is observed as we see the rise in sea levels increase at a faster pace. And it is observed as we see global temperatures rising. And those are not the only places we see climate change coming.

Rev. Johnson also misses the mark when he criticizes Macron's call for regulated markets. Johnson seems unaware that the stats he cites to challenge economic inequality are inadequate. Wealth disparity has been growing within nations (see  https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2018/jan/22/inequality-gap-widens-as-42-people-hold-same-wealth-as-37bn-poorest and  http://www.austaxpolicy.com/news/world-inequality-report-2018/  and  http://www.oecd.org/social/inequality.htm  ). Citing only the work  of a conservative think-tank is problematic when the results are not found by other sources. What Oxfam observed about extreme poverty being reduced does not not apply to other levels of poverty. In addition, where poverty is reduced the most in the world is China, which hardly has a free,unregulated market as well as the environmental growing pains that comes with their reduction in poverty, and India, which has problems with increases in slavery. Thus, whether even extreme poverty is being reduced around the world the way it is reduced in China and India is debatable.

It's about time that Acton should come clean in terms of its pushing neoliberal capitalism and who that kind of capitalism benefits the most. The growing wealth disparity in the world indicates that it isn't the people at the bottom.

Comments Which Conservtaives Block From Their Blogs For April 25, 2018

April 22

To Joe Carter and his blogpost on how to unreservedly embrace patriotism. This appeared in the Acton Blog.

I am confused as to why one would want to brag about being patriotic. If the ideal and real America are too different, then the real America is seen as a failure or even a delusional attempt at creating a utopia. But if the ideal and real America are too similar, then whether one celebrates America or not depends on the privileges one's own group enjoys or is deprived of.

When one looks at the evidence, then one finds that history points to the ideal and real America being more similar than different. A rebellion against a founding empire allowed domestic elites to replace foreign elites as leaders of a nation just born. But when dissent and Shays Rebellion occurred a few years later, domestic elites refused to allow those who were resisting to follow the path set by those elites. And thus The Constitution was written. For in that document, the federal government was made more powerful partially so that it could better put down future insurrections. Just look at all of the instances of the word 'militia' is mentioned in The Constitution and the Bill of Rights to see evidence of this view.

From a Christian perspective, it seems to me that patriotism is just another religion that worships one's own group--especially when one's own group enjoys privilege over others, And thus for the Christian, embracing patriotism leads one into practicing polytheism. And here we should note what Paul wrote about his belonging to a group that was, in the past, chosen to be God's very own people (see  https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=philippians+3%3A1-11&version=NASB  ):

Finally, my brethren, rejoice in the Lord. To write the same things again is no trouble to me, and it is a safeguard for you.

2 Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of the false circumcision; 3 for we are the true circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh, 4 although I myself might have confidence even in the flesh. If anyone else has a mind to put confidence in the flesh, I far more: 5 circumcised the eighth day, of the nation of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the Law, a Pharisee; 6 as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to the righteousness which is in the Law, found blameless.

7 But whatever things were gain to me, those things I have counted as loss for the sake of Christ. 8 More than that, I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish so that I may gain Christ, 9 and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith, 10 that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death; 11 in order that I may attain to the resurrection from the dead.

Note all that Paul counts as loss because of the superior significance that belonging to  Christ involves. For he not only counts as loss his own achievements, but whatever identities he could claim from being a member of the tribe of Benjamin and being the cream of the crop of the chosen race of the Hebrews. And he does so to show that all his confidence is exclusively in Christ. All other confidence is leads to pride.

So why should we be so eager to embrace patriotism? Isn't the significance we gain from belonging to Christ enough?

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

April 24

To Rev. Ben Johnson and his blogpost that reviewed an article that claimed that the religious interest of people negatively correlated with the existence of effective government assistance programs. This appeared in the Acton blog.

Besides the fact that conclusions that are at the end of any scientific article are nothing more than the writers' interpretations of the data, Rev. Johnson sounds defensive. And the zenith of his defensiveness is exhibited in his following statement:

Philanthropy comes near the end of a longer process of conversion – after the person has personally accepted Jesus Christ’s unconditional love and mercy, seen Christ in his neighbor, and reacted accordingly.

Such a statement logically implies that only Christians  engage in philanthropy. That claim  is easily disproven by a single counterexample, let alone the many counterexamples that could easily be provided.

Likewise, his defensiveness is also shown in the statement below:

When private individuals set their hand to philanthropic works, the results are more effective and longer lasting than government programs. A sense of entitlement and the bureaucratic one-size-fits-all mentality cannot replace personalized care, real relationships, and a sense of belonging created by religious outreaches. The larger government gets, the more corruption and fraud crowd out a program’s noble intentions. One may be justified in asking whether big government is a near occasion of sin.

Such is an unsubstantiated statement. But we might ask Rev. Johnson which philanthropic work can compete with Social Security or Medicare in terms of providing resources and services for so many people? Again, a single counterexample is all that is needed to to dispel one of Rev. Johnson's claims.

Finally, to show how defensive Rev Johnson has become to the article he reviewed, one only needs to note how he describes that it is either government or God that provides for people. He never considered that God can use government and its programs to provide for people. That when we attribute our blessings to government only, or any other human agency, only, then all that has happened is that God was not given his due.

In addition, there is one more interpretation of the data that could be postulated. That some religions prey on the vulnerability of the people in order to draw followers. That vulnerability could be based on fear or deprivation. And that is why religiosity and the prevalence of effective government assistance programs have a negative correlation. Thus, opposing government assistance programs could be a logical strategy adopted by those religions that seek to take advantage of people's suffering. Perhaps that is the nerve that was hit by  the article Rev. Johnson commented on

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

To Chuck Chalberg and his blogpost on ‘single-issue liberals’ and how different Democratic liberals and Republican conservatives are. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

While teaching, I asked one of my colleagues who was from another country about how different our political parties were. My friend said, 'very little.' And this is the problem we have when sizing up people from the other side. If we were to be more reflective, we might realize that many  whom we thought were on the other side are actually on a different part of our own side.

In addition, any American who thinks that Democrats are on the left know little about both the Democrats and the Left. As a leftist, that is one who does not believe in Capitalism, not even Bernie Sanders is counted as one of us. Noam Chomsky has correctly labeled him as an "FDR New Dealer." That is he likes the social safety net programs FDR initiated while President. And many conservatives call that the left because they mistakenly equate big government and entitlements with socialism.

When one reads Marx, one realizes that the first agenda item to be addressed by any socialist from the Marxist tradition is the redistribution  of power, not wealth. And that redistribution isn't designated to an ominous, amorphous alien state, that redistribution channels power to the workers. For the abolition of private property for Marx occurs in its ideal sense when the proletariat can make laws that curb actions of wealthy landowners. Thus, Marx's abolition of private property assumed the existence of such property. And when we look at the left from that perspective, we find that Democrats and Republicans have far more in common than Democrats and the left.

Some of those shared views between establishment Democrats and Republicans include support for our current neoliberal form of Capitalism. Here we should note that during the 2016 election, both Trump and Clinton were supporting two different sides of neoliberal capitalism. For while Clinton was pushing for America to join the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), Trump was pushing for tax relief for and mass deregulation of American businesses.  In essence, both want the same kind of economic system only Clinton believed that it should include some fringe benefit bells and whistles in order to keep the masses happy. And now, it has been reported that Trump is reconsidering his position on the TPP.

Did both Trump and Clinton believe in big military budgets and American interventionism with impunity? Yes. Do both allow for a growing deficit? Yes. Did the DOJ from Clinton's Democratic predecessor fail to prosecute any of the financial wizards who were responsible for the economic collapse of 2008? Yes. Is Trump following suit? Yes.

All of the above leaves social issues, like same-sex marriage, as the only issues left for establishment Democrats and Republicans to debate over. Yes, there are fringe members and groups of each party which get their 15 minutes of fame, but they never seem to really change the direction of the Republican and Democratic establishments. So the article above seems both puzzling and uninformed. For the only thing that seems to really divide America is a manufactured tribalism over labels and those pesky social issues. And that obscures the reality of the real divisions that exists. For the real division in America today is the one that exists between the establishment of each party and their respective constituents. And for as long as we have a 2-party system, the establishment is sitting pretty.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For March 21, 2018

March 8

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost's citing of a Carl Trueman on the psychologized self and identity politics. In that article, Trueman claims that the root of all oppresion is economic. Ts appeared in heidelblog.net

The problem with this portion of Trueman's article is that his claim about oppression is false. The root of oppression is not always economic. Blacks have suffered, and still do,  much psychological harm from various forms of white supremacy.  That has been as true for middle class and upper class Black as it has for lower class Blacks. Even today, racial profiling practiced by the police affects Blacks of all classes. White privilege affects Blacks of all classes. But it is not just Blacks who suffer oppression. Kids who are targets of verbal and online bullying suffer psychological oppression.
 
Trueman,  in how he reduces the root of oppression to that which is objectively measured, takes a similar approach to understanding oppression as some, especially some liberal theologians, take to understanding reality. That is they believe that only that which is physical is real. In the end, it seems that Trueman, as a theologian, is not only fighting a turf battle with Pscyhology. he might be trying to excuse or even deny some of the abuse that has been directed from the conservative Church toward certain non-mainstream groups. That abuse includes the conservative Church's efforts to marginalize the LGBT community in society. Here we should remember those Christians who used their religious beliefs to justify and promote the racism that was part of the Jim Crow era. In addition, we should remember the efforts of Martin Luther in trying to get German society to marginalize Jews becaue of their persistent unbelief.

Unless the conservative Church only wants to evangelize political conservatives, it should study the history of oppression in the West in order to remove any current support for or participation in that oppression by its clergy or members of the congregation

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

March 17
 
To Rev Ben Johnson and his blogpost that compares Romania under Communist rule with today’s Romania and with what it hopes to become. This appeared in the Acton blog.

It seems like from the above description of Romania that not much changed from the overthrow of Communism back in 1989 in terms of structure. Many of the leaders are still the same. You had authoritarianism in Romania under Communism and you have it today. Only corruption today has gone wild while it was seemingly contained under Communism. And you have Romania growing closer to closer to authoritarian Russia--btw, calling Russia authoritarian just might be an understatement. So is Romania on the 'long road back from Communism?

We might want to answer that question from a Socialist perspective--noting that there is more than one such perspective. Socialist and contemporary of Vlad Lenin, Rosa Luxemburg, offers some interesting insights. Her critique of Lenin's regime was that by relying on just a handful of people (Lenin and his Central Committee) to rule over the rest, Lenin was employing the same kind of leadership that the bourgeoisie employ in the private sector. So it seems that Romania hasn't really changed from its days under Communism except that the Socialist leaders from the past became today's bourgeoisie leaders  through their acquisition choice private property. What was Luxemburg's alternative to Lenin's regime? It was a proletariat dictatorship that Luxemburg described in the following way (see  https://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1918/russian-revolution/ch08.htm  ):

but a dictatorship of the class, not of a party or of a clique – dictatorship of the class, that means in the broadest possible form on the basis of the most active, unlimited participation of the mass of the people, of unlimited democracy.

According to Luxemburg's description of Socialism, Socialism was never employed by Romania. Instead, what we saw in the pre-1989 Romania was the employment of a bourgeoisie model. And can we say the same for Romania today? That Romania is still employing a bourgeoisie model only it is a different model than what Romania employed when it was a "Communist" nation only the older model obviously provided checks that then prevented today's abuses.
Though the Socialism that Luxemburg proposed could be legitimately criticized for creating only a partial democracy, a classocracy where the proletariat replace the bourgeoisie as the ruling class, she provides some useful distinctions between Socialism and bourgeoisie rule which counter the Conservative mantra definition of Socialism/Communism or, for short, Marxism.

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

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost that quotes Machen on how attempts at rescuing Christianity from scientific criticism actual serve to hurt Christianity because it attempts to change the definition of Christianity. This appeared in Heidelblog

The kind of rescuing that evangelicalism/fundamentalism needs now is not scientific, it is political in terms of party and ideological alliances. The association between evangelicalism/fundamentalism with the Republican Party and political conservatism is so strong for individual evangelicals/fundamentalists that it both politically blinds its own members from the real world and continually serves stumbling block after stumbling block to those outside the Republican and conservative political ideological circles.

In addition, because so many have been blinded, evangelicals/fundamentalists are paying moral values to the Republican Party and conservative political ideologies for a promised protection against an encroaching secularism. These moral values would otherwise be used to protect workers and others as well as the environment from exploitation by those with wealth. The Republican Party reduces being pro-life to the abortion issue in order to manipulate the votes of a vast number of evangelicals/fundamentalists. By reducing being pro-life to the abortion issue, the Republican Party has succeeded in persuading evangelicals/fundamentalists that it is the pro-life party while the Democrats are not; though, in reality, both parties have a mixed-bag record on being pro-life--that is if we count the concerns of those who have been born as part of being pro-life.

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

March 18

To Joe Carter and his blogpost  on tariffs and trade balance. this appeared in the Acton blog.

The weakness of the above post is the assumption that  tariffs and other such protectionist measures are practiced only for the sake of supporting mercantilism. America's history shows that is not the case. America employed protectionist measures, such as using tariffs, from its beginning as a nation through the FDR's Administration. Those measures were not used for the benefit of merchants who could charge highest price for their protects as tariffs eliminated foreign competition--even though that was an immediate result. Rather, as Ha-Joon Chang points out, protectionism was employed to give American industries a chance to become competitive (see http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/comment/ha-joon-chang-protectionism-the-truth-is-on-a-10-bill-5334137.html ).
In addition, I believe that Griswold's claim about trade policies and deficits is wrong. First, we should note that both have required the importing of certain goods over using domestic products. , And at least NAFTA has contributed to the offshoring of jobs which contributes to the increase of imports (see https://www.frbsf.org/education/publications/doctor-econ/1999/october/trade-deficit-import-export-imbalance-currency/  ).

In addition, there seems to be a conservative inconsistency in allowing trade deficits to soar. After all, when the Federal government spends more money than it takes in, the Republicans sound the fiscal responsibility alarm indicating that we are building an insurmountable debt for our descendants to overcome. But when it comes to the trade deficit, it seems that the more the deficit, the merrier the Republicans become. To offset the trade deficit, investors from other nations buy American properties and businesses in order to finance the deficit. And another things that happens is that the American dollar eventually becomes weaker and it could possibly lose it position in the world economy as the default or reserve currency. Also, as more American businesses are owned by foreigners, then the more foreign investors will be able to buy the ear of our elected representatives. And the more those investors can buy, the less our officials will listen to us.

Though there are things to learn from Adam Smith's war against mercantilism, protectionism, when rightly employed for specific reasons, can benefit others than merchants who wish to corner a given market by eliminating competition.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For February 28, 2018

Feb 24

To John Horvat and his blogpost that blames liberals and liberalism for events like the mass shooting in Florida. Liberals and liberalism are to blame according to Horvat because mass shootings are the result of breakdowns in society caused by liberal influence. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

The tragic part of the above article is that in scapegoating liberals for the recent mass shootings, conservatives are playing the role waned against by the God whom they claim to believe in and liberals reject. Conservatives are also sharing a practice, which is scapegoating, employed by those who participate in mass shootings like the one recently seen in Florida.

Jesus warned us against judging others and putting ourselves on pedestals in His parable of the two men praying (Luke 18:9-25). In that parable, Jesus compared the standing before God between a pharisee, who bragged about his own righteousness, and a publican, who could only see himself as a sinner to the extent that he didn't even mention the pharisee. And why did Jesus tell the parable. Verse 9 explains:

And He also told this parable to some people who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and viewed others with contempt:

At the end of the day, Jesus's parable tells us that it was pharisee, not the tax collector, who went home condemned.

The scapegoating of liberals and liberalism for today's gun violence runs counter to the narrative of the Florida shooting. For Nikolas Cruz was linked to white supremacists--a right-wing group. We should note that the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) has tracked 150 terrorist attacks, including those from anti-abortion extremists, to right-wing groups. Those attacks have occurred from 1993 to 2017. The 2 groups involved in most of the attacks are white supremacists and 'anti-government extremists,' who as a group are sometime referred to as the Patriot movement (see  https://www.adl.org/education/resources/reports/dark-constant-rage-25-years-of-right-wing-terrorism-in-united-states  ). We should note that the Imaginative Conservative website has spoken against government when it sees government as stepping outside the bounds that the website has assigned to it.

The scapegoating of liberals and liberalism for today's gun violence runs counter Church history when religious wars and atrocities were performed in the name of Christianity--sometimes with both sides of a war claiming that the Christian God was on their side.That scapegoating also runs counter to the Church's attempts to silence scientific discoveries and thought. The scapegoating of liberals and liberalism for today's gun violence also runs counter the history of our nation where in the name of Christ, European Christian settlers of our nation engaged in both ethnically cleansing Native Americans from the land and owning slaves. Their descendants used their religious faith to defend the continued owning of slaves and, subsequently, a society based on white supremacy such as what occurred during Jim Crow.

It would be just as wrong to scapegoat conservatives and conservatism as it is to scapegoat liberals and liberalism for the violence we see in society today. But we should note that the scapegoating of others is what is still being practiced by many who have been conducting terrorist acts and other mass killings. The scapegoating of others has often been used to justify wars. And yet, that scapegoating is what is being used in the above article to persuade people to have such a hostile view of liberals and liberalism that they see liberals as not only having everything to learn and nothing to teach, but as posing a real physical threat to society.

It isn't that liberals have no faults or that the  have never made questionable impacts on society. It is that negatively influencing society is a human fault that is a part of all groups that wish to influence society. Both liberal and conservative groups have contributed to the some of the breakdowns in society. As Jesus said:

9 And He also told this parable to some people who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and viewed others with contempt: 10 “Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 The Pharisee stood and was praying this to himself: ‘God, I thank You that I am not like other people: swindlers, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week; I pay tithes of all that I get.’ 13 But the tax collector, standing some distance away, was even unwilling to lift up his eyes to heaven, but was beating his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, the sinner!’ 14 I tell you, this man went to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted.”

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

To Joe Carter and his blogpost on research designed to measure the employment of Protestant religious values with individual prosperity. This appeared in the Acton blog.

Whenever we run into claims of Christian values promoting human flourishing, we also need to account for how Christians have practiced those values to the detriment of others. But that is often not done because, as in the study cited above, the scope of negative and positive effects is limited to the participants. Such possibly shows attempts to correlate work ethic and personal values that would make one more marketable and productive, or reduce wasteful spending or the taking of personal risks that would hurt one's prosperity. So the scope is very small and asks people to only look at how they themselves are affected. The trouble here is that the study was conducted within a certain context that included an economic system but excluded data on the other stakeholders who affected by the same economic system.  It is in that small scope that revolves around the self that shows the fault of measuring the effects of sets of values like the Protestant work ethic and life values.And thus one should wonder if the religiosity involved causes people to be more self-absorbed.

In addition, the tie between increased grit and income is rather ambiguous. For increased grit could show a positive, or at least realistic, relationship with a relative healthy economic system or could be a sign of an acceptance of being exploited in an abusive economic system. And with the small scope that comes from revolving a study on one's focus on oneself, there is little chance, without outside influence of any given participant discovering the kind of economic system in which one is participating.

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

Feb 26

To Rev Ben Johnson and his blogpost about how Billy Graham claimed that Britain’s Labour Party created many problems. He also stated that Communism and Christianity are diametrically opposed to each other. This appeared in the Acton Blog.

Should it come as a surprise that Graham would criticize economic ideologies that were not employed in his own nation? Should it come as a surprise that Graham and others viewed socialism as his government did: as a monolith.

Martin Luther King initially viewed Communism as a monolith, but unlike Graham, he could see the strengths and weaknesses in both Communism and Capitalism. King correctly saw materialism in both Communism and Capitalism. After all, both were measured by how they distributed goods. The two, however, employed different kinds of materialism and he viewed the materialism of both as posing a threat. But King saw something else. He saw that the strength of one served as the weakness of the other. King saw that Communism recognized that life was social but forgot that life was individual. Capitalism reversed that.

We could also add to that that both Communism and Capitalism promote utopias. Communism, following Marx, sought an absolute utopia while Capitalism claims to have reached a relative utopia. The relative utopia of Capitalism can be seen in its claim that no other system can make a better economy and way of life.

While Graham saw Communism and Christianity as being diametrically opposed, Marx didn't see it that way. When he wrote about the abolition of religion, he was simply expressing similar views to Jefferson's separation of Church and state. When comparing his view of the abolition of religion in the state with those of Bruno Bauer, Marx noted that Bauer wanted religion to be replaced with science while he simply wanted the state to be liberated from the control of religion. Marx stated that his view of the abolition of religion presupposes its existence--a view that was employed by neither Lenin nor Stalin.
When John McDonnell bragged about there being much to learn from Das Kapital, he was possibly referring to how Marx saw how Capitalism made the worker into something that is disposable. And, by extension, we could include that all that depend on the worker as being disposable as well. That criticism alone shows how Capitalism denies the intrinsic value of each person--definitely an anti-Christian position-- and only recognizes as their extrinsic value their contributions to the market. The jab at cradle to grave welfare state indicates the same mentality.

How the British Labour Party could be thought of as being socialist in same way as the Soviet Union was shows ignorance. It shows an ignorance of the variations of socialism as well as its history. This especially applies to the perceived view of Marx's abolition of private property (see  https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/jewish-question/   ).

The political elevation of man above religion shares all the defects and all the advantages of political elevation in general. The state as a state annuls, for instance, private property, man declares by political means that private property is abolished as soon as the property qualification for the right to elect or be elected is abolished, as has occurred in many states of North America. Hamilton quite  correctly interprets this fact from a political point of view as meaning:

“the masses have won a victory over the property owners and financial wealth.” [Thomas Hamilton, Men and Manners in America, 2 vols, Edinburgh,
1833, p. 146]

Is not private property abolished in idea if the non-property owner has become the legislator for the property owner?  The property qualification for the suffrage is the last  political form of giving recognition to private property.

Nevertheless, the political annulment of private property not only fails to abolish private property but even presupposes it. The state abolishes, in its own way, distinctions of birth, social rank, education, occupation, when it declares that birth, social rank, education, occupation, are non-political distinctions, when it proclaims, without regard to these distinction, that every member of the nation is an equal participant in national sovereignty, when it treats all elements of the real life of the nation from the standpoint of the state. Nevertheless,  the state allows private property, education, occupation, to act in their way – i.e., as private property, as education, as occupation, and to exert the influence of their special nature. Far from abolishing these real distinctions, the state only exists on the presupposition of their existence; it feels itself to be a political state and asserts its universality only in opposition to these elements of its being.