Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For June 26, 2019

June 21

To Joseph Mussomeli and his blogpost about the pardon of an American soldier who, in revenge for the death of his friend, disobey orders by taking an enemy combatant prisoner to an isolated area where he stripped the prisoner and then interrogated him. When the prisoner fought back, the soldier killed the prisoner. The article was written because this soldier, who was sentenced to 25 years in military prison, received a Presidential pardon. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

We need to distinguish between what is understandable and justifiable. We could easily understand the 9/11 atrocities if we note that they were in response to our almost carte blanche support for Israel's atrocities against the Palestinians and to our sanctions against Iraq that took the lives of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children. That is we could understand those atrocities unless tribalism has prevented us from doing so. Unfortunately, tribalism, a.k.a., strong group loyalty, often prevents us from seeing the sins of our own group. Instead, the ethic that comes with tribalism is that right and wrong depends on who does what to whom. Thus the atrocities that our group does can be described as understandable but not the atrocities of others. BTW though the 9/11 atrocities are understandable, they are in no way justifiable and neither could the actions of Behenna. BTW, for critics, I am well aware that the 9/11 attacks were on a scale far greater than Behanna's killing of the prisoner. That is not the point of comparison being used here. The point is to distinguish how an atrocity can be understandable but not justifiable.

Regarding the events that led to the prisoner's killing, against orders, Behenna took the prisoner to an isolated area where he stripped the prisoner to interrogate him. But when the prisoner attacked Behenna, why wasn't the prisoner's attack described as self-defense? If the roles were reversed and a lone enemy combatant had taken Behenna out to an isolated location, stripped him and started to interrogate him, would we describe Behenna as acting in self-defense if he attacked his captor?  Instead, Behenna's reactions to the attack are the only actions described as self-defense.

War certainly corrupts everyone involved. It is inevitable. War enables tribalism to flourish. In fact war is steroids for tribalism. And in tribalism moral relativism wins the day. And that should be the Christian's problem with the above article even though Mussomeli complains about America's strong tendency to admit no wrong doing. Behenna's actions were in no way justifiable and thus they become a stain on the conscience of both our nation as well as Behenna. Even though what he did was understandable, it can in no way be justified. And though we don't know how Behenna will respond to this stain on his conscience, many of our troops who fought in the War on Terror have reacted to their own stains by taking their lives at rates not seen since the Vietnam War. Recognizing that Behenna's actions were understandable does not wash out the stain. Recognizing that his actions were unjustifiable begins the process of washing out that stain. Unfortunately, according to the above article, Behenna has not completed that stage. And his pardon, though bringing him temporary comfort, might even cause the stain to be set in deeper.
Fighting a war and, to a lesser degree, fighting crime show some with the most power weapons we allow people to have. To allow them to give into tribalism means that we are taking away an important motivation for those with these powerful weapons to exercise self-restraint. So are we fully informed if we give into tribalism for those who have the most powerful weapons people can have? Or are we just kidding ourselves when thinking that our side will always prevail when atrocities win the day?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

June 22
To Joseph Sunde and his blogpost claiming that Socialism and Christianity do not mix. His blogpost contains a video presentation of Socialism by Russell Moore from the Gospel Coalition. This appeared in the Acton blog.

The problems that almost always occur when religiously conservative Christians, especially American ones, talk about socialism is that that they talk about it mostly in static, monolithic terms. By static I mean that they never have read  or listened enough to hear the evolution that occurs in socialist thinking. And by monolithic, I mean that socialism is always described as being the same without acknowledging key differences between Socialists. And we might add that religiously conservative Christians, especially those from America, are opportunistic in terms of what they point out as its examples.


Russell Moore is guilty of having all 3 problems when talking about Socialism. And one has to wonder how limited has been his view of of the subject.

In terms of talking about socialism statically, while the popular Christian assessment of socialism is that it occurs when we have state owned means of production in order to arrive at some utopian end, that is not the view of all socialists today. Some now believe in relying on socialism not to reach utopia, but to improve on a failing Capitalist system. Some now are emphasizing non-elite centered rule and worker-owned and controlled means of production--one can see this in Ezequiel Adamovsky's book, Anticaptialism. And, starting with Trotsky and continuing with Khrushchev and Gorbachev, many socialists have condemned Stalin's totalitarianism. Noam Chomsky also included in that condemnation of Stalin was a claim that Lenin was not a socialist in terms of how he ruled Russia. Like other systems, Socialism has evolved and gone through some changes.

Next, Moore describes socialism, even for democratic socialism, as a monolith where the state owns and controls the means of production. But such does not qualify as socialism from the Marxist tradition. Why? Because the most basic tenet of Marxist Socialism is that the workers replace the bourgeoisie as the ruling class. Thus, even if the state does own the means of production, which is not necessary for Socialism to occur,  it is not Socialist if the workers are not in control of the state. And the workers gain those positions of authority by being democratically elected by their peers. That is an extremely important part of the definition of Socialism from the Marxist tradition. In fact, based on that criteria, Rosa Luxemburg, a contemporary of Lenin, declared that Lenin was not ruling as a Socialist because he relied on a small elite committee to help rule rather than on the workers. We should note here that Lenin came from the Petite Bourgeosie class, he was never a member of the proletariat--the workers. Therefore, according to Luxemburg, Lenin's rule over Russia resembled a Bourgeoisie dictatorship rather than a Socialist rule. And Moore  would know that if he was adequately exposed to socialist thinkers. But he wasn't and thus was ignorant of that fact. But Luxemburg gave Lenin a Hall Pass because of Russia's internal conflicts at the time. And Luxemburg was not the only Socialist who was challenging Lenin's Socialist crednetials..

BTW, Moore's Democratic Socialism isn't the only variation of  Socialism. Libertarian Socialism doesn't even believe in the existence of the state and yet it is a form of socialism. And yet Moore does not account for that.
Finally, religiously conservative Christians are opportunistic in their labeling of Socialist regimes. While they are more than happy to include the Soviet Union, Cuba, China, North Korea and alike as examples of Socialism, they overlook the fact that non-dictatorial, democratically elected and left-leaning  regimes were replaced by the US with tyrannical dictators who served the interests of American businesses. Had they been given a chance, who knows what positive examples of Socialism would have emerged. Rather, Moore and others only point to those "communist" regimes that emerged from revolutions that sought to overthrow dictators who, far too many times, were supported by the West.

IN addition, Moore overlooks one nation that is both economically successful and the closest example of Marxism today. That nation is Germany. Why is Germany the closest example to Marxism in the world today? It is because just as Marx believed in redistributing power to the workers, so has Germany partially implemented that redistribution of power. However Germany uses a hybrid system with its codetermination laws that combine worker-controlled means of production with bowner-controlled means of production. For example, if a company has at least 500 to around 2,000 employees, then around 1/3 of the executive board of the company must be made up of workers who were elected by their peers. And if memory serves, if a company has over 2,000 employees, then the percentage of worker representation on the executive board approaches 50%.
If we want to want to read one of the best Christian assessments of Socialism/Communism, we need to read what Martin Luther King Jr. wrote in his book: Strive Toward Freedom. It isn't that King doesn't commit some of the same errors that Moore has. Rather, King's objections to Socialism/Communism are far more biblically based than Moores as King strikes at more of the most bssic elements of Socialism that Moore overlooks.




 

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For July 19, 2017

July 12

To R. Scott Clark and his blogposts (they will be listed below, the comment below was in response to the part 2 link) that answers the charges on whether there is gender apartheid and toxic masculinity in the Presbyterian and Reformed churches. This appeared in Heidelblog.

Part 1—
https://heidelblog.net/2017/07/gender-apartheid-and-toxic-masculinity-in-naparc-1/

Part 2—
https://heidelblog.net/2017/07/gender-apartheid-and-toxic-masculinity-in-naparc-2/

There are some flaws in the two articles Clark has written about 'Gender Apartheid' and 'Toxic Masculinity.' The first error reveals more about Clark's thinking patterns than the argument he presents. By describing gender as being a grammatical characteristic only, which he does in part 1, he ignores the fact that gender can have multiple definitions. Certainly gender is used as a grammatical category. But it is also used identify one's sexual state (see https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gender). Clark's approach to defining 'gender' shows a rigidity in his thinking that might affect his logic on this subject in other areas.

Another example of Clark's rigidity is seen in Clark's reaction to the use of the word 'apartheid' by those who use the term 'gender apartheid.' In part 1, Clark discounts these claims because there is certainly no gender apartheid in the Church because there is no government enforced separation  between the genders and oppression of those speaking out that even slightly resemble the apartheid of South Africa. Clark doesn't realize that other forms and degrees of separation can still qualify as apartheid since the definition of word 'apartheid' isn't mystically tied to the status quo state that tragically occurred in South Africa.

Likewise, his reaction to the term 'toxic masculinity' is to say that the term seems to be a grievance against being a boy or a man. In the light of what was written before, we should note that he does acknowledge that there are multiple legitimate ways of being a man.

The second flaw in Clark's argument here started in part 1 and continues through to part 2. Clark wants to use definitions only to answer the charges made. Though he doesn't use definitions to consider whether sexism or oppression of women exists in the Presbyterian and Reformed churches, , he acknowledges the possibility of that occurring, he does use definitions only to deduce that neither gender apartheid or toxic masculinity exist. And using his rigid definitions of both 'gender' and 'apartheid,' along with his doctrinal view of both men and women tells him that these charges are false.
The better way to handle these charges is not just to define the different biblical roles there are for men and women, but to survey the women in the Presbyterian and Reformed churches to see what degree of agreement, if any, they have with those making the charges. The over reliance on definitions and theology to define what reality people are and are not experiencing is one of the strongest temptations that we in the Reformed and Presbyterian churches face because of our reliance on doctrine to settle these disputes. Thus, we often skip over asking people what they experience when solving problems or answering questions. That is what Clark has done here. Rather than propose that we ask the women of these churches about how they experience and see things, he has answered the charges by applying logic and rigid thinking to definitions to describe what is reality.
Thus, the charges that Clark is responding to will not only go unanswered, they will be unexamined  because instead of including the experiences of other women in the Presbyterian and Reformed churches, Clark sees answering the charges as an exercise in logic. And perhaps, ironically, such an exercise by a man to charges made by women could be another example of gender apartheid and toxic masculinity.

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

July 13

To Russell Moore and his blogpost commenting on how we should react to a Christian teacher who now accepts homosexuality as a Biblically acceptable practice. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.

Two points here.  First, Russell Moore provides a wonderful example of how to disagree with a fellow Christian on an important topic. He shows compassion and a recognition of the other person's strengths while remaining firm on his Biblical view of the subject. If only all disagreements by Christians with fellow Christians and others would be made this way.

Second, we need to recognize two kinds of stress lines that cause Christians to make an unbiblical choice on how to think about an issue: necessary stress lines and unnecessary stress lines. The necessary one has to do with acknowledging whether a practice or way of thinking is sinful. The unnecessary one has to do with unnecessarily trying to insist that society make the biblical stand the law of the land. When it comes to homosexuality, the unnecessary stand consisted of opposing equality including same-sex marriage in society. No doubt that homosexuality, like all sexual practices outside of a monogamous, heterosexual marriage, cannot be tolerated in any church that follows the Scriptures. But what in the NT requires that we oppose equality for the LGBT community in society including same-sex marriage? The association of preaching God's Word about homosexuality was made with trying to marginalize the LGBT community in society by those opposing the legalization of same-sex marriage. Such was part of an effort to marginalize the LGBT community in society. Knowing that trying to marginalize the LGBT community in society was wrong, some have felt compelled to make compromises on what the Bible says about homosexuality.

We Christians need to identify the unnecessary stress lines that we might be creating for people when we take stands on public issues. Why? Because it is possible that Jesus would call our unnecessary stress lines 'stumbling blocks.' For unnecessary stress lines do function as a kind of stumbling block.

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

July 18

To George W. Rutler and his blogpost praising Trump’s speech in Poland that praised the West for democracy and the advancements it has achieved. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

In all of this bravado about the ideal West, there is a lack of awareness of its faults. And thus, self-praise seems quite natural, but, then again. believing that one's own group is special is normal. And with that self-praise comes an obliviousness to double standards. For example, when a socialists revolution overthrew a US supported dictator in Nicaragua. the Reagan administration supported terrorist actions to overthrow that government, to the tune of being convicted by the World Court, because of proximity that such a revolution was to the US. At the same time, the US, through NATO, broke an agreement that then President George H.W. Bush made with Mikhail Gorbachev over the reunification of Germany when NATO and its troops moved East of Germany. Gorbachev wrote about that (pg 308-309 in The New Russia):

The agreement on the final settlement with Germany stated that no additional NATO troops would be deployed on the territory of the former GDR, and neither would weapons of mass destruction. That meant that NATO's military infrastructure would not move eastward.

The decision to expand NATO, taken after the breakup of the Soviet Union, was contrary to the spirit of those undertakings, as I have repeatedly pointed out when parrying baseless accusations. The main problem was that the policy of the leaders of NATO harboured a real threat, and not only to Russia. There was a danger that, half a century after the start of the Cold War, the world could be plunged into something analogous.

The expansion of NATO fundamentally undermined the European modus vivendi established by the Helsinki Final Act of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe in 1975.

So NATO has, for a while, had troops on Russia's border and acts as if that should be of no concern to Russia itself. But in the 1980s, the Reagan Administration supported terrorist attacks in Nicaragua because of the threat that its socialist revolution posed to the US because of the proximity of that revolution to the US border. In addition, our lack of awareness sees no problem for Russia to have western troops in bordering countries despite the fact that Russia has suffered catastrophic losses from previous Western invasions.
Our western lack of self-awareness is also evident in how Trump spoke about the threat posed by terrorism conducted by some Islamic extremists. For the US has never been viewed as a beacon of freedom and democracy by many in the Arab world. And that view of the US has been well-known to previous Presidents going all the way back to the days of Eisenhower. For knowledge of those complaints dates back to the 1950s where the complaints were about American support for current dictators and its opposition to Arab nationalism for the sake of its interest in Middle East oil (see https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1958-60v12/d5 ). Greece learned this lesson in the late 1960s when it looked like a democratic election could produce a leftist leader. America stepped in and replaced the democratic process with the installation of a military dictatorship.

Whether we travel to southern Europe, the Middle East, the Far East, South America, or Central America, America's use of dictators and atrocities contradicts its claims of being for democracy. We should remember that US once supported Osama Bin Ladin and Saddam Hussein. It also supported dictators before they were overthrown like Batista in Cuba, Somoza in Nicaragua. and Marcos in the Philippines. It once supported Noriega in Panama. And it helped install and supported Pinochet.
Thus when Stawrowski, who is cited by Rutler in this article, said that there are those in the West who recognize the value of Graeco-Roman culture, he could inadvertently be correct. For both Athens and Rome had empires. And while life in the empires could be sweet, that was not the case for those who were not club members. And we should also note that when Stawrowski complains about those in the west who want a democracy of elites, that President Trump himself has further established such a democracy through his cabinet appointments and executive orders that are attacking the regulatory function of the government. And the purpose of the regulatory function of the government is to protect the environment, workers, and consumers from abusive practices conducted by businesses owned by private sector elites--we should also note that conservatives are slow to recognize the existence of such elites.

Trump being applauded by the Polish people while receiving low approval rates in the US is not an example of a prophet receiving honor from anywhere but home. Rather, the approval of Trump by the Polish people can be explained by the theory of relativity. For Trump looks much better to the Polish people than Putin does. And that is despite the fact that Trump has expressed admiration for tyrants like Putin, Kim Jong-un, and Duterte.

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

To Tim Keller, Russell Moore, and Kevin DeYoung as the blogpost consists of a recording of their conversation on religious liberty and its transcript. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition.

There are 3 points that I think are overlooked when we Christians talk about religious liberty. The first issue is a Christian issue. That is that once we call ourselves Christians, whatever we do and whatever position or cause we take, we associate with the Gospel. That should give all of us for pause because, at best, all of us have a mixed record  in term of representing the Gospel. And if a mixed record is at best, we know that none of us gives a spotless or near perfect record for honoring the Gospel. What causes the Gospel to be dishonored is when we don't fully respect the religious liberty of others.

The second point that is overlooked asks us Christians to look outside of ourselves and our own world. That second point is that we have to determine how we want to share society with others. And by others, I mean all kinds of unbelievers. Will we try to share society with others as equals or will we seek some degree of supremacy in society by assuming or seizing a privileged place with the legislation we promote? Seeking a privileged place is seen when our religious views control the laws of the land in ways that give us Christians privileges and a ruling place over the rest of society. Note that whatever way we decide to share society with others, we will be associating that with the Gospel. If we seek to protect the religious rights of others, that will be associated with the Gospel. And here we should note that what many Christians forget is that homosexuality and the right to marry someone of the same sex belongs to the religions of some people. So if we try to pass legislation against homosexuality or same-sex marriage or fail to pass legislation that protects the the equality of the LGBT community, we have associated those actions with the Gospel.

Third, we need to be aware of how our actions, positions, and causes affect others. If we refuse to offer business services to those in the LGBT community or to same-sex weddings, how does it affect others? Too many times, because we seek to wear our religion on our sleeves, we don't consider how our conscientious object can hurt others. That is because we are too focused on ourselves.

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.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For June 7, 2017

June 5

To Allen Porter Mendenhall whose blogpost discuss whether President Trump endangers the rule of law within our nation. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

Seems like, to some, progressives and the left have a monopoly on the vices that threaten our nation. We should note that, as the article stated above, the rule of law is not fully enforced here. Take insider trading and Congress for example. Members of the House and Senate can call brokers to make trades on information that is not public (see https://www.forbes.com/sites/kylesmith/2011/06/01/insider-trading-rules-that-dont-apply-to-congress/#8c9e48c6167e  ). And this can occur as many times as possible. So while regular citizens and those working in the financial industry are subject to one set of laws, our elected officials are not.

But the  biggest breach is in international law where the US relies on the opposite of the rule of law in order to get its way. On the foreign scene, the opposite of the rule of law is the rule of force. And that has been a major part of US foreign policies for a very long time. Smedley Butler wrote about the American use of force to help American financial interests (see https://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html  ). America would not tolerate that kind of use of force on itself, but it did inflict force on others to get its economic way.
Or we could talk about post WW II when we actually have a number of internationally accepted set of rules (Geneva Conventions, UN Charter, Nuremberg Principles) and even a World Court decision against the US in the case of its intervention in Nicaragua. In terms of foreign policies, the US does what it wants to when it can but holds other nations accountable they try to do the same.

Chalmers Johnson wrote that nations cannot keep a republic while maintaining an empire. He cited two examples showing this rule. Rome sacrificed its republic in order to maintain its empire while Great Britain did the opposite. Now it is America's turn to decide. And what we are seeing is a losing of our republic in order to maintain an empire much for the sake of our "national" (a.k.a., business) interests. It should not be a surprise that we don't operate by the rule of law. The real difference between Trump and previous presidents is that Trump shows no appearance of appreciation for the rule of the law and therefore the is the President who shows the least, if any, subtlety when exercising what is called above 'the rule of man,' which is reality the rule of force.


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

June 6

To Rev Ben Johnson and his blogpost on how redistributing the debt in the EU is not only bad economics, but leads to ‘moral problems.’ This appeared in the Acton blog.

Unfortunately, Rev Johnson paints an inadequate picture of Greece's economic problems and debt. It's not that Greece did not make mistakes before the economic collapse of 2008, but that collapse put Greece in a hole that started its current downward spiral. The bailouts for Greece, for the most part, never see Greece or its people. Rather, the bailouts are destined for Greece's lenders and the conditions for the bailouts, ever increasing austerity measures, hurt the economy so that Greece less and less able to recover. The IMF itself has concluded that Greece's austerity measures have hurt its economy (see https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/10/12/imf-austerity-is-much-worse-for-the-economy-than-we-thought/?utm_term=.28898f0c4f3a ).  One reason why austerity measures can hurt the economy is because fewer people have money to spend for goods and services.

Currently the global economy adheres to a Neoliberal Capitalist economic system. Under that system, not only has wealth disparity continued to grow in many nations, the wealth disparity between nations continues to grow. Of course the "only" option offered in place of the current global economy is a nationalist option. That is one of the reasons why Trump won the election, he offered a nationalist solution. However, his "nationalism" shared a major trait with the Neoliberal global economy: it featured elite-centered rule rather than democratic rule. Thus, Trump's "nationalist" approach is not really nationalist because not everyone in the the nation is included in the decision making and thus his economic approach is not designed to benefit the whole nation.

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

To Joe Carter and his blogpost quote of an Acton commentary on De Vos and a new model for public education. This appeared in the Acton blog

The problem with the above is that school choice exists without vouchers. To  say that one cannot be without the other is a marketing ploy. If applied to college, the school choice logic would demand that students going to more expensive schools than state schools be given enough state aid so that these students can choose the college of their choice. But such is not the case so why would we call vouchers "school choice" when applied to public education?

De Vos is not a reformer of public education. A reformer would change the public education system. By drawing funds from public schools, some of which are already strapped, De Vos shows herself to be an enemy of public education. For the way to destroy a publicly funded institution is to under fund it so that it no longer works. And yes, public schools do suffer significant problems. But a significant number of those problems lie outside of the influence of public schools.

What "school choice" is about is a transfer of public funds meant for public education to religious, especially Christian, institutions so that the government is sponsoring religious education. Such could destroy some public school districts leaving  kids without the opportunity for a serious education because charter and religious schools will  not be able to pick up the slack if a whole school district goes down. And an additional issue becomes will those charter and religious schools that receive public funds be held accountable to the same regulations that public schools are held to?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To Russell Moore and his blogpost on how the Church should respond to the Transgender Revolution. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.

There are some weaknesses with the article above. One is the inconsistency in declaring that each person is a human who has a purpose. That message is repeatedly transmitted to the LGBT community but not to the business community that looks on its employees, especially those who have lower paying jobs, as disposable objects of profit. Many job situations are highly volatile where people can be displaced by either offshoring or replacement by technology. And as this occurs, the job market for low skill jobs in retail and food service becomes flooded thus keeping the pay for those who work in these sectors low. Some victims of offshoring have even been directed to train their replacements. In the meantime, some recipients of jobs that were offshored work in sweatshops or as slaves with the justification that they are being paid more now than before they received their jobs. Where is Russell's Gospel message to our economic system and those who look at employees as being disposable?

Other than that, we need to distinguish the Church's message to those who are transgendered from the state's message. After all, the Church is a voluntary organization that has rules more stringent than the state's rules because not the Church is not for everyone in society. So as long as we don't make the Church's message to the LGBT community the state's message, then much of what Russell says above has much validity.
But that is much of what he said. What should the Church do with those married couples who voluntarily choose not to have children? Should they be disciplined and possibly excommunicated because they have chosen not to have children and the Church teaches that raising children goes with marriage? Or should the Church deny those who cannot reproduce the right to enter into marriage?

I think that instead of castigating everything about the Sexual Revolution, we should pick our battles. Again, in criticizing the Sexual Revolution, we should note that what the Church can say is not necessarily what the state should say. And we also should note the valid concerns that the Sexual Revolution tried to address. In addition, we should note that during the time of the Sexual Revolution, the Church in America was divided on whether it should have supported the Civil Rights Movement and, for the most part, supported the immoral war against Vietnam. The Church, that is the predominant parts of the Church in America, like its ancestors in the pre-revolutionary times of France, Russia, and Spain supported wealth and the establishment regardless of the exploitation and oppression practiced by those respective establishments during those times.

ONIM For March 27, 2017

If you are not sure about the validity of a news story linked to below, you can use mediabiasfactcheck.com to check out the credibility of the source of the story.


Christian News

• Religious People Are Less Afraid Of Death, Say Researchers--But So Are Atheists -- Christian Today (UK)
• Why Trump's Deportation Policies Are Making Immigrants Afraid Of Going To Church -- Christian Today (UK)
• Are Science And Religion In Conflict? Isaac Newton Didn't Think So -- Christian Today (UK)
• Princeton Seminary Reforms Its Views On Honoring Tim Keller -- Christianity Today
• ERLC Defends Russell Moore, Who Apologizes For His Role In Trump Divide -- Christianity Today
• Russia's Plan To Ban Jehovah Witnesses Puts Evangelicals In A Tight Spot -- Christianity Today
• Evangelical Leaders Challenge Trump's 'America First' Budget -- Christianity Today
• Forgiven To Forgive -- Reformed African American Network
• White Evangelicals Believe They Face More Discrimination Than Muslims -- The Atlantic
• Trump Lifts The Mask Off The GOP -- Boston Globe
• Is The Bible Good For Women -- Mortification Of Spin
• We're Not In Kansas Anymore -- Mortification Of Spin
• The Myth That The Church Alone Can And Should Take Care Of The Poor -- Word Of A Woman
• What Does It Mean To Be "Saved"? -- In Touch Ministries
• It's Time To Start Calling Evangelicals What They Are: The American Taliban -- Church And State
• Influential Conservative Group: Trump, DeVos Should Dismantle Education Department And Bring God Into Classrooms -- Washington Post

 
World News

• Why Clean Energy Can Withstand Changing Political Winds -- Forbes
• Villagers Knit Jumpers For Indian Elephants To Protect The Large Mammals From Near-Freezing Temperatures -- Independent
• After Pledging To Donate Salary, Trump Declines To Release Proof -- NBC News
• The State Of American Wages, 2016 -- Economic Policy Institute
• Scientists Are Conspicuously Missing From Trump's Government -- Washington Post
• Zionism, The Nakba And Feminism -- Huffington Post
• Trump Advisor Kellyanne Conway Mocked For Spy 'Microwaves' Claims -- CNBC
• The CBO Says As Many As 24 Million Americans Could be Uninsured Under Trumpcare -- Business Insider
• Preparing For The Long Haul Under The Trump Administration -- Waging Nonviolence
• Why Africans Just Can't Wait For Dictators To Die -- Waging Nonviolence
• White Supremacist Stabs Interracial Couple After Seeing Them Kiss At A Bar, Police Say -- Washington Post
• Europe's Right Hails EU Court's Workplace Headscarf Ban Ruling -- Guardian
• Why Demographic Trends Spell Trouble For China And Russia--And Prosperity For US -- Forbes
• Syrian Baby Dies While Waiting For U.S. Refugee Visa -- McClatchy
• Kentucky Community Hopes Trump Infrastructure Plan Will Fix Water System -- NPR
• Tourists Say They're Scared To Visit The United States -- Los Angeles Times
• Fake News Website Created To Test Donald Trump Supporters' Gullibility--Reveals They Will Believe Anything -- Independent
• The New Transnational Elite -- Counterpunch
• What We Know About Donald Trump's Income Tax History, By Year -- Washington Post
• Murdoch And Trump, An Alliance Of Mutual Interest -- NPR
• Trump's Media-Bashing Is Making It Easier For Foreign Regimes To Gag The Press -- Washington Post
• Empire Files: Abby Martin Exposes Steve Bannon -- Telesur
• California Joins Lawsuit Against Trump's Revised Travel Ban -- Truthdig
• Where Free Speech Ends, Ignorance Begins -- Truthdig
• Steve Bannon, Trump Campaign CEO, Faced Domestic Violence Charges -- Guardian
• APNewsBreak: Sex Assaults Up At Navy, Army Academies -- Yahoo News
• Trading Health Care For the Poor For Tax Cuts For The Rich -- New York Times
• Wall St. Relieved As Trump Picks Goldman Banker As Treasury Deputy -- Politico
• Wages Rise On California Farms. Americans Still Don't Want The Job -- Los Angeles Times
• The Conscientious Objectors Threatening The Israeli System -- Haaretz
• Supreme Court Rules Cell Phones Cannot Be Searched Without A Warrant -- MSNBC
• White House Admits Trump 'Insurance For Everybody' Guarantee Isn't Going To Happen -- Huffington Post
• Neil Gorsuch Relied On A Legal Standard That Weakens Promises To Kids With Disabilities -- Huffington Post
• White House Installs Political Aides At Cabinet Agencies To Be Trump's Eyes And Ears  -- Washington Post
• The Little NGO That Managed To Move An Israeli Settlement -- Washington Post
• Norway Is No. 1 In Happiness. The U.S., Sadly, Is No. 14 -- New York Times
• How Bankers Become Top Exploiters Of Economy -- Popular Resistance
• Free The Framed-Up Maruti Suzuki Workers -- World Socialist Web Site
• Indian Court Grants Ganges And Yamuna Rivers Legal Rights Of Human Beings -- Democracy Now
• I.M.F. Stands By Christine LaGarde, Convicted Of Negligence -- New York Times
• U.S.-Muslim Stopped From Boarding International Flight Home -- Huffington Post
• Chicago Army Veteran Who Suffered Brain Injury After Two Tours In Afghanistan To Be Deported -- Huffington Post
• Job Cuts Endure At Indiana Factories Despite Trump Pressure -- NBC Chicago
• New Mexico Sold 4 Million Acres Of Land To Oil Companies And Development -- Wilderness Society
• Donald Trump Could Reduce Cuts To Arts, Poor And Elderly If He Stopped Staying At Mar-A-LaGo, Figures Show -- Independent
• Inside How The Federalist Society And Koch Brothers Are Pushing For Trump To Reshape Federal Judiciary -- Democracy Now
• Aides Wrestle Drill From Trump's Hands As He Tries To Remove Obama Listening Device Skull -- The Onion
• Facing Rental Crisis, Seattle Creates A Renters' Commission To Explore New Laws --  Seattle Times
• Our Case-By-Case Guide To The Trump Distraction Technique -- Guardian
• How Republics End -- New York Times
• The Pentagon Has Never Benn Audited -- Guardian
• Leader Of Group Widely Identified As Anti-Muslim Meets With White House -- Guardian
• Britain Is Now The Second Biggest Arms Dealer In The World -- Independent

 
Protest News

• Massive Labor Strike Planned For May 1 -- The Hill

Standing Rock Sioux--DAPL News

• These Cities Are Pulling Billions From The Banks That Support The Dakota Access Pipeline -- The Nation

 
Pick(s) Of The Litter

• Israeli Court Asks Palestinian Parents To Prove Jailed Boy Is An Amputee -- Haaretz
• Largest March For Native Rights In DC Ignored By The White House And Mainstream Media -- White Wolf  Pack
• Mass Incarceration And Children's Outcomes -- Economic Policy Institute
• Japan Detains Movement Leader To Silence Struggle Against U.S. Military Bases -- Waging Nonviolence
• March 2017 Data Sheet: Law Enforcement On Israli Civilians Suspected Of Harming Palestinians And Their Property -- Yesh-Din
• Newsweek, ABC '20/20' Reports Expose Abuse, Torture Of Gay Youths And Troubled Teens -- Huffington Post
• Board Orders Furloughs, Pension Cuts, More For Puerto Rico -- NBC News
• From Lobbyists To Reality Show Starts, Meet The Hundreds of Officials Trump Has Quietly Installed -- Democracy Now
• Chris Hedges: If We Don't Stop Corporate Power, We Will Never Dismantle Fascism -- Truthdig
• Defense Secretary James Mattis Breaks With Other Cabinet Members On Climate Change -- Huffington Post
• Dennis Kucinich: Why Are We At War In Syria? -- Fox News
• Noam Chomsky Predicts Donald Trump's Administration Will Cause Another Financial Crash -- Independent
• Trump Considers Slashing U.S. Funding To U.N. Amid Warnings Of Worst Humanitarian Crisis Since WWII  -- Democracy Now
• Israel Imposes 'Apartheid Regime' On Palestinians: U.N. Report -- Reuters
• Why The UN Branded Israel An Apartheid State -- ZNet 
• Israeli Practices Towards The Palestinian People And The Question Of Apartheid -- Electronic Intifada
• Trump Federal Budget 2018: Massive Cuts To The Arts, Science And The Poor -- Washington Post
• Federal Court In Hawaii Blocks Donald Trump's New Travel Ban Nationwide -- Huffington Post
• These 80 Programs Would Lose Federal Funding Under Trump's Proposed Budget -- Bloomberg
• Rundle Won't Charge Prison Guards Who Allegedly Boiled Schizophrenic Black Man To Death -- Miami New Times
• Six Big Takeaways On Congress's Extraordinary Hearing On Russia, President Trump And Wiretapping -- Washington Post
• Israeli Ministry Trying To Compile Database Of Citizens Who Support BDS -- Haaretz
• Hillel Ousts Jewish LGBT Group For Teaming Up With Pro-Boycott Organization -- Haaretz
• Record-Breaking Climate Change Pushes World Into 'Uncharted Territory' -- Guardian
• 'Extreme And Unusual' Climate Trends Continue After Record 2016 -- BBC
• No African Citizens Granted Visas For African Trade Summit In California -- Guardian
• Ex-Mossad Chief Says Occupation Is Israel's Only Existential Threat -- Haaretz
• World Faces Largest Humanitarian Crisis Since 1947, U.N. Official Says -- NPR
• U.S. Border Officers Told A Mexican Teen To Drink Liquid Meth -- Washington Post
• Israel Bans Palestinian Products Inside Occupied Palestinian Territory -- Mint Press News
• Illegal Gold Mining In Colombia Is Destroying The Rainforest -- Newsweek
• Voters Blame Everyone But Trump For Obamacare Repeal Failure -- Christian Today (UK)
  
  

Regarding Morals, It's Still A Small World After All For The Religious Right

There is no doubt that this election year has shaken all of conservatism to the core. This is as true for the Religious Right as it is for the Republican Party. And the reason for all of this is the anti-establishment protest nomination of Donald Trump for President of the United States. Both the decision to oppose him as well as the decision to support him has carved what seems to be some permanent scars in the Republican Party. And the fear of some from the Religious Right is that such might do the same to them to if they do not regroup. Thus, we have had members or advocates for the Religious Right try to provide damage control. The latest example of that is found in a speech Russell Moore gave for First Things magazine (click here for a link to the speech).  We should note Russell Moore is a deservedly appreciated and important figure in conservative Christianity (click here for a bio).

To hear Moore's speech is to note that the Religious Right is concerned not just with surviving; it is interested in returning to the place of prominence and influence in society and culture which it feels it has lost. But unfortunately, it plans to become a player again without first asking the all important question: How should Christians share society with others? This question was never addressed and thus not answered. At least however, there is an acknowledgement that there should be no intention to establish some kind of theocracy. Unfortunately, there seems to be no awareness of the fact that Christian dominance over society can take other forms besides a theocracy.

What has caused the crisis to come to a head is the dissonance caused by having to decide on whether to support a person with the character flaws of Donald Trump to be President. As Trump's character deficits have become better known, more and more religiously conservative Christians have felt an inordinate amount of tension when considering for whom they will vote. For some, the nomination of Trump was the final straw in causing some religiously conservative Christians to flee from voting for the Republican candidate. In fact, for some, they have even decided that their best course of action is to hold their nose as they vote for the pro-choice, Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton.

For other religiously conservative Christians, the battle is even more intense. Some will hold their nose and vote for Donald Trump in an effort to vote against Hillary Clinton. Though Moore disagrees with them, he understands their decision. What has Moore rightfully concerned is that some from the Religious Right have decided to minimize Trump's flagrant flaws and sins in order to feel comfortable with voting for him. This minimization of sin to justify voting for Trump is significant indicator to Moore that some are making significant moral compromises. Beyond that, Moore feels that some conservatives are making the Scriptures into a servant of a particular political ideology rather than use the Scriptures as a judge of one's political ideologies. These are valid concerns despite the fact that Moore, in error, refers to the former as liberalism.

But throughout the speech, it is evident that Moore is bound to political and economic conservatism and that it is tied to his faith. For when Moore talks about the Religious Right here, he is not just talking about conservative Protestants, he is talking about traditional Catholics and Mormons all of who are political conservatives. And it is this joining of conservatisms, religious and political, that Moore and other members of the Religious Right want to see revived. 

There is much in Moore's speech to comment on. But what this blog wants to focus on is the following subjects that were discussed sometime around the 30 minute mark of the video. In considering how conservatives can endure Trump as President, he stated that conservatives can endure a single Republican President who does not pursue traditional conservatism in economic or foreign policies. But religious conservatism is about 'moral formation and family values.' And this is the most troubling part of his whole speech. For how else can we take Moore's statement as being one that says that there are no moral issues with our economic system and foreign policies? Those who are not conservative beg to differ. But how they differ here is not the issue. What is the issue is how small does one's public moral sphere become when one believes that our nation's economic system as well as our foreign policies carry no moral implications.

This is how small the Religious Right's moral world is when adopting Moore's viewpoint. Obviously Trump's sexual practices and views automatically become moral issues. No person from the Religious Right would be worth their salt if they did not believe that to be true. In addition, Moore adds that the Religious Right has been slow in recognizing the immorality of racism. They recognize it now, but it took time for that to happen. But to separate our economic system from the formation of morals is to deny that either our economic system relies on exploitation or that such exploitation is a moral issue. In fact here, Moore seems to be utilitarian when it comes to our economic system.

Likewise, Moore acknowledges some compromises that have been made in our foreign policies. But again, there is no recognition that our foreign polices carry moral implications. Rather, the only implications Moore acknowledges in his speech are those that are involved with sex, family issues, and racism. This conveniently places the Church in the position of supporting, rather than challenging, the status quo for the benefit of those with wealth and power. At this point, a quote from the report for the liberal Trilateral Commission called The Crisis Of Democracy comes to mind.

In the past, those institutions which have played the major role in the indoctrination of the young in their rights and obligations as members of society have been the family, the church, the school, and the army.

 Though with Moore's antagonism toward liberalism, it might be difficult to do but Moore would do well to try to learn from Liberals and Leftists about the moral values involved in our economic system and our foreign policies. But such seems to be a nonstarter for him. And thus, while Moore wants a resurrection of a influential and revised Religious Right in society, those efforts might be sabotaged by at least Moore's, if not that of the Religious Right's as well, lack of awareness of the moral issues involved with our economic system and our foreign policies. Such lack of awareness creates a kind of Religious Right that, until Trump caused problems, lost credibility with many in society because of its fixation individual sins while ignoring state and societal sins that hurt a broader range of people.

What should be added here is that Moore rightly emphasizes the need for the Religious Right to hold to the Scriptures and to the preaching of the Gospel. But, IMO, the Religious Right will repeat its past errors if it seeks to regain a similar degree of influence over society as it had in the past while ignoring most of the sins it ignored before. There are other issues that could be mentioned, but they are outside the focus of this article.