Sept 11
To Joe Carter and his blogpost on the similarities in beliefs between today’s American Protestants and American Catholics. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.
One problem with the study is that Protestants are only being compared with Catholics. What if their similarities were affected by outside Church influences? What if what is affecting the beliefs of both Protestants and Catholics is society and culture? That means that not only are more Protestants are not Protestant than realize it, the same could apply to Catholics.
Another reason for the similarities between Protestants and Catholics might lie in what Protestant leaders are teaching their followers about what is justification and what is sanctification. This especially applies to what is taught about sanctification and what deficiencies a person has is tolerated in the Church and what deficiencies disqualifies one from Church membership.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Rev. Ben Johnson and his blogpost on distinguishing the difference between how economic inequality is perceived and how it is experienced. This appeared in the Acton blog.
If we are going to use Germany's economy as an example, please note that they have mixed some actual socialist means into their economic system. In what is called codetermination, all companies that have 500 to 2,000 employees must allow for workers, who are elected by peers, to make up 1/3 of each company's supervisory council. For companies over 2,000 employees, almost half of the supervisory council must be made up of peer-elected workers.
Our economic system here is quite different. Here, owners, either private or majority shareholders determine who makes up the equivalent of a company's supervisory board. So what we learn from Germany does not necessarily translate the same to other nations.
Regarding whether economic inequality is increasing or decreasing, that depends on one's source and the statistics one is measuring (see http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/global-income-inequality-is-indeed-falling-but-we-should-still-be-wary-a6831056.html and https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2016/apr/08/global-inequality-may-be-much-worse-than-we-think and https://unu.edu/media-relations/releases/global-income-inequality-unu-wider-press-release.html#info ). The last reference makes a point that Global inequality has been measured as both falling and rising depending on which measurement one uses. If one uses a relative measurement, then global economic inequality has falling, but that is very much influenced by the economic changes that are occurring in India and China. When the absolute measurement is used, global economic inequality is growing significantly. And just for North America, the study found that both the relative and absolute measurements indicated a growing economic inequality. We should note that economic inequality has an inverse relationship with economic growth for developing nations (see https://www.unicef.org/socialpolicy/files/Global_Inequality.pdf ). In addition, wealth can greatly influence political decisions (see http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746 ).
In addition, we should note that whatever economic measurement we use to discuss poverty, it is inadequate either by itself or in conjunction with others in defining poverty. We cannot really understand what poverty is except to seriously study the lives of the poor and the deprivations they suffer because they are on the downside of economic inequality. At that point, what is considered to be poverty in Germany might cause Americans, who feel economically and morally superior to the rest of the world, hang their heads in shame at what we tolerate for the poor in our own nation.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost consisting solely of a picture that presumedly is of 9/11 wreckage. This appeared in the Heidelblog.
We should never forget 9/11. The pic above is of United Flight 93's crash site. BTW, I knew someone on that flight. And certainly we should never forget what happened then because of the atrocities visited on our nation. But we should also never forget the atrocities that our nation has visited on others from the ethnic cleansing of Native Americans from the land to the enslavement and harsh persecution and oppression of Blacks here to how our interventions often replaced democratic regimes with dictatorships in other nations.
A selective 'never forget' attitude where we focus solely on the atrocities forced on us is nothing more than an exercise in a self-induced martyr complex and an exhibition of self-righteousness. We must also include the atrocities we have visited on others in our memories as well lest we continue to repeat them causing many others to suffer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sept 12
To Sarah Stanley and her blogpost on how the US should respond to North Korea. In that blogpost, she interviews Suzanne Scholte who is an expert on North Korea. This appeared in the Acton blog.
What is missing from the interview is broader perspective regarding WMDs. The interview focused too narrowly on the region. We need to realize that technology makes the proliferation of WMDs inevitable. Thus, we can look at North Korea as a window into the future. And in such a future, the reliance on the rule of force ends in mass mutually-assured suicide for the people of all nations.
And though working through the UN to resolve the crisis with North Korea is appropriate, we should note that we don't rely on and submit to UN decisions on a consistent enough basis. Otherwise, our policies in the Middle East would have been far different even from what they are today. And perhaps now is the time to bring all of our policies under the guidelines set by the UN and answerable to the ICC. In addition, we need to insist that all of our allies do the same. Perhaps then constructive examples of what it means to be powerful nation could be on display for emerging nations to follow.
While the above might sound too idealistic to become a realistic possibility, what is even more idealistic, and thus more unrealistic, is to think that we can survive while continuing on our current course of relying on the rule of force to get our way while living in a world where the proliferation of WMDs is inevitable.
www.flamingfundamentalist.blogspot.com
(Only one person pictured is a Christian Fundamentalist. And so which one pictured is not like the others)
Showing posts with label Sarah Stanley. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sarah Stanley. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 13, 2017
Wednesday, May 3, 2017
Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For May 3, 2017
April 28
To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost quote from an article on the first things blog about whether there is a war on science and that challenged who was the real anti-science. Among those who were listed were those who call anti-scientific those who challenge what scientists are saying about a variety of subjects like climate change, abortion, and embryo research. This appeared in Heidelblog
The original article being responded to is at https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2017/04/the-real-anti-science
Below is my response to the article containing the above quote as it was posted in the Firstthings website
quite simply, if approximately 97% of scientists said that the bridge ahead was going to collapse while 3% said it would stand, would you drive your family across the bridge? That is approximately what was said in one of the signs on the march for science day.
Why say there is a war on science? Perhaps it's because despite what a vast majority of scientists say about climate change and man's contribution to it, the evidence is being ignored because of economic concerns. Those economic concerns have more to do with the immediate financial welfare of those with wealth.
Why say there is a war on science? Perhaps it's because the President wants slash funds to the EPA, an agency that bases its regulations and enforcement on what we know science is saying about our way of life. And that just doesn't have to do with climate change. We need to look at the effects of manmade products like GMOs and insecticides and see if what science has discovered so far tells us that we need to pass and enforce regulations to protect the public.
Why say there is a war on science? Perhaps it's because funds to help NASA study the climate and the NIH for medical research are facing funding cuts by the President's proposed budget.
Why say there is a war on science? Perhaps it is because of the funding cuts for education which will affect science education.
When over 90% of the scientists say that there is current problem with ramifications that lie on the horizon, it isn't anti-scientific to question what is being said. After all, according to the article above, 'science is truly never settled.' But if that is the real belief of people, then enacting policies based on current scientific understanding would never wait until 100% of the scientists agree. And yet, those who oppose regulations and polices that address climate change are demanding that no regulations and policies that address climate change should be enacted until the science on climate change is a settled matter. Why? Perhaps it is because those who oppose regulations and policies that address climate change are trying permanently block them because of their economic ideologies and financial concerns. And when the Church does that, it shows that it has yet to learn from history. For prior to the French, Russian, and Spanish Revolutions, the Church sided with wealth and power only to see that they had dishonored the Gospel after the revolutions succeeded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 2
To Sarah Stanley and her blogpost that reported on an issue of Religion & Liberty that talked about cleansing the memory of Stalin as well as economic nationalism. This appeared in the Acton blog.
There is plenty to criticize Stalin on. And there are plenty of critics too from past Socialists who criticized Lenin to current ones like Mikhail Gorbachev.
As for global elites getting the boot. Unfortunately, domestic elites are not. And they are the same as global elites it's just that their sphere of control has been reduced. We should note that just because economic nationalism has given global elites the boot, it doesn't follow that the people of a nation can exercise economic self-rule. That is because domestic elites are still so influential at home.
The solution here isn't an all-or-nothing approach where elites rule or are kicked out. We need to get elites to stop practicing their economic apartheid and join the rest of us as equal partners in determining the economy of one's nation. Without this collaboration, a nation will be economically divided and there will forever be a battle of 2 sides wanting to rule over the other.
The real solution can only be found in expanding democracy to the workplace and reestablishing democracy in the public sphere.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Joe Carter and his blogpost on Trump’s performance in keeping first day promises he made during the campaign. This appeared in the Acton blog.
The first promise commented on shows the mindset of the President who brags about being a detailed person. The value of regulations depends not on raw numbers but on the specifics of each regulation. Do the regulations as a whole provide sufficient protection for all of the stakeholders? Making 2 for 1 bargains on regulations is a bean counting measure. When regulations are dropped that protect the environment for the sake of increasing short-term profits, where is the merit in keeping this bean counting promise? When financial regulations that prevent financial institutions from putting our economy at risk as it was when the collapse of 2008 occurred are dropped, where is the merit in keeping this bean counting promise? And when regulations that protect workers in terms of their safety, benefits, and pay are dropped, where is the merit in keeping this bean counting promise?
Instead of targeting specific regulations, Trump promised to rely on a bean counting general approach toward cutting regulations. At the same time, President Trump describes himself as a detailed person. At some point, we have to realize that his lack of awareness and/or honesty does significantly and negatively affect his presidency.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Christopher Morrissey and his blogpost that talks about The Benedict Option in light of the choice between nominalism and realism. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.
At some point, adopting pluralism is to allow for at least some degree or form of nominalism and realism as described above. What is often missed in these discussions is the following question: How will we Christians share society with others? Will we share society as equals and thus work to protect each group's equal status in society? Or will we attempt to become paternalists or worse and draw lines in the sand in an effort to save society from itself? If we pick the former, do we necessarily lose touch with God's reality? if we pick the latter, have we lost awareness for how our efforts to save society impact others?
Dreher's Benedict Option is based on the premise that since Christians have lost their privileged position in society, we must at least partially withdraw from society in order to regroup to save our own traditions and then hopefully to eventually return to prominence. Unfortunately, Dreher suffers from the lack of awareness that all who feel entitled to rule suffer.
The Church must decide to learn how to decide which battles it will fight and which ones it can let go regarding the direction of society and culture. And how the Church shares society with others always provides the general rules for deciding on these battles. In the past, the Church took the the paternalistic or stronger position in terms of how it would share society with others. The Church is now suffering both externally and internally for the control it has tried to exercise over those who do not belong to the Church. The question here becomes will the Church learn from its mistakes?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Bruce Frohnen and his blogpost on how Alexi de Tocqueville described how America could descend from democracy into a soft totalitarianism. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.
We might ask who wasn't the beneficiary of the American Democracy de Tocqueville observed? Could it possible be people of color? After all, didn't we have slavery so Blacks certainly weren't enjoying democracy? And weren't we also ethnically cleansing Native Americans from the land and so they weren't enjoying democracy. And what about women who could not vote and were not treated as equals in society? Were they enjoying democracy?
And if those were some of the people not enjoying democracy, who was enjoying it when de Tocqueville visited? We should note that de Tocqueville regarded British society as being superior to all others. This might help us understand the lack of racial awareness in his view of American democracy. And now that the subjugation of others is being more fully addressed today, shouldn't we be saying that American democracy has expanded from a racially and sexist based democracy to a fuller one? So why would Frohnen focus solely on the faults de Tocqueville noticed while seeming to disregard the alleviation of the faults he failed to notice?
Jeff Halper, an Israeli activist who protects the rights of Palestinians, made an important observation about democracy. He stated in his book An Israeli In Palestine that when a group defined by national identity, language, ethnicity, or religion takes control over a government employing democratic procedures in a diverse society, that such is not a democracy. Rather, it is an ethnocracy. We could call it a group totalitarianism recognizing that that could be a soft or hard totalitarianism. And as such, there is no real democracy especially for those who do not belong to the group in power. So just perhaps, America's descent into soft or hard totalitarianism didn't begin with the satisfying of appetites and materialistic comforts of recent times. Rather, America was already a soft or hard totalitarian nation when de Tocqueville visited. And perhaps he didn't notice because of his views on race.
To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost quote from an article on the first things blog about whether there is a war on science and that challenged who was the real anti-science. Among those who were listed were those who call anti-scientific those who challenge what scientists are saying about a variety of subjects like climate change, abortion, and embryo research. This appeared in Heidelblog
The original article being responded to is at https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2017/04/the-real-anti-science
Below is my response to the article containing the above quote as it was posted in the Firstthings website
quite simply, if approximately 97% of scientists said that the bridge ahead was going to collapse while 3% said it would stand, would you drive your family across the bridge? That is approximately what was said in one of the signs on the march for science day.
Why say there is a war on science? Perhaps it's because despite what a vast majority of scientists say about climate change and man's contribution to it, the evidence is being ignored because of economic concerns. Those economic concerns have more to do with the immediate financial welfare of those with wealth.
Why say there is a war on science? Perhaps it's because the President wants slash funds to the EPA, an agency that bases its regulations and enforcement on what we know science is saying about our way of life. And that just doesn't have to do with climate change. We need to look at the effects of manmade products like GMOs and insecticides and see if what science has discovered so far tells us that we need to pass and enforce regulations to protect the public.
Why say there is a war on science? Perhaps it's because funds to help NASA study the climate and the NIH for medical research are facing funding cuts by the President's proposed budget.
Why say there is a war on science? Perhaps it is because of the funding cuts for education which will affect science education.
When over 90% of the scientists say that there is current problem with ramifications that lie on the horizon, it isn't anti-scientific to question what is being said. After all, according to the article above, 'science is truly never settled.' But if that is the real belief of people, then enacting policies based on current scientific understanding would never wait until 100% of the scientists agree. And yet, those who oppose regulations and polices that address climate change are demanding that no regulations and policies that address climate change should be enacted until the science on climate change is a settled matter. Why? Perhaps it is because those who oppose regulations and policies that address climate change are trying permanently block them because of their economic ideologies and financial concerns. And when the Church does that, it shows that it has yet to learn from history. For prior to the French, Russian, and Spanish Revolutions, the Church sided with wealth and power only to see that they had dishonored the Gospel after the revolutions succeeded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 2
To Sarah Stanley and her blogpost that reported on an issue of Religion & Liberty that talked about cleansing the memory of Stalin as well as economic nationalism. This appeared in the Acton blog.
There is plenty to criticize Stalin on. And there are plenty of critics too from past Socialists who criticized Lenin to current ones like Mikhail Gorbachev.
As for global elites getting the boot. Unfortunately, domestic elites are not. And they are the same as global elites it's just that their sphere of control has been reduced. We should note that just because economic nationalism has given global elites the boot, it doesn't follow that the people of a nation can exercise economic self-rule. That is because domestic elites are still so influential at home.
The solution here isn't an all-or-nothing approach where elites rule or are kicked out. We need to get elites to stop practicing their economic apartheid and join the rest of us as equal partners in determining the economy of one's nation. Without this collaboration, a nation will be economically divided and there will forever be a battle of 2 sides wanting to rule over the other.
The real solution can only be found in expanding democracy to the workplace and reestablishing democracy in the public sphere.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Joe Carter and his blogpost on Trump’s performance in keeping first day promises he made during the campaign. This appeared in the Acton blog.
The first promise commented on shows the mindset of the President who brags about being a detailed person. The value of regulations depends not on raw numbers but on the specifics of each regulation. Do the regulations as a whole provide sufficient protection for all of the stakeholders? Making 2 for 1 bargains on regulations is a bean counting measure. When regulations are dropped that protect the environment for the sake of increasing short-term profits, where is the merit in keeping this bean counting promise? When financial regulations that prevent financial institutions from putting our economy at risk as it was when the collapse of 2008 occurred are dropped, where is the merit in keeping this bean counting promise? And when regulations that protect workers in terms of their safety, benefits, and pay are dropped, where is the merit in keeping this bean counting promise?
Instead of targeting specific regulations, Trump promised to rely on a bean counting general approach toward cutting regulations. At the same time, President Trump describes himself as a detailed person. At some point, we have to realize that his lack of awareness and/or honesty does significantly and negatively affect his presidency.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Christopher Morrissey and his blogpost that talks about The Benedict Option in light of the choice between nominalism and realism. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.
At some point, adopting pluralism is to allow for at least some degree or form of nominalism and realism as described above. What is often missed in these discussions is the following question: How will we Christians share society with others? Will we share society as equals and thus work to protect each group's equal status in society? Or will we attempt to become paternalists or worse and draw lines in the sand in an effort to save society from itself? If we pick the former, do we necessarily lose touch with God's reality? if we pick the latter, have we lost awareness for how our efforts to save society impact others?
Dreher's Benedict Option is based on the premise that since Christians have lost their privileged position in society, we must at least partially withdraw from society in order to regroup to save our own traditions and then hopefully to eventually return to prominence. Unfortunately, Dreher suffers from the lack of awareness that all who feel entitled to rule suffer.
The Church must decide to learn how to decide which battles it will fight and which ones it can let go regarding the direction of society and culture. And how the Church shares society with others always provides the general rules for deciding on these battles. In the past, the Church took the the paternalistic or stronger position in terms of how it would share society with others. The Church is now suffering both externally and internally for the control it has tried to exercise over those who do not belong to the Church. The question here becomes will the Church learn from its mistakes?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Bruce Frohnen and his blogpost on how Alexi de Tocqueville described how America could descend from democracy into a soft totalitarianism. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.
We might ask who wasn't the beneficiary of the American Democracy de Tocqueville observed? Could it possible be people of color? After all, didn't we have slavery so Blacks certainly weren't enjoying democracy? And weren't we also ethnically cleansing Native Americans from the land and so they weren't enjoying democracy. And what about women who could not vote and were not treated as equals in society? Were they enjoying democracy?
And if those were some of the people not enjoying democracy, who was enjoying it when de Tocqueville visited? We should note that de Tocqueville regarded British society as being superior to all others. This might help us understand the lack of racial awareness in his view of American democracy. And now that the subjugation of others is being more fully addressed today, shouldn't we be saying that American democracy has expanded from a racially and sexist based democracy to a fuller one? So why would Frohnen focus solely on the faults de Tocqueville noticed while seeming to disregard the alleviation of the faults he failed to notice?
Jeff Halper, an Israeli activist who protects the rights of Palestinians, made an important observation about democracy. He stated in his book An Israeli In Palestine that when a group defined by national identity, language, ethnicity, or religion takes control over a government employing democratic procedures in a diverse society, that such is not a democracy. Rather, it is an ethnocracy. We could call it a group totalitarianism recognizing that that could be a soft or hard totalitarianism. And as such, there is no real democracy especially for those who do not belong to the group in power. So just perhaps, America's descent into soft or hard totalitarianism didn't begin with the satisfying of appetites and materialistic comforts of recent times. Rather, America was already a soft or hard totalitarian nation when de Tocqueville visited. And perhaps he didn't notice because of his views on race.
Wednesday, September 28, 2016
Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For September 28, 2016
Sept 21
To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost on our current age of anxiety due to the threat of Islamic terrorism. This appeared in Heidelblog
Some things that are said here are true. One cannot bargain with totalitarians. One cannot bargain with those who will stop at nothing to get what they want. And perhaps that is why some Muslims are attracted those with extremist views and who think that all that is needed is for their group to seize control.
Of course, it wasn't those Muslim extremists who overthrew a democratically elected Prime Minister and installed a dictator in order to stop Iran from nationalizing its oil reserves. And the foreign power that both put the B'aath Party into power in Iraq and supported Saddam Hussein up until the time when he invaded Kuwait did not come from an Islamic nation. And the foreign power that has backed many a dictator in the Middle East, such as Hosni Mubarak in Egypt or its current ruler Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, is not an Islamic nation. And the foreign power that enables Israel to continue its brutal occupation in the Middle East is not an Islamic nation.
The comparison to Pharaoh here doesn't seem to make the point that the above article wants to make. For part of Pharaoh's angst was that he and his predecessors' actions were driving the desire of the Hebrews to leave. If we were to compare ourselves to Pharaoh, then we would be asking what actions has our nation and the West taken to drive some Muslims to want to become extremists and those extremists to want to commit terrorism against us. The answer given by the article above is that they are not like us. They are totalitarian, we are not. Well, in this nation, we might not be. But how can we say that our nation isn't totalitarian when it has supported so many totalitarian regimes in the Middle East and the rest of the world for the sake of business interests? So it seems that liberals and progressives are not the only ones who are in denial of their sins, especially those sins of idolatry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sept 27
To Lea Singh and her blogpost warning religiously conservative Christians about the their coming persecution because of their faith and stands against changes in society. This Appeared in the imaginative conservative blog.
What Lea Singh fails to consider, when drawing analogies with past persecutions of others, is whether all actions currently being taken against Christians today have merit. Instead, all of the listed "persecutions" for Christians today are cast as if the Christian faith is the only reason why we are receiving some scorn. Consider some of those "persecutions":
Are losing standing in society and tax breaks signs of coming or examples of current persecution or do they merely point to a loss of privilege over others? Does losing privilege over others mean persecution is coming?
Or consider fines for businesses and individuals and whether they are signs of coming or examples of current persecution. Note that no context is provided for those fines. That those fines were for practicing discrimination against others. Does our faith demand that we discriminate? During the Jim Crow era, didn't some Christians believed that? Currently, some Christians believe that we must discriminate in various ways against the LGBT community. If that is true, then doesn't the absence of penalties for such discrimination signal the persecution of that community?
The above is nothing more than another example of a the-sky-is-falling article because this town, which is society, is not big enough for there to be equality for both the LGBT community and religiously conservative Christians. And if we oppose equality for others, then doesn't scorn we receive qualify as protection for others more than persecution of us? On the other hand, describing the changing status of religiously conservative Christianity in society as signs of coming or examples of current persecution stirs a natural tribal instinct that prevents from becoming self-aware because we are too busy circling the wagons.
Finally, we might consider Singh's citing of Rod Dreher's description of the Benedict Option. For he describes it in the following way:
The operative word there is 'cease' for we need to consider why we would ever identify Western Christianity with supporting the American Empire. Certainly people of color and people of conscience have continually been disturbed at such an association.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not included in the comment below was the URL of the Forbes article cited. That article can be found by clicking here.
To Sarah Stanley and her blogpost asking if there is something inherently evil about capitalism. In that blogpost, she cites a audio discussion program hosted by Chris Brooks. That particular program was referenced in the comment below. This appeared in the Acton blog.
The episode used to back this article is full of errors that it seems deliberately manipulative. From the wrong definition of socialism to incomplete information on the epipen example used to the failure to mention Shkreli's hiking of prices.
First things first, government control of the economy is not socialism from the Marxist tradition. Why? If one reads Marx, one notes how Marx proposed a system that opposed bourgeoisie control of the workplace and the government and promoted a proletariat dictatorship. Thus, if the government does control the economy but workers are not in control of the government, then you have no socialism. This is a point made by all sides of socialism from the Marxist tradition.
We should also note that there is a form of socialism that totally contradicts the conservative working definition of socialism. That form of socialism is called Libertarian Socialism. Libertarian Socialism opposes the existence of the state.
Second, the epipen price hike controversy was not adequately explained in Chris Brooks' program. In particular, the epipen price hike followed the collapse of the only major competitor of epipen's manufacturer. Thus, according to an article in Forbes, the price hike of the epipen was because Mylan, the manufacturer of epipien, could hike the prices since it had no real competition. We should note that there are some similarities between Mylan's price hike and the price hike of an AIDS medication by 5,000% by Shkreli.
Shkreli's example is the third point and an example of a free market price rise. As with epipen, there were no government regulations that played a role in the tremendous spike in the price of the AIDS medication. In the epipen case, the lack of competition from a natural market death of a company caused the spike in price while opportunism was the cause of the price rise in the AIDS medication bought by Shkreli. Should note that Shkreli is a hedgefund manager.
Finally, the discussion on Capitalism in the program and in most conservative circles tends to be myopic. For these conservative tend to define the stakeholders of Capitalism by whom they can see. Unfortunately, because of the traditional definition of the term 'stakeholder,' those who are stakeholders include far more people than the ones we can immediately see. It includes migrant farm workers who are often trafficked and forced to work for less money. It includes those here who are forced to work for poverty wages and live on government assistance so that businesses can increase profits. Our economic system's stakeholders includes sweatshop laborers from other nations as well as the those who lost their jobs to those workers. Another stakeholder here includes the environment. And if one looks at the structure of Capitalism, one sees that exploitation is built in to the free market system as a necessity in order to compete at the market place. That doesn't mean that all business owners exploit people and/or the environment. But it does mean that the structure of Capitalism lends itself to exploitation. And a strong indicator of that is that there has never been a time in either Britain's or America's economy that did not exploit people either through slavery, the stealing of land, colonialism, sweatshop labor, or destroying the environment.
To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost on our current age of anxiety due to the threat of Islamic terrorism. This appeared in Heidelblog
Some things that are said here are true. One cannot bargain with totalitarians. One cannot bargain with those who will stop at nothing to get what they want. And perhaps that is why some Muslims are attracted those with extremist views and who think that all that is needed is for their group to seize control.
Of course, it wasn't those Muslim extremists who overthrew a democratically elected Prime Minister and installed a dictator in order to stop Iran from nationalizing its oil reserves. And the foreign power that both put the B'aath Party into power in Iraq and supported Saddam Hussein up until the time when he invaded Kuwait did not come from an Islamic nation. And the foreign power that has backed many a dictator in the Middle East, such as Hosni Mubarak in Egypt or its current ruler Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, is not an Islamic nation. And the foreign power that enables Israel to continue its brutal occupation in the Middle East is not an Islamic nation.
The comparison to Pharaoh here doesn't seem to make the point that the above article wants to make. For part of Pharaoh's angst was that he and his predecessors' actions were driving the desire of the Hebrews to leave. If we were to compare ourselves to Pharaoh, then we would be asking what actions has our nation and the West taken to drive some Muslims to want to become extremists and those extremists to want to commit terrorism against us. The answer given by the article above is that they are not like us. They are totalitarian, we are not. Well, in this nation, we might not be. But how can we say that our nation isn't totalitarian when it has supported so many totalitarian regimes in the Middle East and the rest of the world for the sake of business interests? So it seems that liberals and progressives are not the only ones who are in denial of their sins, especially those sins of idolatry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sept 27
To Lea Singh and her blogpost warning religiously conservative Christians about the their coming persecution because of their faith and stands against changes in society. This Appeared in the imaginative conservative blog.
What Lea Singh fails to consider, when drawing analogies with past persecutions of others, is whether all actions currently being taken against Christians today have merit. Instead, all of the listed "persecutions" for Christians today are cast as if the Christian faith is the only reason why we are receiving some scorn. Consider some of those "persecutions":
1. Losing standing in society
2. Losing tax breaks for Christian businesses
3. Fines for businesses and individuals
Are losing standing in society and tax breaks signs of coming or examples of current persecution or do they merely point to a loss of privilege over others? Does losing privilege over others mean persecution is coming?
Or consider fines for businesses and individuals and whether they are signs of coming or examples of current persecution. Note that no context is provided for those fines. That those fines were for practicing discrimination against others. Does our faith demand that we discriminate? During the Jim Crow era, didn't some Christians believed that? Currently, some Christians believe that we must discriminate in various ways against the LGBT community. If that is true, then doesn't the absence of penalties for such discrimination signal the persecution of that community?
The above is nothing more than another example of a the-sky-is-falling article because this town, which is society, is not big enough for there to be equality for both the LGBT community and religiously conservative Christians. And if we oppose equality for others, then doesn't scorn we receive qualify as protection for others more than persecution of us? On the other hand, describing the changing status of religiously conservative Christianity in society as signs of coming or examples of current persecution stirs a natural tribal instinct that prevents from becoming self-aware because we are too busy circling the wagons.
Finally, we might consider Singh's citing of Rod Dreher's description of the Benedict Option. For he describes it in the following way:
The ‘Benedict Option’ refers to Christians in the contemporary West who cease to identify the continuation of civility and moral community with the maintenance of American empire,
The operative word there is 'cease' for we need to consider why we would ever identify Western Christianity with supporting the American Empire. Certainly people of color and people of conscience have continually been disturbed at such an association.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not included in the comment below was the URL of the Forbes article cited. That article can be found by clicking here.
To Sarah Stanley and her blogpost asking if there is something inherently evil about capitalism. In that blogpost, she cites a audio discussion program hosted by Chris Brooks. That particular program was referenced in the comment below. This appeared in the Acton blog.
The episode used to back this article is full of errors that it seems deliberately manipulative. From the wrong definition of socialism to incomplete information on the epipen example used to the failure to mention Shkreli's hiking of prices.
First things first, government control of the economy is not socialism from the Marxist tradition. Why? If one reads Marx, one notes how Marx proposed a system that opposed bourgeoisie control of the workplace and the government and promoted a proletariat dictatorship. Thus, if the government does control the economy but workers are not in control of the government, then you have no socialism. This is a point made by all sides of socialism from the Marxist tradition.
We should also note that there is a form of socialism that totally contradicts the conservative working definition of socialism. That form of socialism is called Libertarian Socialism. Libertarian Socialism opposes the existence of the state.
Second, the epipen price hike controversy was not adequately explained in Chris Brooks' program. In particular, the epipen price hike followed the collapse of the only major competitor of epipen's manufacturer. Thus, according to an article in Forbes, the price hike of the epipen was because Mylan, the manufacturer of epipien, could hike the prices since it had no real competition. We should note that there are some similarities between Mylan's price hike and the price hike of an AIDS medication by 5,000% by Shkreli.
Shkreli's example is the third point and an example of a free market price rise. As with epipen, there were no government regulations that played a role in the tremendous spike in the price of the AIDS medication. In the epipen case, the lack of competition from a natural market death of a company caused the spike in price while opportunism was the cause of the price rise in the AIDS medication bought by Shkreli. Should note that Shkreli is a hedgefund manager.
Finally, the discussion on Capitalism in the program and in most conservative circles tends to be myopic. For these conservative tend to define the stakeholders of Capitalism by whom they can see. Unfortunately, because of the traditional definition of the term 'stakeholder,' those who are stakeholders include far more people than the ones we can immediately see. It includes migrant farm workers who are often trafficked and forced to work for less money. It includes those here who are forced to work for poverty wages and live on government assistance so that businesses can increase profits. Our economic system's stakeholders includes sweatshop laborers from other nations as well as the those who lost their jobs to those workers. Another stakeholder here includes the environment. And if one looks at the structure of Capitalism, one sees that exploitation is built in to the free market system as a necessity in order to compete at the market place. That doesn't mean that all business owners exploit people and/or the environment. But it does mean that the structure of Capitalism lends itself to exploitation. And a strong indicator of that is that there has never been a time in either Britain's or America's economy that did not exploit people either through slavery, the stealing of land, colonialism, sweatshop labor, or destroying the environment.
Wednesday, June 8, 2016
Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For June 8, 2016
May 18
To Peter Rieth and his blogpost whether Christians could vote for Trump and how he is a reflection of the failure of American Democracy. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.
This article has good and bad points. But in the end, it isn't just the elites who are to blame, it is we the people as well. Because we have believed in our own greatness and regard ourselves as being exceptional, the idea that we could fail democracy flew in under our radar. And because we are content with Capitalism's material benefits, we are too apathetic to challenge the elites as has been done in the past.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 20
To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost on who can teach Sunday School. The question at hand is whether women and other laity are allowed to teach according to the Scriptures. This appeared in the Heidelblog.
Personally, I think the regulative principle sends us on some wild goose chases for principles that we can use to cover ourselves. Who can teach Sunday School is a case in point. Since we have no firm examples of women teaching, we make a general rule for Sunday School despite the possibility that women could have had teaching positions (Aquila and Phoebe). The endless search for principles for some of more and more decisions increases the authoritarianism that runs rampant in Conservative Churches. And here I would like to distinguish between submitting to proper authority structures and authoritarianism. The latter consists of the former on steroids. With the proper submission to authority structures, there is a recognition of the responsibilities of those over us. With authoritarianism, the truth of what is said depends too much on the credentials of the source. Of course, it is one thing to submit to teaching because of what Jesus or the Apostles said, but they provide special cases. It is another thing when we do the same with the Westminster Divines or Calvin or any other authority figure in the Church. With authoritarianism, the laity tries to prove its spirituality cred by how well they know and submit to later figures like the Westminster Divines and Calvin and how they show disdain for fellow Christians who have different views from what is accepted in one's group. It also causes people in the Church to be too insular in the sources they use for understanding the world around them.
What we need to understand is that too much emphasis on authority, or authoritarianism, makes for passive learners in the Church pews. And as these passive learners lose the ability to think through what is taught, they also lose the ability to think through what is going on in the world around them. And that suits some who have authority in the Church fine because that makes people more dependent on them and it maintains group think. The sad result is that we lose the ability to reach out to groups of people who are different from us in ideology, personality type, and social groups. To show this, we might take a survey of members of conservative Reformed churches to see how many are voting for other than a politically conservative candidate. If America has a bias against authority, history suggests that it is because too many authority figures have abused their position causing great harm to those under them.
And all of this quest for authority, both by those who want to hold authority and those who want to sit under it is due to the regulative principle and how it sometimes causes us to act like the Pharisees when Jesus was incarnate on earth. And though the topic of the above article is on who can teach Sunday School, the method of answering the question shows the sometimes over reliance on the regulative principle.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 26
To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost quote stating that the new actions by the government to recognize rights of the LGBTQ community will lead to the abolishment of our gender classification and to the state’s ability to consolidate more power. This appeared in Heidelblog while the quote came from an article in the Witherspoon Institute website.
The above quote is taken from the series The Sky Is Falling Because Society's Mores Are Changing. The lines from the article from which the above quote is taken says the following:
The only substantiation for the claim is a New York City Human Rights Law that deals with some sort of official communication with those who are transgendered and a new federal form that replaces mother and father with parent 1 and 2. And both the law and the form are there to recognize the rights and existence of a group that many of us religiously conservative Christians have always had disdain for: the LGBTQ community. However, we are still to trust the opinion of this writer that the state will require that we will not only be forced to ignore gender reality of others, that the recognition of our own gender will be lost as well.
All of this is because the government is trying to further the recognition of the civil rights of those from the LGBTQ community. And this community is a very small percentage of the population.
Of course, according to the author, the recognition of civil rights raises the red flags of a coming tyranny when she writes at the very beginning of her article:
Here we might ask this question: How much tyranny has resulted from the recognition of civil rights? We might also ask for the identity of those groups where the recognition of their civil rights has resulted in tyranny.
I think that the title for the blogpost on Heidelblog is correct. It is about control. But it isn't about the control sought by the state or others; it is about the control lost by us from the conservative Christian community and how we cry that the sky is falling because of that lost control. And if you don't believe me about whether this is about a loss of our control over society's mores, consider the recent past and how we have battled against issues like same-sex marriage or by how some of us have pushed for Jim Crow like laws allowing Christian businesses to discriminate against the LGBTQ community. Or look at the 29 states that allow employers to dismiss employees from their jobs because of their sexual orientation. It is such tyranny for some of us when we lose the right to discriminate against a group that many of us wished were invisible. Wasn't the invisibility of the LGBTQ community the reason why our past laws and some of the present ones were written?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 30
To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost on distinguishing between patriotism and the pulpit. In this blogpost, he made claims about America being exceptional in terms of the freedoms it promoted for its own people and others. This appeared in the Heidelblog.
I understand the sentiment expressed here because I use to think that way about our nation; but history prohibits this kind of thinking. Our entry into WW I was to save our banks that had lent money to the nations that were losing and to help arms makers and other industries that grow rich from war. Smedley Butler wrote about how our entry into conflicts was more due to helping the rich with their foreign holdings than for any ideals (see http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html and http://fas.org/man/smedley.htm ). And well before the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, Helen Keller warned us that our imperial possessions in the Pacific would be a cause for war with Japan (see https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/keller-helen/works/1910s/16_01_05.htm )
We need to note that the Korean War was a war between two dictatorships where both sought to silence political opponents inside their ownnations for the same reason: to unite the two Koreas under their control. Yes, the North invaded and we had sided with the South. But look at whom we had sided with. And note how after expelling the North Korean from the South, we then invaded North Korea and that invited the Chinese entry into the war. And it wasn't until over 30 years later that South Korea would experience any kind of free political system.
Or we could talk about Vietnam with our rejection of the Geneva Accords and its call for the reunification of Vietnam to be determined democratically. In fact, we had made an agreement with France during WW II where we promised to help them recolonize Vietnam. And when they were unable to accomplish that, we supported dictator after dictator and finally we invaded the nation. As a result of our invasion and bombings, not only did we kill millions of Vietnamese civilians, we destabilized Cambodia as we extended the bombings there and drove some there to support the murderous Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge regime. We should also note that in fighting against North Vietnam, we were turning our backs on a WW II ally: Ho Chi Minh. The Vietnam War was about us preventing North and South Vietnam from reuniting. They were divided as a way to root out the Japanese toward the end and after the war. And we never let the South Vietnamese vote on whether they should reunite with the North Vietnam.
Or we could talk about how we supported Batista's dictatorship in Cuba or that of Somoza's in Nicaragua only to support or conduct terrorist wars on those nations after their respective revolutions that followed those dictatorships. And we could also talk about how we trained military and paramilitary troops on how to attack liberation theologians in Central American countries.
In short, without counting what we did prior to WW II, we have intervened in over 50 nations since the end of WW II with over 30 of those nations being democracies or carrying out democratic processes and in an overwhelming number of those latter cases, we replaced democracy with totalitarian rule. And what was our justification in doing all of that? Our justification revolved around who we weren't rather than who we were.
In other areas of the world, we supported the Shah in Iran and Saddam Hussein in Iraq. We supported Osama Bin Laden and his terrorism in Afghanistan simply to draw the Soviet Union into their own Vietnam. We supported Mubarak and al-Sisi in Egypt despite their attacks on the human rights of the people there. And we still support the dictatorships of Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and any other regime that follows orders. Remember what brought about our decision to attack Iraq during George H. W. Bush's presidency. It was Saddam's invasion of Kuwait. Until then, we were providing Iraq with materials for WMDs even after he used them on his own people and on Iran.
And by saying that the War on Terror started on 9-11-2001, we are simply exercising a bit of narcissism by showing that we think that the world revolves around what happens us. In truth, the 9-11 atrocities were a response to the American and British led sanctions on Iraq that, along with the first Persian Gulf War, were responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children. In addition, we have consistently supported Israel's brutal occupation against the Palestinians where Israel constantly seeks to expand by taking Palestinian land.
And what are we doing today? We still overthrow governments. Libya is one case in point that some could argue for? But what possible justification could there be for our participation in the 2009 coup in Honduras and our support for the new government?
And while our abuse of Blacks during the slave years and the subsequent Jim Crow years was duly noted, where was the mention of the ethnic cleansing of Native Americans from the land?
Have there been times when our nation has acted to help some gain freedom? In a scant number of cases, that is true. In the vast overwhelming number of cases, it is false.
By claiming that our nation is exceptional, some have only shown that they are normal. For it is quite normal for people to claim that their nation is above all others in virtue. Germany has done that. So have the Swiss. And so have the French and others. Claiming to be special is normal. And failing to be special is History's verdict on each of those claims, including our own.
I like what Bobby Seale said about nationalism. He rejected it because like racism, it was based on the belief in the superiority of one's own group. But perhaps even that is preferable to what is coming via our current form of Capitalism. With each new trade agreement and organization we join, we lose more of our voice in our "democracy" to the interests of investors.
Yes, it is good to say that the Church must have only one flag: that of the Lord Jesus. And we should honor those who gave their lives for their country. But with that honor, we must realize that sometimes the ones we are honoring are those who defended our nation from others while, at other times, we must realize that the ones we should be honoring are those who gave their lives to defend their country from us.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 31
To Sarah Stanley and her blogpost citing Samuel Gregg’s work that predicts that Social Democracy would hurt the American Dream. This appeared in the Acton Blog.
There are problems with Gregg's analysis besides the failure to recognize that the proletariat dictatorship never came to fruition. For what we have in Europe is a political social democracy wedded to neoliberal capitalism and the two just have irreconcilable differences. Thus it is natural for someone who believes in today's free markets and the neoliberal capitalism it incorporates to be so gloomy about social democracy. For as one side recognizes the responsibilities that come with our current state of interdependence, the other side is in denial of both our interdependence and our responsibilities.
Greece is a prime example of how well Social Democracy goes with neoliberal capitalism. With its economic crisis having started with our economic collapse of 2008 and the corruption between moneyed-interests and its politicians, Greece found itself in economic turmoil. This resulted in a never ending spiral of an ever increasing debt and borrowing. Over 90% of the borrowing is used to pay foreign lenders and the loans are conditioned on the implementation of austerity measures that even the IMF says hurt the economy. So while the austerity measures hurts Greece's economy, Greece's economic economy fails and thus it defaults on its loans and that demands more borrowing. But, as mentioned before, the lenders receive the bulk of the new loans while nothing is done to fix Greece's structural problems that create the debt in the first place.
The key objection Gregg has to social democracy is that its basic structure of 'enveloping citizens from birth to death in a web of protections and benefits that seek to shield people from life’s uncertainties ' is not sustainable. But the alternative that is never to be named or mentioned is Social Darwinism. And with Social Darwinism eventually comes the death penalty for all who don't make it in the market economy. And even though our economic welfares are more interconnected now than ever before, the denial of our interdependence is the catalyst that transforms regulated markets into free ones. And what is left behind are those who couldn't contribute enough to those free markets while what lies in future is a new political landscape where boundaries become more and more dependent on economic lines than national borders. This is why Europe is becoming more and more governed by Brussels than by its elected governments. The growing wealth disparity in Europe gives evidence of the tension between social democracy and free markets (see http://www.viewsoftheworld.net/?p=3954 ).
Thus, the difference between Europe and us rests in a matter of years with Europe heading in our direction. Currently, our non social democracy has produced both the most wealth and the highest wealth disparity (see http://fortune.com/2015/09/30/america-wealth-inequality). But with that wealth disparity has come what should be a political power disparity resulting in us exchanging democracy for oligarchy (see http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746). This would indicate that free markets not only do not work and play well with social democracy as Europe's growing wealth disparity and the list of the top 10 nations in wealth disparity shows, it indicates that free markets don't work and play well with what was American democracy either. And why Conservatives are blind to this is because they only think of power as being equal to government authority. They don't realize that power can and does consolidate where wealth consolidates.
Noting how America's free markets has also produced the world's greatest wealth disparity along with a loss of democracy, we need to ask Stanley whose American Dream could actually be harmed by a real Social Democracy? We should note that what Sanders calls Social Democracy is not Marxist, it is an updated form of FDR's New Deal. And there is no gradual transition from that to Marx's proletariat dictatorship.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Joe Carter and his blogpost on 9 facts we should know about nuclear weapons This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website
There is a missing fact about nuclear weapons here. That fact is that they could destroy human life on earth.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 1
To Sarah Stanley her blogpost citing Joe Carter’s article attributing Venezuela’s problems to authoritarianism. This appeared in the Acton blog
Venezuela could hardly be considered a success story prior to Chavez that is unless one wants to minimize the significance of past authoritarianism as well as corruption. Certainly the problems that Venezuela is experiencing are due to elite-centered rule; but who isn't experiencing problems from that type of governing. We are as those with wealth have so much of the ear of our elected representatives that our system now considered to be an oligarchy rather than a Democracy (see http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746 ).
But with Chavez's deficiencies in how he ruled, which was discussed at NYC's Left Forum in 2015, he did experience some extraordinary resistance both from within his own nation and from without. From within his own nation there is the main organization that represents businesses: the FEDECAMERAS. This group is doing what they can to regain power in Venezuela including organizing a general strike (see https://zcomm.org/znetarticle/setting-the-record-straight-on-venezuela/ ). In addition, there is a continuance of fraud in Venezuela. We should note that fraud brought to the end one Venezuelan President in 1993.
There are also outside obstacles to the Venezuela's current government. There is evidence that the US was involved in the 2002 attempted coup to overthrow Chavez which failed because of how the people of Venezuela supported him in the streets. In addition, sanctions and accusations that Venezuela was involved in drug smuggling and terrorism as well as implied threats of attacks have been made by the US. That the US has been guilty of trying to destabilize other gov'ts that it does not like tells us that these statements about US involvement in contributing to some of Venezuela's problems should be investigated (see https://zcomm.org/znetarticle/us-aggression-against-venezuela-fact-not-fiction/ ).
Of course, some of Venezuela's problems are due to decisions made by Chavez. But he should not be scapegoated for its problems especially since some of today's problems are merely repeats of problems from the past including authoritarianism and corruption. In addition, we should note that not all of the news coming out of Venezuela is bad. There have been advances made in terms of education, healthcare, and housing (see https://zcomm.org/znetarticle/venezuelas-crisis-from-up-close/ ).
We should note that the the economic system favored by Carter, who was referenced by the writer of the blogpost, exhibits just as much authoritarianism as what could be attributed to Chavez. It seems that some conservatives can only see problems with authoritarianism in governments, especially those they don't favor. They have trouble seeing authoritarianism being displayed in and from the private sector.
In the end, most systems fail when at least one of its significant players insist on not sharing power and decision making with other groups. And unless we learn how to cooperate better, the system we live in will eventually collapse.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost on what are the true marks of the Church. The question came to mind when some visitors to some Reformed churches found the people there to be cold. This appeared in Heidelblog.
There is a disconnect here. The disconnect is that the Church is made up of believers, but, according to the Belgic Confession, the marks of the True Church is determined by the practices of a very small subset of those believers called elders in Presbyterian terms. In the meantime, the marks of the believer are faith, sanctification, and love. So when visitors complain that they did not experience a congregation to be warm and loving, as long as the elders do their job, then those visitors came to a true church though the church is made up of believers.
It isn't that our confessions have nothing to contribute. To believe that would be to err on the side of narcissism in that one believes that the truths and values held to from one's own time are so superior that there is no need to learn from the past.
But on the other hand, the reluctance to criticize the Church's confessions and standards is a kind of authoritarianism that has its parallels to narcissism only it reverses the paradigm. It says that the truths and values held to from the past are so superior to that which are held to today that those from the past having nothing to learn from those living today. This makes authoritarianism and narcissism different sides of the same coin.
The problem here is when the confessions and standards from the past fail to emphasize the same truths and values of what the Scriptures emphasize such as in Galatians 5:6:
Here, I believe that the Belgic Confession regarding the true marks of the Church is neither not without merit nor is it without need for criticism and revision.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 2
To R. Scott Clark and his short blogpost quote stating how the horror of abortion is still with us. This appeared in the Heidelblog.
It's not the bureaucrats' fault, it is the law. The impetus to change the law will never come about for as long as the pro-life cause is so closely tied to conservative politics. Why? It is because there is too much support for patriotism and capitalism in conservative politics to realize how what is being supported is not pro-life for those who have been born. Somehow, pro-lifers are going to have to reach out to political nonconservatives in order to enlarge their tent before the law will be changed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Bradley Birzer and his blogpost about mistakes made by the founding fathers. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative Blog.
We can't fully understand The Constitution when we place it and its writers on the pedestal that many do. And we usually place them on such pedestals when we decontextualize the document and the actions and words of the writers. That decontextualization revolves around forgetting the economic class to which most of the writers belonged as well as the events that gave impetus to the writing of the document. The reason for the writing of the document had more to do with empowering a weak confederation in order that it could better respond to dissent and insurrection like what occurred with Shays Rebellion.
In fact, noting Shays Rebellion and reviewing the 2nd Amendment. we only need to note that that Amendment talked about the right to bear arms in the context of the need to have a militia. And when one looks up the Constitutional references regarding the militia, we find that Congress is to provide the necessary funds for arming and training the militia while the militia itself was under the command of the President and its existence was to repel invasions and put down insurrections. Though here Yates' notes on the Constitutional Debates are subject to debate so that the validity of Madison's quote regarding the job of the government is to 'protect the minority of the opulent against the majority' is in doubt, doesn't Madison say in one of his own writings something to the effect that power belongs to those with wealth who have proved themselves? Such would, to a degree, confirm that the statement in question fits in with Madison's thought.
Yes, Birzer's article here is about the mistakes of the founders. And yet, even with those mistakes, both The Constitution and its writers are still placed on a pedestal too high to be supported by history.
Now aside from his harsh and unjustified judgment of FDR, Birzer has some concerns that people should share. But the concept of limited government does not always fit with the concept of the government protecting people from their enemies. For government to provide such protection, it needs to be bigger than those enemies whether those enemies are foreign or domestic. Considering that on this blog, there has been a growing recognition of the threat that some private sector elites pose to the American people, government should not necessarily be judged by size. That is because government is like love, size doesn't matter, fidelity does. And it is up to us, the people, to ensure that government is faithful to all of us, not just to those with wealth.
A concern that Birzer has that I fully share regards the general ethics and moral values of the people. For there is no political and/or economic system devised that can succeed regardless of the moral code followed by the people. The problem becomes determining what set of values should the nation adopt in the light of the religious freedom we enjoy. I also share Birzer's assessment that The Constitution is not being sufficiently followed today. In fact, it is concern not just of Birzer and conservatives, it has been a long time concern of many Leftists.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 4
To Matthew Hall and his blogpost on reasons why we should learn Church History. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition Website.
Having taught a course in world religions, I can vouch for the need to read Church history. But beware that much of our history contains scenes that are for neither the squeamish nor the romantics. Our predecessors have been guilty of some terrible crimes and of oppression. And we need to learn these not so shining moments of our history to realize what we are capable of. It isn't just those people in the past who sin, it is us too. And despite being Christians, we are capable of doing some horrible things to others.
I found Church history to be both necessary to learn and depressing. But those depressing parts can bring a necessary sobriety to how we view ourselves and the Church.
To Peter Rieth and his blogpost whether Christians could vote for Trump and how he is a reflection of the failure of American Democracy. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.
This article has good and bad points. But in the end, it isn't just the elites who are to blame, it is we the people as well. Because we have believed in our own greatness and regard ourselves as being exceptional, the idea that we could fail democracy flew in under our radar. And because we are content with Capitalism's material benefits, we are too apathetic to challenge the elites as has been done in the past.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 20
To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost on who can teach Sunday School. The question at hand is whether women and other laity are allowed to teach according to the Scriptures. This appeared in the Heidelblog.
Personally, I think the regulative principle sends us on some wild goose chases for principles that we can use to cover ourselves. Who can teach Sunday School is a case in point. Since we have no firm examples of women teaching, we make a general rule for Sunday School despite the possibility that women could have had teaching positions (Aquila and Phoebe). The endless search for principles for some of more and more decisions increases the authoritarianism that runs rampant in Conservative Churches. And here I would like to distinguish between submitting to proper authority structures and authoritarianism. The latter consists of the former on steroids. With the proper submission to authority structures, there is a recognition of the responsibilities of those over us. With authoritarianism, the truth of what is said depends too much on the credentials of the source. Of course, it is one thing to submit to teaching because of what Jesus or the Apostles said, but they provide special cases. It is another thing when we do the same with the Westminster Divines or Calvin or any other authority figure in the Church. With authoritarianism, the laity tries to prove its spirituality cred by how well they know and submit to later figures like the Westminster Divines and Calvin and how they show disdain for fellow Christians who have different views from what is accepted in one's group. It also causes people in the Church to be too insular in the sources they use for understanding the world around them.
What we need to understand is that too much emphasis on authority, or authoritarianism, makes for passive learners in the Church pews. And as these passive learners lose the ability to think through what is taught, they also lose the ability to think through what is going on in the world around them. And that suits some who have authority in the Church fine because that makes people more dependent on them and it maintains group think. The sad result is that we lose the ability to reach out to groups of people who are different from us in ideology, personality type, and social groups. To show this, we might take a survey of members of conservative Reformed churches to see how many are voting for other than a politically conservative candidate. If America has a bias against authority, history suggests that it is because too many authority figures have abused their position causing great harm to those under them.
And all of this quest for authority, both by those who want to hold authority and those who want to sit under it is due to the regulative principle and how it sometimes causes us to act like the Pharisees when Jesus was incarnate on earth. And though the topic of the above article is on who can teach Sunday School, the method of answering the question shows the sometimes over reliance on the regulative principle.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 26
To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost quote stating that the new actions by the government to recognize rights of the LGBTQ community will lead to the abolishment of our gender classification and to the state’s ability to consolidate more power. This appeared in Heidelblog while the quote came from an article in the Witherspoon Institute website.
The above quote is taken from the series The Sky Is Falling Because Society's Mores Are Changing. The lines from the article from which the above quote is taken says the following:
It will serve to outlaw speech that identifies males as males and females as females. At the moment, it may not seem that way, since we see people striving to pass as one specific sex or the other. But, trust me, we’re all being forced to “transition” into conformity of thought.
The only substantiation for the claim is a New York City Human Rights Law that deals with some sort of official communication with those who are transgendered and a new federal form that replaces mother and father with parent 1 and 2. And both the law and the form are there to recognize the rights and existence of a group that many of us religiously conservative Christians have always had disdain for: the LGBTQ community. However, we are still to trust the opinion of this writer that the state will require that we will not only be forced to ignore gender reality of others, that the recognition of our own gender will be lost as well.
All of this is because the government is trying to further the recognition of the civil rights of those from the LGBTQ community. And this community is a very small percentage of the population.
Of course, according to the author, the recognition of civil rights raises the red flags of a coming tyranny when she writes at the very beginning of her article:
As usual, tyranny comes disguised as “civil rights.”
Here we might ask this question: How much tyranny has resulted from the recognition of civil rights? We might also ask for the identity of those groups where the recognition of their civil rights has resulted in tyranny.
I think that the title for the blogpost on Heidelblog is correct. It is about control. But it isn't about the control sought by the state or others; it is about the control lost by us from the conservative Christian community and how we cry that the sky is falling because of that lost control. And if you don't believe me about whether this is about a loss of our control over society's mores, consider the recent past and how we have battled against issues like same-sex marriage or by how some of us have pushed for Jim Crow like laws allowing Christian businesses to discriminate against the LGBTQ community. Or look at the 29 states that allow employers to dismiss employees from their jobs because of their sexual orientation. It is such tyranny for some of us when we lose the right to discriminate against a group that many of us wished were invisible. Wasn't the invisibility of the LGBTQ community the reason why our past laws and some of the present ones were written?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 30
To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost on distinguishing between patriotism and the pulpit. In this blogpost, he made claims about America being exceptional in terms of the freedoms it promoted for its own people and others. This appeared in the Heidelblog.
I understand the sentiment expressed here because I use to think that way about our nation; but history prohibits this kind of thinking. Our entry into WW I was to save our banks that had lent money to the nations that were losing and to help arms makers and other industries that grow rich from war. Smedley Butler wrote about how our entry into conflicts was more due to helping the rich with their foreign holdings than for any ideals (see http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html and http://fas.org/man/smedley.htm ). And well before the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, Helen Keller warned us that our imperial possessions in the Pacific would be a cause for war with Japan (see https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/keller-helen/works/1910s/16_01_05.htm )
We need to note that the Korean War was a war between two dictatorships where both sought to silence political opponents inside their ownnations for the same reason: to unite the two Koreas under their control. Yes, the North invaded and we had sided with the South. But look at whom we had sided with. And note how after expelling the North Korean from the South, we then invaded North Korea and that invited the Chinese entry into the war. And it wasn't until over 30 years later that South Korea would experience any kind of free political system.
Or we could talk about Vietnam with our rejection of the Geneva Accords and its call for the reunification of Vietnam to be determined democratically. In fact, we had made an agreement with France during WW II where we promised to help them recolonize Vietnam. And when they were unable to accomplish that, we supported dictator after dictator and finally we invaded the nation. As a result of our invasion and bombings, not only did we kill millions of Vietnamese civilians, we destabilized Cambodia as we extended the bombings there and drove some there to support the murderous Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge regime. We should also note that in fighting against North Vietnam, we were turning our backs on a WW II ally: Ho Chi Minh. The Vietnam War was about us preventing North and South Vietnam from reuniting. They were divided as a way to root out the Japanese toward the end and after the war. And we never let the South Vietnamese vote on whether they should reunite with the North Vietnam.
Or we could talk about how we supported Batista's dictatorship in Cuba or that of Somoza's in Nicaragua only to support or conduct terrorist wars on those nations after their respective revolutions that followed those dictatorships. And we could also talk about how we trained military and paramilitary troops on how to attack liberation theologians in Central American countries.
In short, without counting what we did prior to WW II, we have intervened in over 50 nations since the end of WW II with over 30 of those nations being democracies or carrying out democratic processes and in an overwhelming number of those latter cases, we replaced democracy with totalitarian rule. And what was our justification in doing all of that? Our justification revolved around who we weren't rather than who we were.
In other areas of the world, we supported the Shah in Iran and Saddam Hussein in Iraq. We supported Osama Bin Laden and his terrorism in Afghanistan simply to draw the Soviet Union into their own Vietnam. We supported Mubarak and al-Sisi in Egypt despite their attacks on the human rights of the people there. And we still support the dictatorships of Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and any other regime that follows orders. Remember what brought about our decision to attack Iraq during George H. W. Bush's presidency. It was Saddam's invasion of Kuwait. Until then, we were providing Iraq with materials for WMDs even after he used them on his own people and on Iran.
And by saying that the War on Terror started on 9-11-2001, we are simply exercising a bit of narcissism by showing that we think that the world revolves around what happens us. In truth, the 9-11 atrocities were a response to the American and British led sanctions on Iraq that, along with the first Persian Gulf War, were responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children. In addition, we have consistently supported Israel's brutal occupation against the Palestinians where Israel constantly seeks to expand by taking Palestinian land.
And what are we doing today? We still overthrow governments. Libya is one case in point that some could argue for? But what possible justification could there be for our participation in the 2009 coup in Honduras and our support for the new government?
And while our abuse of Blacks during the slave years and the subsequent Jim Crow years was duly noted, where was the mention of the ethnic cleansing of Native Americans from the land?
Have there been times when our nation has acted to help some gain freedom? In a scant number of cases, that is true. In the vast overwhelming number of cases, it is false.
By claiming that our nation is exceptional, some have only shown that they are normal. For it is quite normal for people to claim that their nation is above all others in virtue. Germany has done that. So have the Swiss. And so have the French and others. Claiming to be special is normal. And failing to be special is History's verdict on each of those claims, including our own.
I like what Bobby Seale said about nationalism. He rejected it because like racism, it was based on the belief in the superiority of one's own group. But perhaps even that is preferable to what is coming via our current form of Capitalism. With each new trade agreement and organization we join, we lose more of our voice in our "democracy" to the interests of investors.
Yes, it is good to say that the Church must have only one flag: that of the Lord Jesus. And we should honor those who gave their lives for their country. But with that honor, we must realize that sometimes the ones we are honoring are those who defended our nation from others while, at other times, we must realize that the ones we should be honoring are those who gave their lives to defend their country from us.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 31
To Sarah Stanley and her blogpost citing Samuel Gregg’s work that predicts that Social Democracy would hurt the American Dream. This appeared in the Acton Blog.
There are problems with Gregg's analysis besides the failure to recognize that the proletariat dictatorship never came to fruition. For what we have in Europe is a political social democracy wedded to neoliberal capitalism and the two just have irreconcilable differences. Thus it is natural for someone who believes in today's free markets and the neoliberal capitalism it incorporates to be so gloomy about social democracy. For as one side recognizes the responsibilities that come with our current state of interdependence, the other side is in denial of both our interdependence and our responsibilities.
Greece is a prime example of how well Social Democracy goes with neoliberal capitalism. With its economic crisis having started with our economic collapse of 2008 and the corruption between moneyed-interests and its politicians, Greece found itself in economic turmoil. This resulted in a never ending spiral of an ever increasing debt and borrowing. Over 90% of the borrowing is used to pay foreign lenders and the loans are conditioned on the implementation of austerity measures that even the IMF says hurt the economy. So while the austerity measures hurts Greece's economy, Greece's economic economy fails and thus it defaults on its loans and that demands more borrowing. But, as mentioned before, the lenders receive the bulk of the new loans while nothing is done to fix Greece's structural problems that create the debt in the first place.
The key objection Gregg has to social democracy is that its basic structure of 'enveloping citizens from birth to death in a web of protections and benefits that seek to shield people from life’s uncertainties ' is not sustainable. But the alternative that is never to be named or mentioned is Social Darwinism. And with Social Darwinism eventually comes the death penalty for all who don't make it in the market economy. And even though our economic welfares are more interconnected now than ever before, the denial of our interdependence is the catalyst that transforms regulated markets into free ones. And what is left behind are those who couldn't contribute enough to those free markets while what lies in future is a new political landscape where boundaries become more and more dependent on economic lines than national borders. This is why Europe is becoming more and more governed by Brussels than by its elected governments. The growing wealth disparity in Europe gives evidence of the tension between social democracy and free markets (see http://www.viewsoftheworld.net/?p=3954 ).
Thus, the difference between Europe and us rests in a matter of years with Europe heading in our direction. Currently, our non social democracy has produced both the most wealth and the highest wealth disparity (see http://fortune.com/2015/09/30/america-wealth-inequality). But with that wealth disparity has come what should be a political power disparity resulting in us exchanging democracy for oligarchy (see http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746). This would indicate that free markets not only do not work and play well with social democracy as Europe's growing wealth disparity and the list of the top 10 nations in wealth disparity shows, it indicates that free markets don't work and play well with what was American democracy either. And why Conservatives are blind to this is because they only think of power as being equal to government authority. They don't realize that power can and does consolidate where wealth consolidates.
Noting how America's free markets has also produced the world's greatest wealth disparity along with a loss of democracy, we need to ask Stanley whose American Dream could actually be harmed by a real Social Democracy? We should note that what Sanders calls Social Democracy is not Marxist, it is an updated form of FDR's New Deal. And there is no gradual transition from that to Marx's proletariat dictatorship.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Joe Carter and his blogpost on 9 facts we should know about nuclear weapons This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website
There is a missing fact about nuclear weapons here. That fact is that they could destroy human life on earth.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 1
To Sarah Stanley her blogpost citing Joe Carter’s article attributing Venezuela’s problems to authoritarianism. This appeared in the Acton blog
Venezuela could hardly be considered a success story prior to Chavez that is unless one wants to minimize the significance of past authoritarianism as well as corruption. Certainly the problems that Venezuela is experiencing are due to elite-centered rule; but who isn't experiencing problems from that type of governing. We are as those with wealth have so much of the ear of our elected representatives that our system now considered to be an oligarchy rather than a Democracy (see http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746 ).
But with Chavez's deficiencies in how he ruled, which was discussed at NYC's Left Forum in 2015, he did experience some extraordinary resistance both from within his own nation and from without. From within his own nation there is the main organization that represents businesses: the FEDECAMERAS. This group is doing what they can to regain power in Venezuela including organizing a general strike (see https://zcomm.org/znetarticle/setting-the-record-straight-on-venezuela/ ). In addition, there is a continuance of fraud in Venezuela. We should note that fraud brought to the end one Venezuelan President in 1993.
There are also outside obstacles to the Venezuela's current government. There is evidence that the US was involved in the 2002 attempted coup to overthrow Chavez which failed because of how the people of Venezuela supported him in the streets. In addition, sanctions and accusations that Venezuela was involved in drug smuggling and terrorism as well as implied threats of attacks have been made by the US. That the US has been guilty of trying to destabilize other gov'ts that it does not like tells us that these statements about US involvement in contributing to some of Venezuela's problems should be investigated (see https://zcomm.org/znetarticle/us-aggression-against-venezuela-fact-not-fiction/ ).
Of course, some of Venezuela's problems are due to decisions made by Chavez. But he should not be scapegoated for its problems especially since some of today's problems are merely repeats of problems from the past including authoritarianism and corruption. In addition, we should note that not all of the news coming out of Venezuela is bad. There have been advances made in terms of education, healthcare, and housing (see https://zcomm.org/znetarticle/venezuelas-crisis-from-up-close/ ).
We should note that the the economic system favored by Carter, who was referenced by the writer of the blogpost, exhibits just as much authoritarianism as what could be attributed to Chavez. It seems that some conservatives can only see problems with authoritarianism in governments, especially those they don't favor. They have trouble seeing authoritarianism being displayed in and from the private sector.
In the end, most systems fail when at least one of its significant players insist on not sharing power and decision making with other groups. And unless we learn how to cooperate better, the system we live in will eventually collapse.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost on what are the true marks of the Church. The question came to mind when some visitors to some Reformed churches found the people there to be cold. This appeared in Heidelblog.
There is a disconnect here. The disconnect is that the Church is made up of believers, but, according to the Belgic Confession, the marks of the True Church is determined by the practices of a very small subset of those believers called elders in Presbyterian terms. In the meantime, the marks of the believer are faith, sanctification, and love. So when visitors complain that they did not experience a congregation to be warm and loving, as long as the elders do their job, then those visitors came to a true church though the church is made up of believers.
It isn't that our confessions have nothing to contribute. To believe that would be to err on the side of narcissism in that one believes that the truths and values held to from one's own time are so superior that there is no need to learn from the past.
But on the other hand, the reluctance to criticize the Church's confessions and standards is a kind of authoritarianism that has its parallels to narcissism only it reverses the paradigm. It says that the truths and values held to from the past are so superior to that which are held to today that those from the past having nothing to learn from those living today. This makes authoritarianism and narcissism different sides of the same coin.
The problem here is when the confessions and standards from the past fail to emphasize the same truths and values of what the Scriptures emphasize such as in Galatians 5:6:
For in Christ Jesus, neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love
Here, I believe that the Belgic Confession regarding the true marks of the Church is neither not without merit nor is it without need for criticism and revision.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 2
To R. Scott Clark and his short blogpost quote stating how the horror of abortion is still with us. This appeared in the Heidelblog.
It's not the bureaucrats' fault, it is the law. The impetus to change the law will never come about for as long as the pro-life cause is so closely tied to conservative politics. Why? It is because there is too much support for patriotism and capitalism in conservative politics to realize how what is being supported is not pro-life for those who have been born. Somehow, pro-lifers are going to have to reach out to political nonconservatives in order to enlarge their tent before the law will be changed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Bradley Birzer and his blogpost about mistakes made by the founding fathers. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative Blog.
We can't fully understand The Constitution when we place it and its writers on the pedestal that many do. And we usually place them on such pedestals when we decontextualize the document and the actions and words of the writers. That decontextualization revolves around forgetting the economic class to which most of the writers belonged as well as the events that gave impetus to the writing of the document. The reason for the writing of the document had more to do with empowering a weak confederation in order that it could better respond to dissent and insurrection like what occurred with Shays Rebellion.
In fact, noting Shays Rebellion and reviewing the 2nd Amendment. we only need to note that that Amendment talked about the right to bear arms in the context of the need to have a militia. And when one looks up the Constitutional references regarding the militia, we find that Congress is to provide the necessary funds for arming and training the militia while the militia itself was under the command of the President and its existence was to repel invasions and put down insurrections. Though here Yates' notes on the Constitutional Debates are subject to debate so that the validity of Madison's quote regarding the job of the government is to 'protect the minority of the opulent against the majority' is in doubt, doesn't Madison say in one of his own writings something to the effect that power belongs to those with wealth who have proved themselves? Such would, to a degree, confirm that the statement in question fits in with Madison's thought.
Yes, Birzer's article here is about the mistakes of the founders. And yet, even with those mistakes, both The Constitution and its writers are still placed on a pedestal too high to be supported by history.
Now aside from his harsh and unjustified judgment of FDR, Birzer has some concerns that people should share. But the concept of limited government does not always fit with the concept of the government protecting people from their enemies. For government to provide such protection, it needs to be bigger than those enemies whether those enemies are foreign or domestic. Considering that on this blog, there has been a growing recognition of the threat that some private sector elites pose to the American people, government should not necessarily be judged by size. That is because government is like love, size doesn't matter, fidelity does. And it is up to us, the people, to ensure that government is faithful to all of us, not just to those with wealth.
A concern that Birzer has that I fully share regards the general ethics and moral values of the people. For there is no political and/or economic system devised that can succeed regardless of the moral code followed by the people. The problem becomes determining what set of values should the nation adopt in the light of the religious freedom we enjoy. I also share Birzer's assessment that The Constitution is not being sufficiently followed today. In fact, it is concern not just of Birzer and conservatives, it has been a long time concern of many Leftists.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 4
To Matthew Hall and his blogpost on reasons why we should learn Church History. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition Website.
Having taught a course in world religions, I can vouch for the need to read Church history. But beware that much of our history contains scenes that are for neither the squeamish nor the romantics. Our predecessors have been guilty of some terrible crimes and of oppression. And we need to learn these not so shining moments of our history to realize what we are capable of. It isn't just those people in the past who sin, it is us too. And despite being Christians, we are capable of doing some horrible things to others.
I found Church history to be both necessary to learn and depressing. But those depressing parts can bring a necessary sobriety to how we view ourselves and the Church.
Wednesday, February 24, 2016
Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For February 24, 2016
Feb 18
To Elliot Clark and his blogpost on suggestions for being or creating 3rd culture Christians where we share the Gospel. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.
Suggestions #2,3, & 5 are very good. Suggestion #4 needs to be fleshed out. That leaves suggestion #1 and that needs to be qualified if we don't wish to spread colonialism with the Cross. For much of Church history that follows Constantine's conversion has been about Christian imperialism and colonialism is an important issue. That points to how the Church has throughout most of its history, been corrupted by the actual or potential acquisition of political power. With the corruption of the Church comes a distorted Gospel message. And that corruption continues to occur throughout the world today.
So how should this affect our teaching of Church history? Should we just focus on doctrines or do we include the Church's on-again, off-again love affair with political power? For while Christianity can be easily distinguished from other religions by its doctrine, it becomes one of the gang of those seeking power. And such is our dilemma in what to teach from Church history.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feb 20
To Joe Carter and his blogpost on how liberal economists disagree with Sanders' economic plans. This appeared in the Acton blog.
Here is a fact that is overlooked in the article. While Sanders never explains in detail how he is going to finance his promises, he has made one valid point: other nations are doing what he is promising to do here. So whatever "liberal" economists are claiming, the point is that a lot of what Sanders wants done is being accomplished under different conditions than exists here. And since conservatives, like Carter, harp on the fact that a raise in the minimum wage will mean a rise in unemployment without ever asking why, it is our current economic system and its conditions that need as much scrutiny as the promises made by each of the candidates.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Jordan Ballor and his blogpost on 5 theses on taking care of the environment. This appeared in the Acton Blog.
Theses #1-3 are fine. But #4 has problems. Whether our economic stewardship clashes with our environmental stewardship should examined case by case basis. For much of produces profits and economic growth does hurt the environment regardless of whether short-term profit is involved.
Thesis #5 misses a point. Fossile fuels are a key concern because of what they put back into the environment. Just because the use of nuclear fuel doesn't put back the same emissions that contribute to the build up of greenhouse gases doesn't mean that we can afford to neglect what the use of nuclear fuel does deposit in the enviornment. Perhaps solar and wind technology should be looked to more than nuclear--though doing so would not benefit corporate America as much as the other technologies.
Thesis #5 misses a point. Fossile fuels are a key concern because of what they put back into the environment. Just because the use of nuclear fuel doesn't put back the same emissions that contribute to the build up of greenhouse gases doesn't mean that we can afford to neglect what the use of nuclear fuel does deposit in the enviornment. Perhaps solar and wind technology should be looked to more than nuclear--though doing so would not benefit corporate America as much as the other technologies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feb 22
To Joe Carter and his blogpost describing the tariffs proposed by Trump and Sanders as taxes on the poor and working class because of the increased prices they would have to pay for some imported goods. This appeared in the Acton blog.
Free trade advocates forget a couple of things here. First, not everyone is starting from the same point. The industries of some nations' are more developed than others. And one of the reasons why some nations have more developed industries is because those industries were formerly protected by tariffs. So now that they are developed, those nations with the developed industries insist that other nations continue to lag behind them because the other nations cannot use the same method of developing their own industries as were used before. Or in the case of the nations being targeted for tariffs by Trump and Sanders, one nation's industries outcompete their counterparts from other nations because they can cut costs by exploiting workers and the environment This is designed to keep nations in a strict caste system that is governed by those who are calling for their own freedom: business elites.
This brings up a second problem with free trade. Free trade is not free to the nations that participate in it because they are not allowed to make laws that govern how foreign players from the private sector are treating the people in their nation. What is called economic freedom and free trade is nothing more than the continual reduction of social responsibilities for businesses. And what is deemed as reward for this freedom is the bottom line for those businesses because it is assumed that whatever is good for business, is good for all.
Analogies are only as good as their portrayal of the object is complete. So like statistics, analogies that filter information can be classified as lies. Tariffs have never been viewed as a tax on those purchasing the goods as much as on those producing the goods. And when tariffs allow for nations to develop their own industries, then there comes a tradeoff for the higher prices one must pay today for those tariffed goods. That tradeoff can be more jobs for more people that come from developing industries that can eventually compete with the foreign industries of those nations which must pay tariffs. ANd we know what happens when these local industries begin to flourish. As the supply of goods increases, the prices go down. So to use the venacular here, the "taxes" that the middle and lower class consumers must pay now carry with them the potential for those taxes to self-destruct--as well as the elimination of the economic caste system managed by private sector elites.
So why is it that Carter did not present this tradeoff or the above mentioned use of tariffs in his analogy and artilcle?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This brings up a second problem with free trade. Free trade is not free to the nations that participate in it because they are not allowed to make laws that govern how foreign players from the private sector are treating the people in their nation. What is called economic freedom and free trade is nothing more than the continual reduction of social responsibilities for businesses. And what is deemed as reward for this freedom is the bottom line for those businesses because it is assumed that whatever is good for business, is good for all.
Analogies are only as good as their portrayal of the object is complete. So like statistics, analogies that filter information can be classified as lies. Tariffs have never been viewed as a tax on those purchasing the goods as much as on those producing the goods. And when tariffs allow for nations to develop their own industries, then there comes a tradeoff for the higher prices one must pay today for those tariffed goods. That tradeoff can be more jobs for more people that come from developing industries that can eventually compete with the foreign industries of those nations which must pay tariffs. ANd we know what happens when these local industries begin to flourish. As the supply of goods increases, the prices go down. So to use the venacular here, the "taxes" that the middle and lower class consumers must pay now carry with them the potential for those taxes to self-destruct--as well as the elimination of the economic caste system managed by private sector elites.
So why is it that Carter did not present this tradeoff or the above mentioned use of tariffs in his analogy and artilcle?
Feb 23
To Sarah Stanley and her blogpost warning against populism in
general and how today's manisfestations in support for Trump and
Sanders presents a danger to freedom. This appeared in the Acton blog.
general and how today's manisfestations in support for Trump and
Sanders presents a danger to freedom. This appeared in the Acton blog.
I believe that the writer here confuses freedom and privilege. The main difference is that freedom is enjoyed by all, privilege is enjoyed by some. And those who are in the economic-political axis, and that includes Charles Koch, are gaining more privileges as the rest of us lose more freedoms.
There is a reason why the writer here doesn't recognize the difference between freedom and privilege. It is, IMO, that the writer here reduces all freedom to individual freedom. Such destroys the concept of democracy. For Democracy involves a corporate freedom where society tells its members how they are allowed to treat each other. Yes, Democracies can go too far in making such rules. But reducing all freedom to individual freedom weakens, if not destroys, democracy for the benefit of the privileged.
The Citizens United decision simply allows those who have the means to enjoy a privilege that others do not have. The Citizens United decision works to replace the 1-person-1-vote system on which our democracy is based with the free market principle of $1-1-vote. Those who object to populism may struggle to see why such a replacement is so abhorent. It is because such a replacement ensures a rule by elites rather than a democratic rule by all.
There is a reason why the writer here doesn't recognize the difference between freedom and privilege. It is, IMO, that the writer here reduces all freedom to individual freedom. Such destroys the concept of democracy. For Democracy involves a corporate freedom where society tells its members how they are allowed to treat each other. Yes, Democracies can go too far in making such rules. But reducing all freedom to individual freedom weakens, if not destroys, democracy for the benefit of the privileged.
The Citizens United decision simply allows those who have the means to enjoy a privilege that others do not have. The Citizens United decision works to replace the 1-person-1-vote system on which our democracy is based with the free market principle of $1-1-vote. Those who object to populism may struggle to see why such a replacement is so abhorent. It is because such a replacement ensures a rule by elites rather than a democratic rule by all.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Michael Dever, Voddie Baucham, and Bill Kynes and their podcast discussion of Christians and politics. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.
There are important points to cover here. First, distinguishing being partisan and political in the Church is important especially since politics includes issues of justice and thus morality. So how can one be political without being partisan? It is a matter of the Church being a curmudgeon to all who are in or are seeking power that enables Christians to be political without being partisan. That is because the Church can speak prophetically when being a curmudgeon and as long as it acts that way to all who are in or seek power, partisanship dissipates.
Also exposing utopias for what they are is another important point. But there is a subtle and sly way of advocating a utopia. That is to brand all attempts to improve the status quo as being utopian. That is because saying that things cannot improve is simply another way of saying that we have a utopia.
Finally the homosexual and same-sex marriage in society issues was brought up. And here, we should note that there is another issue involved besides a doctrinal one. That issue concerns itself with how we will share society with others, not just whether homosexuality is biblical. Of course it isn't, but neither worshiping other God and we allow freedom of religion. So the question regarding laws concerning hmosexuality an same sex marriage becomes whether we will share society with others as equals or will we seek some hierarchical relationsip as being over them.
Also exposing utopias for what they are is another important point. But there is a subtle and sly way of advocating a utopia. That is to brand all attempts to improve the status quo as being utopian. That is because saying that things cannot improve is simply another way of saying that we have a utopia.
Finally the homosexual and same-sex marriage in society issues was brought up. And here, we should note that there is another issue involved besides a doctrinal one. That issue concerns itself with how we will share society with others, not just whether homosexuality is biblical. Of course it isn't, but neither worshiping other God and we allow freedom of religion. So the question regarding laws concerning hmosexuality an same sex marriage becomes whether we will share society with others as equals or will we seek some hierarchical relationsip as being over them.
Wednesday, February 3, 2016
Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For February 3, 2016
Jan 28
To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost quote of Tucker Carlson that both declares Trump’s use of outrageous speech is right and necessary for debates and the restraint of speech is why our national debates are ‘useless.’ This appeared in Heidelblog.
Then again, self-restraint in speech can indicate a character quality in a person who will be in charge of the most powerful military in the world.
As for Carlson's view, I believe it is a bit backwards. The reason why our debates are stilted and useless is due to the loss of self-control in speech. That loss isn't necessarily seen in the absence of outrageous words, but in choice to attack others rather than address the issues.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feb 1
To Joe Carter and his blogpost on how Christians can be single issue voters when justice is the issue. And that just because a candidate opposes abortion doesn’t mean that the candidate is consistently pro-life. On the other hand, he cannot believe that a candidate who is pro-choice can care about life and dignity in other situations such as the plight of the children in Darfur. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.
Carter's one issue of justice is a worthy issue on which to vote for candidates--that is in principle. The real question will be how it is implemented. And while in one paragraph, he states that a candidate who opposes abortion may not be consistently pro-life. And so we need to find out other policies this candidate has proposed for other situations in which his regard for human dignity would be tested. And all of this is well and good so far.
But in the paragraph that follows the one asking us to test an anti-abortion candidate's consistency in being pro-life, he says:
Here Carter is saying that if a candidate supports elective abortion, he has no reason to believe that the candidate cares about the plight of others whose human dignity is being severely compromised. So Carter proposes that we use one way of reasoning to assess candidates who oppose elective abortion and another way of reasoning to assess candidates who don't. And the with the latter way of reasoning resting appearing to assume negative about the candidate, then how is it that abortion has not in part become a single-issue on which Christians can vote?
Now instead of assuming what Carter does about the pro-choice candidate, we treat the pro-choice candidate as we would the anti-abortion candidate, then we would be looking into the candidate's position on other issues, such as the children in Dafur, to see if the pro-choice candidate has a mix of pro-life concerns. In other words, we rephrase Carter's statement questioning how he could believe that a pro-choice candidate could care about the children in Dafur, for example, so that it becomes a hypothesis worthy of testing:
If a candidate is unwilling to protect children in the womb in America, then that candidate can/does not care about the plight of children in Darfur
Now to prove whether the hypothesis is true, one looks at the candidate's past positions and action regarding the children of Dafur to see if he/she can/does care about these children. And we could use that same hypothesis testing method to see if any pro-choice candidate can/does care about vulnerable or endangered people in other situations.
As Carter wrote his article, there is no need to test a pro-choice candidate's positions or record on other situations where people's lives or dignity are being threatened. That is because Carter's logic here strongly suggests, if not implies, that pro-choice candidates cannot be concerned about human life and dignity in other situations where life and dignity are being threatened. Thus, there is no need to inquire about their positions or record. But such logic tells us to ignore a candidate's position or record once we learn that they are pro-choice.
I oppose elective abortion. I agree with Carter in that we should make justice a plausible single issue on which Christians could vote. But to automatically conclude that one cannot be concerned about the dignity of human life in any situations simply because the candidate is pro-choice is not just wrong; in the context of this article, it is manipulative.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feb 2
To Jen Wilkin and her blogpost on how to escape becoming bitter over being treated unfairly. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.
I've run into a similar decision to the one above when protesting and in my activism. That I must remember when I call for social justice, I am calling as a person who has been unjust to others. Thus, I cannot protest in ways that suggest that I am morally superior to the people whom I am protesting against. That in protesting against injustice, I must show empathy to those I am protesting against and thus I should conduct myself in ways that invite the targets of my protest to change.
One of the ways to escape both the bitterness trap described above and holier-than-thou protesting is to remember my need for God's mercy and grace.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Sarah Stanley and his blogpost lamenting the lessening of economic freedom in the US and the assertion that economic freedom causes a nation’s society and economy to flourish. This appeared in the Acton blog.
The problem with this economic freedom measurement is the assumptions that go with the index. For example, back in the '70s, both Chile and Argentina used miltiary dictatorships to introduce the economic freedom that came in the form of neoliberalism. Chile is still suffering from repercussions of that dictatorship. In addition, neoliberalism, which is epitome of economic freedom, required Yeltsin to use the military to attack his Parliament because they were not buying into neoliberalism's economic freedom sales pitch.
Another problem that comes with the measurement of economic freedom is wealth disparity. We should note that 4 of the nations with the most economic freedom listed above are in the top 17 nations in terms of a growing wealth disparity (see http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/05/income-inequality-around-the-world-is-a-failure-of-capitalism/238837/ ). In addition, another nation on that list, Chile, already had one of the greatest wealth disparity gaps in the world. And there are growing protests in still others nations from the above list regarding growing wealth disparity. That should not surprise us because economic freedom's definition revolves around the status of the individual. Thus, the above claim that economic freedom brings both social and economic 'flourishing' is exagerated.
Economic freedom basically cuts social responsibility ties between private sector elites and society. And though the US is thought of as having less economic freedom than other nations, when our financial sector successfully fought off efforts that would regulate Wall Street's dirivative products, increasing economic freedom, that led to the economic collapse of 2008. The correlation between economic freedom and flourishing was backwards during that time--that is backwards according to the claims.
The problem here is the oversimplicity with which economic freedom is paired with economic and societal benefits. There isn't such a positive correlation between the two and thus we have to look at other factors to see if the economic freedom there is really causing a nation's economy and society to flourish.
To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost quote of Tucker Carlson that both declares Trump’s use of outrageous speech is right and necessary for debates and the restraint of speech is why our national debates are ‘useless.’ This appeared in Heidelblog.
Then again, self-restraint in speech can indicate a character quality in a person who will be in charge of the most powerful military in the world.
As for Carlson's view, I believe it is a bit backwards. The reason why our debates are stilted and useless is due to the loss of self-control in speech. That loss isn't necessarily seen in the absence of outrageous words, but in choice to attack others rather than address the issues.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feb 1
To Joe Carter and his blogpost on how Christians can be single issue voters when justice is the issue. And that just because a candidate opposes abortion doesn’t mean that the candidate is consistently pro-life. On the other hand, he cannot believe that a candidate who is pro-choice can care about life and dignity in other situations such as the plight of the children in Darfur. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.
Carter's one issue of justice is a worthy issue on which to vote for candidates--that is in principle. The real question will be how it is implemented. And while in one paragraph, he states that a candidate who opposes abortion may not be consistently pro-life. And so we need to find out other policies this candidate has proposed for other situations in which his regard for human dignity would be tested. And all of this is well and good so far.
But in the paragraph that follows the one asking us to test an anti-abortion candidate's consistency in being pro-life, he says:
On the other hand, failing on a particular litmus test is often a clear signal that the candidate has an inadequate view of human dignity, and will fail to consistently promote justice while in office. For instance, knowing that a candidate favors abortion-on-demand can be a clue to how they would act on foreign policy issues. If a candidate is unwilling to protect children in the womb in America, why should I believe they care about the plight of children in Darfur?
Here Carter is saying that if a candidate supports elective abortion, he has no reason to believe that the candidate cares about the plight of others whose human dignity is being severely compromised. So Carter proposes that we use one way of reasoning to assess candidates who oppose elective abortion and another way of reasoning to assess candidates who don't. And the with the latter way of reasoning resting appearing to assume negative about the candidate, then how is it that abortion has not in part become a single-issue on which Christians can vote?
Now instead of assuming what Carter does about the pro-choice candidate, we treat the pro-choice candidate as we would the anti-abortion candidate, then we would be looking into the candidate's position on other issues, such as the children in Dafur, to see if the pro-choice candidate has a mix of pro-life concerns. In other words, we rephrase Carter's statement questioning how he could believe that a pro-choice candidate could care about the children in Dafur, for example, so that it becomes a hypothesis worthy of testing:
If a candidate is unwilling to protect children in the womb in America, then that candidate can/does not care about the plight of children in Darfur
Now to prove whether the hypothesis is true, one looks at the candidate's past positions and action regarding the children of Dafur to see if he/she can/does care about these children. And we could use that same hypothesis testing method to see if any pro-choice candidate can/does care about vulnerable or endangered people in other situations.
As Carter wrote his article, there is no need to test a pro-choice candidate's positions or record on other situations where people's lives or dignity are being threatened. That is because Carter's logic here strongly suggests, if not implies, that pro-choice candidates cannot be concerned about human life and dignity in other situations where life and dignity are being threatened. Thus, there is no need to inquire about their positions or record. But such logic tells us to ignore a candidate's position or record once we learn that they are pro-choice.
I oppose elective abortion. I agree with Carter in that we should make justice a plausible single issue on which Christians could vote. But to automatically conclude that one cannot be concerned about the dignity of human life in any situations simply because the candidate is pro-choice is not just wrong; in the context of this article, it is manipulative.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feb 2
To Jen Wilkin and her blogpost on how to escape becoming bitter over being treated unfairly. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.
I've run into a similar decision to the one above when protesting and in my activism. That I must remember when I call for social justice, I am calling as a person who has been unjust to others. Thus, I cannot protest in ways that suggest that I am morally superior to the people whom I am protesting against. That in protesting against injustice, I must show empathy to those I am protesting against and thus I should conduct myself in ways that invite the targets of my protest to change.
One of the ways to escape both the bitterness trap described above and holier-than-thou protesting is to remember my need for God's mercy and grace.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Sarah Stanley and his blogpost lamenting the lessening of economic freedom in the US and the assertion that economic freedom causes a nation’s society and economy to flourish. This appeared in the Acton blog.
The problem with this economic freedom measurement is the assumptions that go with the index. For example, back in the '70s, both Chile and Argentina used miltiary dictatorships to introduce the economic freedom that came in the form of neoliberalism. Chile is still suffering from repercussions of that dictatorship. In addition, neoliberalism, which is epitome of economic freedom, required Yeltsin to use the military to attack his Parliament because they were not buying into neoliberalism's economic freedom sales pitch.
Another problem that comes with the measurement of economic freedom is wealth disparity. We should note that 4 of the nations with the most economic freedom listed above are in the top 17 nations in terms of a growing wealth disparity (see http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/05/income-inequality-around-the-world-is-a-failure-of-capitalism/238837/ ). In addition, another nation on that list, Chile, already had one of the greatest wealth disparity gaps in the world. And there are growing protests in still others nations from the above list regarding growing wealth disparity. That should not surprise us because economic freedom's definition revolves around the status of the individual. Thus, the above claim that economic freedom brings both social and economic 'flourishing' is exagerated.
Economic freedom basically cuts social responsibility ties between private sector elites and society. And though the US is thought of as having less economic freedom than other nations, when our financial sector successfully fought off efforts that would regulate Wall Street's dirivative products, increasing economic freedom, that led to the economic collapse of 2008. The correlation between economic freedom and flourishing was backwards during that time--that is backwards according to the claims.
The problem here is the oversimplicity with which economic freedom is paired with economic and societal benefits. There isn't such a positive correlation between the two and thus we have to look at other factors to see if the economic freedom there is really causing a nation's economy and society to flourish.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)