Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For January 12, 2022

 Dec 22

To R. Scott Clark and the Reverend Dr Peter Sanlon for the part of Sanlon's article quoted in Clark's article that warns the PCA not to accept any appeal or argument made by Side-B Christians regarding their standing in that denomination. This appeared in the Heidelblog.

Sanlon's article can be found at either

https://theaquilareport.com/a-letter-to-pca-friends-from-england-speaking-to-your-future/

or

https://www.reformation21.org/blog/a-letter-to-pca-friends-from-england

There are several problems with the above article. The first problem is that there seems to be an expressed fear of being able to distinguish the different flavors of Side-B Christians.  There is an expressed fear that if the more acceptable Side-B Christians are welcomed as spiritual peers, then the worst Side-B Christians are sure to follow. Such thinking is a form of all-or-nothing thinking which, in part, is part and parcel of authoritarianism and thus not necessarily Biblical.

There is a problem with the claim that some Side-B Christians are 'downplaying' the work of the Holy Spirit in being able to change their desires. With that is the implication that those correcting Side-B Christians have experienced a fuller work of the Spirit, that they have no equivalent issues to the Side-B Christian struggle with SSA. So perhaps Machen's racism with its implicit white supremacy expressed in some of his letters to his mother is not as serious as struggling with SSA. Of course, it is unknown if Machen recognized let alone struggled with his own racism. And before him, we have Whitfield and Edwards and their accepting of white supremacy as expressed in their owning or viewing slavery. Here we should be reminded of how they benefited from those beliefs. And what should we say about today's exemplary Christians from the Reformed Theology Tradition who are accepting of systemic racism or the economic exploitation that is a foundational part of our current economic system because they, like Machen, are members of privileged groups? What should we say about those same Christians who are apathetic to the suffering caused by our nation's misuse of its military and other services or by our foreign policies because they live in a privileged country? I could go on.

Finally, isn't it one thing to question experienced or emotional based beliefs when they run counter to the Scriptures and another thing to question those same kind of beliefs when they run counter to or go beyond the scope of issues covered by the Reformed Confessions? If we can't make that distinction, then are we implying that like the Scriptures, the Confessions are inerrant and sufficient to guide Christians living in today's world? Do we really think that none of today's issues are new to what the writers of our confessions thought of or had to deal with? Are we implying that because of our Reformed Confessions and Catechisms that we do not need to list to others as they share about their experiences and feelings? 

Certainly there are faults, some very serious, that come with the different varieties of Side-B Christianity. But their problems in no way imply that those who automatically reject them as  being spiritual peers are either correct in their rejection of them or have no faults as serious as any Side-B Christians have.

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

Dec 28

To W. Robert Godfrey and his church school lesson on the changes in our world due to the overthrow of Christendom. Thie appeared on the Abounding Grace Radio Blog.

Besides oversimplifying Hegel, Marx, and the struggle to improve, Godfrey employs a double standard. For at the end he says that Christians are easy to attack because they are sinners and not perfect. And so if one only focuses on their sins and ignores what they do is good, it is easy to attack Christianity. And yet he seems not to consistently employ the same graciousness when dealing with the faults of those who sought to overthrow Christendom.

In addition, we might want to ask if there is something wrong with unbelievers only seeking to improve life on earth for others. And if Christians do not to join them in that venture, doesn't that makes them guilty of what Lenin observed and thus charged the Christians of his day with? 

So does what Godfrey said about Christians and their faults apply to whatever group, movement, or ideology that we wish to criticize? For it seems that Godfrey is complaining that Christianity is being rejected simply because of the sins of Christians while ignoring Christianity's contribution and yet he seems not to mind rejecting other ideologies as a result of employing the same logic. Here we should note that Martin Luther King Jr., if memory serves, borrowed from Hegel in some of his analysis. 

Also, if we want to focus so on the secular prophecy that predicted Hitler's emergence, why not also examine WW I to note how each side claimed that the Christian God was on their side. And what about the colonialism, imperialism, slavery, ethnic cleansing, anti-semitism, and such which were all the fruit of Christendom?

The problem with traditionalists is that they rely too heavily on the past to analyze and respond to the present. The problem with narcissists is that they don't rely enough on the past to understand and respond to the present. And if we placed a  line between those two positions, we find that most of us lean, at various points on that line, one way or the other. Unfortunately, our world changes and that requires us to change. And the failure to change wisely dooms one to suffer the harsh consequences that comes from either overreacting or under reacting to our ever changing world.

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

Jan 3

To Gene Veith and his article on how Trump is not receiving the credit he deserves for the development of the vaccines and how he is being vilified for his Covid policies. In the end, Veith asks about how one reacts to Trump and whether Trump should run for President. Veith's opinion is that Trump's influence and political career will disappear. This appeared in the Cranach blog on Patheos.

There is no doubt that Trump deserves credit for making the situation more feasible for developing the vaccines--though we need to remember that Trump did not develop the vaccines himself, Al Gore did.

But where Trump deserves unwanted negative credit was in his flaunting of the disease and, thus, his flaunting of medical science in how seriously he took the disease after the end of April of 2020. His flaunting of the disease included his promotion of hydroxychloroquine and deliberate disregard for the wearing of masks and his pushing people to prematurely return to life as normal. His flaunting of medical science was parallel to his ridicule of the courts and the election system after the election. His behavior, in both cases, encouraged people to prefer offbeat sources like QAnon to medical science and the courts even where his own appointed judges presided.

Yes, Trump does deserve credit for fostering an environment that helped speed the development of the vaccines. But he also deserves credit for flaunting medical science and thus encouraging others to do the same with regard how they were to react to the Covid-19 pandemic. And Veith doesn't help here when he presents the story of Trump and Covid in such a bipolar manner. It is as if Veith was trying to make the case that if Trump is not the epitome of evil, then he must be innocent of the Covid-related accusations against him.

As for whether one should support Trump for President again, let us remember how he has tried to make people so dependent on his alternative facts and himself as the sole source for reliable information and news. And let's remember Jan 6, 2020, a day that could have lived in infamy if some of his supporters had their way in that insurrection.

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

Jan 4

To Paul Krause and his article that tries to establish Western Exceptionalism by trying to tie it to the exceptionalism found in the Hebrew Bible. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

I guess by praising the Hebrew Bible, one is praising oneself or one's own group when one tries to establish strong ties between the Hebrew Bible and oneself or one's own group. But we should note two problems with that approach. First, the New Testament is the completion of the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament makes it clear that without that completing of the Hebrew Bible, one is left to be condemned by its principles so praised in the above article because of one's own violations of those principles.

Second, history is quite clear in pointing out the vast disconnect that exists between the principles of the Hebrew Bible and what has driven Western Civilization. However, there is a point of continuity between the Hebrew Bible and Western Civilization: religious intolerance. Religious diversity was labeled as idolatry punishable by God's judgment and sometimes physical death as sanctioned in the Hebrew Bible. A major theme in Western history is the practice of religious intolerance unless an ulterior motive could be satisfied by tolerating other religions.

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

Jan 6

To Patrick M. Garry and his article that attacks the Left for its promotion of an anti-Constitutional democracy. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

There are a few things to comment on in the above article. First, there is a conflation of Democratic liberals with the Left. The Left is anti-Capitalist to varying degrees, Democratic liberals are not.

Next, we cannot adequately describe the intentions of The Constitution without noting its context and citing from Yates's notes on the Constitutional debates. What spurred the writing of The Constitution was neither the Revolutionary War nor the newfound independence from Great Britain;  what spurred the writing of that document was Shays Rebellion and the widespread dissent caused by the economic distress of the time. As a result, America's own elites felt threatened and wanted a stronger federal government that would be able to put down resistance. We should note that Madison was not just opposed to direct democracy, but also to allowing all classes of people having the right to vote so that the wealthy could be protected from the demands of the rest. Here we should remember the occupational demographics of those who participated in the Constitutional debates as well as the writer of The Constitution itself. Many were slaveholders or bondholders. 

The Federal Papers make it clear that the charge of factionalism was nothing more than political speech aimed at those with whom America's financial elites disagreed on economic solutions for that time. We should also note that The Contitution initially did not allow for voters, and only around 5% of the population could vote at the time of the writing of that document, to vote for their Senate representatives. Senators were appointed by their state governments, along with the length of a Senator's term, in order to protect Senators from popular opinion.

If democracy is the rule of the people, then America has never been a democracy in the first place. America's varying levels of embracing white supremacy has made sure of that. At best, we are an ethnocracy. But even outside that ethnocracy, whatever democratic elements that exist in our government are strongly limited by the rule of  financial elites (see  https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B  ). 

The lack of democracy and the rule of specific groups  such as whites or financial elites it is what is being defended here. Such a rule produces an authoritarianism that has profoundly infected all political ideological sides from libertarianism to conservatism to  liberalism to the left. In other words, what we are experiencing is a continual King-Of-The-Hill battle for control over the nation. And though more democratic in form that the then different styles of governments were at its time, The Constitution started us down this road a stealth authoritarian rule by privileged groups of this nation. And defense of such an authoritarianism by a religiously conservative Christian source should note surprise anyone since conservative Christianity has a strong penchant for authoritarianism.

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

Jan 9

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost that advises the Alliance of Reformed Churches (ARC) on how to proceed after spliting from the Reformed Church of America (RCA). This appeared in the Heidelblog.

The mocking of the Mainline denominations simply because they have attempted to address issues that we daily face because we live in today's world is not consistent with how we are to live as Christians. And that is one of the problems with the above article. Correcting others as if one is above them is a temptation that we face as Christians and thus how we confront others should be tempered by our own failures and sins. And we should be able to do that because we who hold to the Reformed traditions pride ourselves in believing that we are saved by grace alone.

It is also nice to know that those in the Reformed sideline churches tolerate us believers who don't hold to conservative social and political views. We should thank those social and political conservatives for being so gracious for allowing us to be members of their churches.

If I were to advise the ARC about its future, I would say that instead of looking at being either faithful to the Confessions or being culturally relevant as a choice, it should look at both as being siren songs with each containing its own hazards and dangers. 

There is a certain degree to which we need to be faithful the the Confessions, but lest those Confessions begin to compete with the Scriptures for our attention and dependency, we need to lower the pedestal on which they are often placed. We need to see that the writers of those Confessions as well as other writings from the past were significantly influenced by their own cultures and life experiences. And thus, to depend too much on those Confessions and writings not only can cause us to depend too much on them, it can make us less able to translate what is in the Scriptures to today's life. Here we should remember that a key fault of traditionalists is to depend too heavily on the past to understand and respond to the present.

On the other hand, we need to distinguish between being culturally relevant from being culturally influential. That is because being influential sometimes depends on affirming current actions, attitudes, and beliefs that go against the Scriptures. Being culturally relevant simply means being able to make understandable what the Scriptures have said in order to clearly address today's issues. Our ability to translate the Scriptures that way can be limited when we depend too much on Confessions and the writing s of others from the past who were heavily influenced by their own cultures and who did not face the world we face today.

The Scriptures must be our guide above all guides. As for the Confessions, we must realize that, like ourselves, not only have the writers of those Confessions and other writings  face issues unique for their time and location, but that how we look at the Scriptures has already been influenced by our own culture and life experiences. And thus to better understand the Scriptures, we must be honest in how we look at both ourselves and the writers of our Confessions and other writings has affected how we interpret the Scriptures. 

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For March 17, 2021

March 15

To R. Scott Clark and his article that goes out of its way to state that homosexual desire, like homosexual behavior, is sin. This appeared in Heidelblog

I fully agree with Dr Clark that homosexual desire is sin. But, according to Jesus, so too is lusting for a woman outside of a heterosexual marriage. So the question becomes whether Clark is putting an extra burden on Christians who battle homosexual desires that he is not that he is not putting on those battling heterosexual sinful desires.

We should note that Clark is not shy in citing Ursinus in saying that those with homosexual desires should be punished by the Civil Magistrates. So how dare young people think that what Clark and others say about homosexuality is hateful.

Clark makes a big deal about homosexual desire is against nature. But when we realize that we see varying levels of homosexuality in around 1,500 species, we have to ask: Whose nature is it against?

And Clark also quotes part of I Cor 6:11 to refer to the Christians who were homosexual of Paul's day: 'such were some of you.' But that passage deals with a number of sins in addition to homosexuality including adultery. Is Clark saying that believers with homosexual desires but did not act on them are not Christians? What about the other sins in I Cor 6 that were listed with homosexuality? Adultery is one such sin. Does that mean that Christians don't struggle with adulterous desires?

While Clark questions whether students know what Paul said in I Cor 6:11, we might ask if Clark has read Romans 2:1ff. For after listing sins that were the result of unbelief, Paul starts Romans 2:1 off with a serious warning against judging others. Who are those others? Aren't they the people whose sins were highlighted in Romans 1? And while Clark, in one of his responses, indicates, if not implies, that since homosexuality violates God's moral and biological laws, that they are worse sinners than those who do not violate biological law, Romans 3:9 begs to differ:

What shall we conclude then? Do we have any advantage? Not at all! For we have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under the power of sin.

While Clark correctly says that homosexual students should be loved, again he cited Ursinus who said that those with such desires should be arrested. And he says that real Christians were such sinners. Clark needs to find other ways to state why homosexual desire is also sin without giving such mixed messages and putting burdens on homosexuals who would become Christians which he doesn't put on Christians who struggle with other sins.

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

March 16

To Stephen Klugewicz and his article on some of the principles used to write The Constitution. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

In giving accolades to the principles that drove the writing of The Constitution, Stephen Klugewicz fails to mention a more full context of the drafting of that document.  The impetus for the drafting of that document was Shays Rebellion. That rebellion moved Henry Knox to write a letter to George Washington telling him something needs to be done before the American experiment failed.

The context of the rebellion revolved around the farmers who had served as soldiers in the Revolutionary War and were never compensated as promised for their service. This contributed to their economic hardships. In addition, taxes were high and businesses in Boston started to change so that payment was expected at the time of sale. This was a change from farmers using the barter system to pay off debts. There was no paper currency at the time which people could use to make payment. In addition,  neither was there gold nor silver available to the farmers.

The term 'faction' was used more as a pejorative by America's new elite to describe those who were in need of some kind of relief so they could continue to survive economically. It was used by Henry Knox in his letter to George Washington and James Madison in Federalist #10, both of whom regarded the rebelling farmers as many today's conservatives regard BLM. What the faction wanted was a paper currency, the cancellation of debts, and an equal distribution of property. So on one hand, what the rebelling farmers wanted  what they thought was needed for them to survive. What the elites wanted was protection for their current status.

What we see with The Constitution is a consolidation of federal powers in order to be able to put down rebellions. In addition, that document was written to protect America's new elites from popular opinion, as Yates's notes on the Constitutional debates records Madison as saying:

Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority.

What is more telling is what Madison feared if elections were open to call classes in England:

The landed interest, at present, is prevalent; but in process of time, when we approximate to the states and kingdoms of Europe; when the number of landholders shall be comparatively small, through the various means of trade and manufactures, will not the landed interest be overbalanced in future elections, and unless wisely provided against, what will become of your government? In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of the landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be jsut, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation.

Innovation, of course would  include any changes to the current status quo.

One can also see the one of the main concerns in The Constitution when the references to the militia.

The short of all of this is is that  the writing of The Constitution was not driven by principles as much as described in the above article. A significant part The Constitution was written in order to preserve the status of America's elite at that time.

 

 

 

 

 

What Has Trump Wrought?

 Because of the Trumpublican Party's coup attempt on the Electoral College, we still do not know who will be inaugurated this coming January 20. Most likely it will be Joe Biden, but there still exists a path to a 2nd term for Trump.

But besides all of that, it might be helpful to look at what Trump's first four years have wrought--assuming that he doesn't do anything significant between now and January 20th. His Presidency has destroyed reality, he has deeply damaged what is left of our democracy, and he has undermined The Constitution. 

It is rather obvious how Trump has destroyed reality. Building on previous efforts of popular conservative talk hosts, Trump has created a cult following who live by the motto: 'Trump said it. I believe. That settles it.' Here we should note that that motto is based on a religiously conservative Christian bumper stick I have seen on occasion. Only instead of Trump being the one who said it, it is the Bible. And that tells us the pedestal on which his cult members,  especially with many of them being conservative evangelicals, have place him. Thus, to his cult followers, what the Bible is to spiritual truth, so Trump has become to political truth.

We should note that, in some cases, his cult members believe what Trump says without demanding any evidence and/or despite what the evidence says in other cases. We only need to bring three examples to support what was just said. 

The first of those examples is climate change. Trump called it a hoax. Now in calling it a hoax, he went against vast majority of climate scientists as well as scientific organizations. In calling it a hoax, he is ignoring all of the early warning signs that point to man-caused climate change. And he does that, and he is not alone, for one reason: he cannot accept the changes that recognizing the reality of man-caused climate change requires. And it is not that the denial of climate change started with Trump, it didn't. But that denial became government policy with Trump as appointee after appointee to government scientific positions consisted of  lobbyists or high ranking corporate executives for energy companies. 

So despite how the number of category 5 hurricanes since the year 2000 compare to previous 20-year periods,  the rate at which the sea level is rising, the accumulation of CO2 in the oceans, the vanishing of the polar ice caps, the thawing of the permafrost and the rising atmospheric temperatures with increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere, Trump calls man-made climate change a 'hoax.'

There is also Trump's dangerous denial of the seriousness of the Covid-19 virus. Trump deserved mixed grades during his administration's first few months of dealing with the virus. Could he have acted more quickly? Yes. But so could some other politicians and even Dr. Fauci was late in recognizing the seriousness of the pandemic.

But when the end of April rolled around and we knew how deadly the virus could be, in order to help his image by trying to restart the economy, Trump modeled behavior, recommended personal behaviors that caused people to doubt the seriousness of the Covid-19 virus. He told people that they did not have to wear masks or socially distance themselves from others. He publicly supported the restart of college football and some of the stadiums have had quite a few people in the stands. Then there were his campaign stops where he and his audience went without masks and they ignored all social distancing rules. And this kept occurring even after he had to be hospitalized with the virus. Besides the number of White House staff and Secret Service agents who contracted the virus, many states that saw his campaign stops experienced spikes in the number of confirmed cases. And with those spikes have come an almost overwhelming of medical facilities by those infected with the Covid-19 virus. Also, despite the tremendous surge of over 100k confirmed cases on a daily basis in the nation along with 700+ deaths, Trump has greatly minimized the threat of the virus with his words. He has even complained that the public is tired of hearing about Covid-19.

The effect that Trump's assessment on the virus and the behaviors he has modeled have produced a significant number of people who refuse to follow the basic rules of wearing maks and practice social distancing. And they refuse to follow those rule because they don't take the virus seriously. However,, a South Dakota nurse reported that some of the people she and her colleagues have seen at work are in denial that they have the virus even to the point of death.

One only needs to consider Trump's words and actions during the Presidential campaign to understand that he has destroyed reality. Both during the 2016 and 2020 elections, Trump claimed, without providing any evidence, that him losing the election meant that the election was rigged. And despite the fact that neither the Justice Department, the Department of Homeland Security, nor the Judicial system as it hears a plethora of complaints filed by the Trump campaign have evidence of any widespread fraud, Trump and his cult followers insist otherwise simply because of what Trump said.

Trump has accomplished this coup over reality by isolating his followers from outside influences. His authoritarian personality has compelled him to be aggressive against any complaint or criticism. And while his cult followers regard his hostility to criticisms and dissent to be a show of strength, nothing could be further from the truth. He has called the Mainstream Media the enemy of the people and he uses imprecise working definitions of terms and even slander to induce fear in his followers of the Democrats. Thus, his cult members are stuck in an echo chamber because, according to Trump, they cannot trust anyone else by him and themselves.

Trump's post-election behavior has not only been an attack on reality, it has been an attack on democracy. By pursuing groundless litigation against the elections in the battleground states where he lost in conjunction with his pre-election accusations, he has led an attack on the faith that people had in our elections. In addition, he is trying to be reelected despite the election results. Again, neither the Justice Department nor Homeland Security nor the many court cases that have been filed have provided evidence supporting Trump's challenges to the election results. And yet, he sticks by his claims and refuses to concede the election. 

 But not only that, his running mate and Secretary of State speak confidently of a 2nd Trump term despite the election results. He has protesters in the streets who are convinced that the election was stolen. And what is the reason for that belief? It is because Trump claimed before the election took place that the only way he could lose was if the election was rigged. Again, we have the basic tenet of his cult followers: 'Trump said it. I believe it. That settles it.' 

So where do his adamant claims about rigged elections leave us? If the election stands with the Electoral College votes reflecting the election, Biden will be the next President with many of Trump's 70+ million voters believing that the election was rigged in Biden's favor. However, if there is a delay in the certification of election results so that the Electoral College does not reflection the popular election, then Trump could win a 2nd term and those supporting Biden will understandably, and correctly, believe that the election was stolen from them. Ironically, before the election, Trump accused the Democrats of trying to steal the election.

Finally, Trump has led an attack on The Constitution. Not only has he publicly stated, before the election, that he might run again in 2024, some of his support groups are going against The Constitution. In a recent announcements, some militia groups stated that they would not recognize a Biden Presidency. There is no doubt that that is partially due to  Trump's insistence that voter fraud took place. And it is partially due to his campaign smears of Biden as being a Socialist. But here is the kicker. Initially, The Constitution stipulated that our nation was to be defended from foreign invasions and domestic insurrections by the nation's militias. The reliance on these militias, not the 2nd Amendment, was a check against government tyranny according to the Federalist Papers.

However, The Constitution is clear in stating that the militias are to be under the command of the President of the United States. Thus for a militia to reject the presidency of a man selected by the election, means that that militia has transformed itself from a militia to a politically armed gang. And oddly enough, that is what Hitler relied on when he was rising to power.

The above is just a partial picture of what Trump's Presidency has wrought in this nation. It would be wise for us to try to undo the damage as much as possible and to start undoing that damage even before Biden's Presidency starts, that is if it is given a chance.

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

Sept 16

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

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

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

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

Sept 17

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

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

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

protect the minority of the opulent against the majority

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

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

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

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

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

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




 

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For September 19, 2018

Sept 18

To Joe Carter and his blogpost that cites an article on how to read The Constitution. This appeared in the Acton blog.

Having read the cited article, it seems that there is a missing part to how to understand The Constitution. Paulsen, the author of the article cited, talks about understanding the purpose and history of the writing of The Constitution. But while mentioning the historical context of the 14th Amendment as an example, he neglects to mention the historical context and reasons for writing The Constitution. The reasons for writing The Constitution was the need to respond to the widespread dissent over the then economic times and Shays Rebellion. That putting down the rebellion required the funding of a private militia. Thus, one of the major concerns that were addressed in The Constitution was the need for a federal force that could put down future insurrections. One only needs to look up all references to the Militia made in The Constitution, including the Bill of Rights to check the validity of that claim.

Some more context can be garnered by reading Henry Knox's letter to George Washington (see  https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/04-05-02-0095  ) and the Constitutional debates (see http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/yates.asp  ). Knox's letter shows the concern caused by the times and Shays Rebellion and the Constitutional debates recorded the conversations of the drafters that went into the writing of The Constitution.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To Joseph Mussomelli and his blogpost that proclaims how we Americans should still claim American Exceptionalism provided that we follow his revisions. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

There is a huge problem with what is being proposed in the above article. That problem consists of the conjunction between the lessons of WW II and the idea that America is morally superior to others. The combination makes the George Washington form of American Exceptionalism untenable. That is because the belief in our moral superiority along with the perception of threats abroad, compel us to act independent of the cooperation of the UN. In addition, belief in American Exceptionalism itself disconnects us from the atrocities we have committed within our own nation.

American Exceptionalism blinds us to the decadence that justified carrying out Manifest Destiny and promoting white supremacy either in the form of slavery or Jim Crow. How did our ethnic cleansing of Native Americans not affect our notion of our own moral status in the world? We can talk about it only if we are allowed to converse with no sense of horror or shame. To converse with others in that way, we must at some point excuse the gross racism that permitted us to steal, or force Native Americans from, the land. That is often done by minimizing the humanity of Native Americans. So that the only atrocities we should be ashamed of are those committed in other lands. In other words, people of other ethnicities are recognized to be more human than the indigenous people of this continent.

And how should we feel about slavery and the subsequent Jim Crow? Should we not again hide our faces in guilt and shame or can we remain unaffected by the atrocities brought on by both because the Civil War was fought to free the slaves and the Civil Rights movement removed Jim Crow laws? And since our worse immoral crimes are in the past, isn't Mussomelli proposing that there is no sense in beating ourselves up over past. Is that what we would advise the Germans to do with their history of Nazism and all that followed that?

Either form of American Exceptionalism emotionally disconnects us from our past. That disconnect is most apparent in the Wilson intervention type of American Exceptionalism. But all of the necessary ingredients for carrying out the ugliest form of Exceptionalism are an integral part of the recommended, George Washington isolationist type of American Exceptionalism or Mussomelli's revised version of Exceptionalism still lead us to the ugliest form of Exceptionalism. That should be clear by how Mussomelli whitewashes some of our past such as our interventions in Cuba and the Philippines from decades ago.

Finally, why insist on being Exceptional in the first place? Is it because of our religious history that Mussomelli wants us to feel compelled to claim superiority over all others? Or is that insistence on being exceptional is because of a belief in racial superiority of Europeans and Western Civilization? Why insist on being exceptional when our religious heritage contains the parable of the two men praying where the person who claimed to be exceptional was rejected by God? Perhaps the reason why Mussomelli insists on America claiming to be exceptional is because it is the only remaining argument that can be used to prevent America from changing the way it has been.

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

To Emily Kleinen and her blogpost on how we try to distract ourselves from the finality of death, the eternal, and God by our earthy pursuits. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

The article well describes a hospice way of living. That is that we seek to be comfortable until the end comes The hospice way of living is a living for oneself and it certain denies the eternal and God.

However, Reformed theologian Francis Schaeffer, a while back ago, warned us that this hospice way of living, which he described as making a god out of the pursuit of personal peace and prosperity, also afflicts Christians who also have their eyes on the eternal and on God.

The point being that this hospice way of living is not just motivated out of a desire to distract ourselves from death, the eternal, and God, it can also be motivated out of a pure addiction to the material world. In that case godliness becomes a search for being selfishly righteous. That is we live for ourselves as long as we avoid breaking certain taboos.

Regardless of the motivation, what is lost is what the Old Testament talked about such as in Psalms 103 where the Psalmist mentions many of the benefits God grants us and what the New Testament saw the fulfillment of. And perhaps the reason for people losing track of what the Scriptures say is because of our weaknesses in the face of such strong temptations.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For May 16, 2018

May 14

TO Joseph Mussomeli and his blogpost on the 5 myths about the Iran deal controversy. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

Mussomeli makes some good points in the above article even though they can be improved on.

Point #1.
Mussomeli is correct in his assessment regarding Iran's status in sponsoring terrorism. Certainly, Saudi Arabia should be a leading candidate but only if we ignore state actions that meet the definition of terrorism. For the definition says that terrorism consists of the threat or use of violence on civilians to achieve a political end. And whether one considers that we used terrorists in our invasion of Afghanistan and our overthrow of Libya's government, we practiced terrorism in the events leading up to and including our invasion of Iraq, we practiced terrorism in our overthrow of Libya's government, and we use drones to assassinate civilians in other nations, it would seem that the US is the greatest purveyor of terrorism in the world--similar to Martin Luther King's statement that his government is the 'greatest purveyor of violence in the world today.'
The problem with Mussomeli's point here is that it seems to assume that violence can only be counted as terrorism when it is practiced by those who oppose our nation or its allies.
Point #2
Even if Iran developed nuclear weapons, it could never qualify as the greatest nuclear threat in the world. And Mussomeli is correct in stating that Pakistan is a greater threat than Iran would be. But here, Mussomeli leaves out of the rankings of other nuclear armed nations like Israel, Great Britain, India, Russia, and the US--of course there are other nations that could have been included. In terms of the quantity of weapons, the US and Russia pose the greatest nuclear threat in the world. But when one considers the willingness to use nuclear weapons, both India and Pakistan rank ahead of Iran.

There are a couple of reasons why some western thinkers would rank nuclear armed Iran as the greatest nuclear threat in the world. One is that possession of nuclear weapons would give Iran a deterrent to Western aggression in the region. Another reason is to cover Israel's apparent adoption of the Bush Doctrine. The Bush Doctrine said that the US would not tolerate any nation to begin to rival its power in the world. Of course, that doctrine was and still is delusional for the US to enforce on the world. But Israel seems to be enforcing that doctrine in its region. And that might be the real reason for Israel's concern. Israel will not allow for almost any other nation, with the exception of Saudi Arabia, in its region to close the technological gap between itself and Israel. And America allows for Israel to practice such a doctrine because it becomes a watchdog for the US in that region.

Point #3
The only thing I would change in what Mussomeli wrote is the word 'belligerent.'  When a nuclear-armed nation surrounds your nation with military bases and another  nuclear-armed nation in the region continually employs rhetoric, belligerence is not the only way to describe defiance to the situation.
Point #4
Is it in America's best interest to operate by the rule of force? We should ask because, after all, that is how our allies Israel and Saudi Arabia operate in the region and us in the world. But it is that rule of force that fosters enough resentment to cause groups to defiantly oppose our control over others. We should also note that agreements like the Iran nuclear deal subtract from that rule of force because it adds an element of self-restraint. In addition, some American leaders are pushing for sanctions on those European businesses that do business with Iran to even magnify the effect of our leaving the agreement.

Point #5
To continue to operate by the rule of force is suicidal in a world where, because of ever advancing technology, the proliferation of WMDs is inevitable and the current ways of doing things increases  the number of our enemies. Thus, it would seem that leaving the Iran deal is not in our best interests as Mussomeli pointed out in his own way.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

May 15

To Hunter Baker and his blogpost that declared that, from the examples set by nations like Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea, Socialism is dead. This appeared in the Acton blog.

Baker misses the most key component of Socialism from the Marxist tradition in his definition of the term. Socialism is first about the redistribution of power from the bourgeoisie to the proletariat.  And thus, if the state controls the means of production but the bourgeoisie are in charge of the state, you have no socialism. But what about the examples provided by Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea.

First, as discussed a number of times during the 2015 Left Forum, there was great concern as to whether Hugo Chavez putting workers in positions of power and thus giving workers more decision-making ability.  For while Chavez was making economic decisions that helped the poor, which went unmentioned in the above article, he made those decisions from a top-down organizational model. Lenin used a similar organizational model and the regime he led was called a bourgeoisie dictatorship by Rosa Luxemburg. See, how Luxemburg defined Socialism was the rule of a proletariat run democracy. Is that what Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea implemented?

Second, what escapes Baker's mentioning is that both Venezuela and Cuba were subject to significant harassment from the US. The embargo, which consists of economic sanctions, on Cuba was covered by 6 laws and was meant to hurt Cuba's economy until it allowed for democratization and it ecognized human rights. We should note here that the US interest in human rights for Cuba came into existence when the Cuban Revolution occurred. It was then that the US recognized that their support for the corrupt dictator Batista was not in its own best interests.

For Venezuela, there are allegations that the U.S. was not only involved in the 2002 coup attempt, but that it was working behind the scenes to sabotage the Venezuelan economy. The coup and attempts at sabotage could provide a partial, but not complete, explanation for Chavez's reaching for more power.

In terms of the redistribution of power to the proletariat, the question Baker and other conservative, opportunistic prognosticators of Socialism have to answer to is this, do they provide examples of real Marxist Socialism? Did either the Soviet Union or China provide such an example? Here we find that using proper definitions is a key in answering those questions and making pronouncements over the status of Socialism.


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

To Joe Carter and his blogpost that argues for Former Justice Scalia’s Originalism approach to interpreting The Constitution over the Living Constitution approach. This appeared in the Acton Blog.

One problem with the living Constitution approach is that it risks separating us too much from our roots in an attempt to be relevant in using The Constitution to address situations never envisioned by our founding fathers. The attempt to be so relevant  elevates the present over the past to the effect that we think nothing could be learned from studying the past. The problem with Originalism is that it risks destroying The Constitution by making it either irrelevant or a tool to implement a tyranny of tradition which elevates the past over the present in terms of wisdom and fairness. Originalism doesn't recognize that the people back then may never have seen the greater implications of what was written in our founding documents. For example, did Thomas Jefferson consider that all men, in his line that 'all men are created equal,' now refers to not just men of every race, but women as well?

Scaila was a conservative and so his approach to interpreting The Constitution is consistent with conservatism and its flaws. And one of the flaws of conservatism is that it tends to look SOLELY to the past in order to understand and react to the present. That is why the Scalia's Originalism approach to The Constitution not only facilitates the tyranny of tradition, it works to deny many logical implications of the text and thus usefulness of The Constitution. Scalia's approach makes The Constitution itself too inflexible, despite his claims otherwise, to speak to many of today's issues.

Finally, the following claim by Carter should be examined:

The Living Constitution replaces our representative democracy with an out-of-touch oligarchy

We should note that The Constitution was written in an effort to maintain the status quo for America's financial elites at that time. For not only was The Constitution written in response to widespread dissent and Shays Rebellion, it gave the Federal government power to put down such insurrections and it tried to prevent the populace from gaining power that would allow it to rule over the financial elites at that time (a.k.a., the landed interests) . Madison himself expressed fear over the opening of elections to all classes of people in England lest agrarian reform should follow. Thus, it seems that, at the least, Originalism invites the same risk of oligarchy that Carter claims that the Living Constitution approach brings.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For May 31, 2017

May 25

To Joe Carter and his blogpost on how Americans are more permissive on moral issues than ever. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.

We should note that in an article talking about moral issues, all of those issues deal with personal morals and most of those deal with sexual issues. And this is perhaps a reason why our witness to the Gospel loses credibility to others. We don't include with our discussion of moral issues foreign policies, economic systems, and many kinds of discrimination. And because we don't include those items in our discussion, immoral wars and exploitive economic systems, both of which benefit those with wealth, do not receive the personal and moral outrage they deserve. And so while we seem to relish in punishing the individual with valid reprimands for personal sins, our corporate sins, which are sins of the state and those that support the status quo, receive a free pass. And challenging those sins can invite just as much public disapproval, if not more, as challenging individuals about the sins listed above.

We should note that the predominant branches of the Church supported those with wealth and power prior to the French, Russian, and Spanish Revolutions. And that support caused both undue persecution of Christians and unnecessary dishonor to the Gospel once those revolutions took place. And so in America, it seems that history is repeating itself. The predominant branch of the Church in America, which is conservative Protestantism, has actively and/or with silent complicity sided with those with wealth by focusing on objecting to personal sins while, with the exception of racism, remaining silent on the corporate sins of the state and those sins that support the status quo.  And we wonder why liberals find us so hard to listen to.

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

May 26

To Tim Keller and his blogpost on how Christians should effectively witness to their culture. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.

Part of what Keller says about effectively interacting with culture has to do with what we associate with the Gospel. For when we claim to be Christians, all that we do and say as well as the other groups we join become associated with the Gospel and that is for better or worse. And so when Keller says that churches should be multi-ethnic, civil, generous, and integrate faith in our work Keller is telling us what positive associations we can make Christianity that in no way asks us to compromise our faith. And these are good points made by Keller.

However, there are some concerns with part of what he has written. When he talks about the first Church being exclusive and how that should carry over to now, a distinction must be made. Certainly the Church is exclusive in terms of its true membership. Only those who trust in Jesus as their only savior before God can be true members of the Church.  However, outside criticism of the Church for being exclusive is often concerned with a different way in which the Church pursues exclusivity. That way has to do with those whom the Church has often tried to exclude from full membership in society. From our beginning up through our Jim Crow era, a significant part of the conservative Church tried to exclude racial minorities from full membership in society. And for an even longer time than that, American conservative Christians have fought hard to marginalize the LGBT community from full participation in society. These kinds of exclusivity are what many critics of the Church are upset about and their association with the Gospel, because many Christians have practiced them, have unnecessarily been associated with the Gospel. And because these kinds of exclusivity have been associated with the Gospel, the Gospel has been dishonored and stumbling blocks have been put in the way of many who hear the Gospel.

Another concern regards what Keller wrote about the financial markets earning trust by becoming self-regulating. To a certain extent, there is validity in that comment. However, the need for government regulation will always exist. Why? Because, in terms of purpose, government regulations on businesses exist to tell businesses how people want to be treated. These people range from employees to customers to vendors to those in communities in which businesses exist. That government all too often fails in representing how people want to be treated by businesses does not take away the purpose of valid regulations.

Now Keller does talk about government needing to reform but he does so inadequately. For he states that government should move toward centrism and bipartisanship. The problem here is that centrism does not always produce the best decisions and bipartisanship fails when issues have more than two sides. More important than finding a middle way between what the two major parties are advocating is government becoming more and more faithful to all of the people, especially the vulnerable. This is preferred to the government selling out  to those with wealth or to those with an estranged ideology.

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

May 28

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost quote of Luther on how if we believe that we have any merit of our own before God, then Christ is of no use or benefit to us. This appeared in Heidelblog.

Though I agree with the quote and how it is used as an answer for the statement 'God helps them...,' the statement in question is rarely applied to eternal matters. Rather, it is primarily applied to temporary matters and is used by those who believe that they owe all of their success to themselves. And thus, they have very little compassion for those in need because need, them, implies that people have not done all they could.

For not only does the quote from Luther counter the statement about whom God helps in the eternal sense, so too does it apply in the temporal sense. For the fact that regardless of the kind of society and economy one lives in, there is a degree of interdependency that allows one to succeed. In other words God has already used society to help us to succeed and if we stop that help from society from helping others now, we are, as they would say in economics. 'kicking away the ladder.' And kicking away the latter is an appropriate description of the economic and health care plans that the Republican Party, including both those in Congress and those in the current Administration, have planned for the nation.

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

May 29

To Bruce Forhnen and his blogpost on the purpose of The Constitution. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

There is a missing part to the telling of the writing of the The Constitution here. That missing part consists of why The Constitution was written. The dissent at home had to do with the exploitation of some and Shays Rebellion.  Thus, the new American elite wrote a document that created a stronger federal government that could better respond to insurgencies than what was allowed under the Articles of Confederation. There was to be no standing army but a militia was provided for and put under the command of the President. The job of the militia was to repel invasions and put down insurgencies. The militia was not, according to The Constitution, to be the states' deterrent to a federal gov't that grew too strong.

In addition, one only needs to follow the debate  over the construction of the Senate (see http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/yates.asp). The Senate was protected from popular opinion by both the length of a Senate term and how they were chosen--they were not chose by elections even though not many people could vote anyway when The Constitution was ratified. During that debate, Madison expressed serious concerns over the possibility that voting could be opened up to all classes in England. Such, according to Madison, could threaten the wealthy elites there. So basically our government was formed to resist changes sought by the people. For the purpose of government was to 'protect the minority of the opulent against the majority' (see http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/yates.asp ) according to Madison.

Though Frohnen has a point in saying that the government defined by The Constitution gave fewer powers to government than other constitutions did, it was not because of America's reliance on families, churches, local communities, and so forth. The Constitution was written because America's elites were frightened because of the widespread dissent and Shays Rebellion. They battled as politicians against ideas that threatened their status by calling them factions. Basically, our Constitution was written to protect America's new elite from calls for the use of paper money, the elimination of debts, and the equal distribution of land. Madison denounced such demands as being 'improper' or 'wicked.' And he stated that class divisions were seen as a necessity in civilized nations and they included a landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests (see http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm). We should note which class was deemed the favorite back then by some. According to Charles Pinckney, of the three classes he observed as existing, the landed interest was to be the 'ruling power' with the 'professional men' and 'commercial men' being forever dependent on the landed interests.

Yes, Frohnen was correct in saying trade was an issue. And citing Germany as an example, strength so as to prevent wars was also important in the Constitutional Debates. But the event that precipitated the writing of The Constitution was one that threatened the status of American elites and so they formed a government that protected their interests and status. Thus, this new government was not as authoritarian as the governments of other nations because those who were elites didn't want the competition for power with the American people. And the problem is that we see the same principle in effect today.

In addition, we might ask the Native Americans and Blacks back then how free they were during the times of our founding fathers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

May 30

To Joseph Sunde and his blogpost citing Charles Murray’s call for a ‘Cultural Great Awakening.’ This appeared in the Acton Blog.

The biggest objection to the point made by Murray and this article is not an ideological one, it is an observational one. The Church, especially since the time of Constantine, has all too often sided with wealth and power, or just wealth when it lacked power. Examples of the former include the prerevolutionary of the French, Russian, and Spanish Revolutions. An example of the latter includes the Christian Democratic and Church support for wealth prior to the Chile's 9/11 where Allende was overthrown and Pinochet was installed as a dictator. In each of those examples, the Church became an accomplice in the exploitation, oppression and even  murder of people especially those who were non-bourgeoisie types. In those prerevolutionary instances, the Church suffered persecution and the Gospel was dishonored after the revolutions took place. In the latter instance, the blood of thousands of people could be place on the hands of those Christians who did not support the democratic processes used in Chile.
It is the hope of those who favor elite-centered rule to scapegoat personal decisions and the failure of individuals to be responsible in making the system work. It is the hope of those who some libertarianism to scapegoat systems and large organizations like big business or big unions. In reality, the parable of the two men praying tells us that no individual or group has a monopoly on vice while Romans 2 tells us that no individual or group has a monopoly on virtue. So we should listen to and pay close attention to irresponsible decision making made by individuals just as we should pay attention to exploitive economic system and large organizations that eternally lust for more power and wealth. We should listen to Charles Murray's call for a 'Cultural Great Awakening' as much as we should constantly reexamine and revise our economic systems and hold in check big organizations from obtaining more and more power and wealth. For without this two way approach, then Murray's Awakening' can only maintain the current status quo if it doesn't cause us to relive tragic events in history.

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

To Joe Carter and his blogpost video display that claimed that trade without tariffs helps the economy despite the loss in jobs because other jobs are created and that, with trade, helps the economy grow. This appeared in the Acton blog.

Besides the disingenuous, overly simplistic descriptions of trade and the creation/destruction of jobs or the treatment of the correlation between economic strength and child labor as a cause and effect relationship, this video reminded me a quote from Martin Luther King's speech against the Vietnam War. In that speech, King said the following (see http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2564.htm ):

A true revolution of values will soon look uneasily on the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth. With righteous indignation, it will look across the seas and see individual capitalists of the West investing huge sums of money in Asia, Africa and South America, only to take the profits out with no concern for the social betterment of the countries, and say: "This is not just." It will look at our alliance with the landed gentry of Latin America and say: "This is not just."

We should note that trade alone wasn't the only factor in Americans losing jobs, it was the offshoring that trade brought that caused the loss of jobs. And with much of that offshoring, what happened was that labor overseas was exploited because some other nations didn't share the mindset we have here in passing  and enforcing regulations that protect both workers and the economy. Therefore businesses that moved manufacturing overseas where workers were exploited didn't see their conditions as being exploitive because those workers were getting paid more than they had been paid when they had no jobs. But mistreating someone and telling them to be satisfied simply because their previous conditions were worse is the epitome of exploitation. And such a rational behind that practice is simply abusive.

We should also note that the offshoring of American manufacturing jobs often resulted in flooding the supply of workers in the retail and fast food markets. That increase in the supply of workers kept pay for such workers down because beggars could not be choosers--again, the exploitation of workers. And since the Financial Sector of the American economy has grown to be a larger segment of the economy rather than manufacturing replacing the jobs it lost because there was more money for investors to make in the financial sector than in manufacturing, more was shifted to the financial sector. And for manufacturing to attract investors, it oftenhad to lower costs which meant hiring cheaper labor and build plants where the environmental regulations were not as strict as here.

In short, all of the creation and destruction of jobs in order to make the economy grow did not reduce wealth and income disparity. In addition, the amount in which gov't assistance programs are used to subsidize the payrolls of some corporations is over a billion dollars. Plus, the history of our own nation's economy included tariffs that protected certain sectors of our economy so that they could grow to be competitive. Thus, for a nation like the US to argue against other nations from using tariffs to develop specific industries and economic sectors is called 'kicking away the ladder' that greatly contributed to our current economic status. In addition, Comparative Advantage, as mentioned in the video, creates a global economic caste system where nations are locked into their present economic role unless they are willing to entice corporations by cutting worker protection and environmental regulations.

In short, this video makes an ideological case against all tariffs and attempts at protectionism rather than an observational one. An observational argument would note that along with trade and offshoring, worker exploitation and environmental destruction has been part of the package of increasing trade and the offshoring of jobs. And not only would child labor be mentioned, so would child slavery and trafficking also be mentioned and how some American corporations benefit greatly from such practices because they reduce labor costs. And we also need to note that slavery and economic growth are not always in an inverse relationship. India, which has experienced a great deal of economic growth continues to see an increase in slavery.

Ted Koppel's criticisms of Sean Hannity are appropriate and they apply here. The ideological commitment by the Acton blog to what is call neoliberal economics, which includes what is taught about trade in the video attached to Carter's blogpost, asks people to accept the ideology without showing them pertinent facts on the ground. And while the Acton blog states that they are connecting valid objectives and economics, it neglects to mention that there are other economic systems besides Neoliberalism. How can one teach sound economics when only one economic system is being taught as the system that promotes human flourishing especially when that system is creating more wealth disparity both within many nations and between nations?
see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmaKl0Zm2c4 for Koppel's specific comments on Hannity

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For October 26, 2016

Oct 19

To Roger Scruton and his blogpost which pits Classical music against Avant-Garde music. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

Unfortunately, this article speaks in an authoritarian manner telling us that the only music worth listening to is that which strives for order and beauty. Thus, the only music worth listening to, according to the writer of this article, is that music that expresses the ideal. And so we have an exclusive-or choice between modern Avant-Garde and what is considered to be classical music. Twelve tone music is thus condemned because it fits outside the boundaries set by classical music and the use of music to express the ideal.

However, without having to throw out classical, which to my knowledge is done by no one, we should note that music is not just for expressing the what we regard as what is beautiful and the ideal, but to express reality as it appears in all of its ways. And this is really the basic rub here. Is music to be limited to painting  beautiful pictures with sound or is music there to help us communicate what all of life is about.

That we do not have to choose both approaches to music is demonstrated by many musicians, but I will pick one in particular. Dave Brubeck incorporated many musical forms in his writing and performing. And this included forms from all sorts of Jazz to Bach to religious music to 12 tone. And which ones were used in any particular piece depended on what Brubeck wanted the piece to express. And here we should note that he felt that music should express the gamut of emotions.

Thus, the real conflict here is between the ideal and reality, between authoritarianism and freedom. The authoritarian view tells us that the choice of music we have before us should be limited to only that which expresses beauty. The choosing to be free says that music should fit the message it is trying to communicate whether that message is one about beauty or one about the realities of life. So we see that even in music, those who are authoritarian are always fighting against freedom.


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

Oct 22

To Joe Carter and his use of the Love Gov film series to discourage any government oversight into a nation’s economy and to promote free market economies in his blogpost. This appeared in the Acton Blog.

Free market economies do not promote charity, selflessness, and kindness. Such a claim is nothing more than a sales line. What a free market economy does is to promote elite-centered rule and independence. Free market economies promote elite-centered rule because such economies provide the fewest obstacles for the consolidation of wealth. And where we have the consolidation of wealth, we have the consolidation of power. And such economies tell those at the top that their business operations are to be free the demands of any government including those governments that are working democracies. That is another way of saying that business owners are more and more free from their social responsibilities. And in every nation whose government is a working democracy, then a free market economy tells the business owners that their business is free from the demands made on them by the people represented by their government.

We should note that human flourishing uses as a bottom-line measurement by at least some who promote free market economies. For their claim is that free market economies remove the most people from abject poverty. But there are three problems with the claim. First, the standard of living that exists above the abject poverty level is still a poverty level of living especially depending on where one lives. Second, what produced the jobs for people from those nations that saw the greatest reduction in abject poverty was the removal of jobs from people from other nations. And the motive for the moving of those jobs was to benefit the investors who owned the businesses rather than to benefit the people in the nation that would receive the jobs. In the meantime, many who lost those jobs now flood the job market for certain skills and that keeps the wages for those jobs down because of the law of supply and demand. And third, many of the jobs in nations where people are escaping abject poverty are set in sweatshop conditions. In addition, in the two nations where the most people have been removed from abject poverty, slavery is either stagnant or increasing.

Free market economies are investor-oriented economies with less and less government oversight over the markets. Thus investors, even foreign investors, will have more to say about any nation's economy where the economy is a free market economy than the people of that nation will. Thus, the drive for free market economies are establishing a new governmental organization that lies outside of national boundaries and the reach of elected government officials, especially in those nations whose governments are working democracies. And here we should note that governments that are working democracies are not the kind of governments that are depicted in the film series above. Governments with working democracies are those that truly represent what their people want. The drive for free market economies is a drive for a new way for money to rule the world.

Recently, the US had to rescind laws that required the labeling of the origin of meat because the WTO, of which the US is a member, threatened serious economic sanctions if it didn't. And it did so because other nations were concerned that their businesses would lose money if the people in our nation knew from which nation the meat they were buying was. With the proposed TPP, corporations can sue governments for laws passed, but governments cannot sue those corporations. And those lawsuits would be heard in TPP tribunals that have no concern for any US law, even The Constitution. Thus, investors will have more say over laws protecting the environments or workers' rights and pay than the people of a given nations will. Other nations, such as Canada and Costa Rica, have felt the bite from these free market economies. We need to look at the whole package of what a free market economy offers while noting that the above film series does not depict the only alternative to a free market economy.

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

Oct 23

To Joseph Sunde and his blogpost that claims that flourishing occurs when we act authoritatively while making ourselves vulnerable. This appears in the Acton blog.

It seems that the current emphasis on always flourishing is just another prosperity gospel. We live in a fallen world that is an alien place for believers so that to think of flourishing as a natural state is to believe that this world can be our home. Such denies what the NT says. For how does what Jesus says about where we should lay up treasure impact our view of flourishing? The same goes for when the writer of the book of Hebrews tells us that we have no home on earth.

It isn't that we should not celebrate times when we do flourish. But we should also look at those times and examine plight of all the stakeholders involved including the environment to ensure that our flourishing isn't at least partially because of exploitation. When expecting to flourish, we should also note that infinite growth on a finite planet is impossible. And our world is telling us that perhaps we have been seeking flourishing a bit too much with the rising temperatures in the troposphere and the rising sea levels that have already been hurting people.

Again, this emphasis on forever flourishing is just another prosperity gospel. It uses flattery and visions of sugar plums dancing in our heads to appeal to us. But it denies the costs all of us must pay either now or later for how we have been flourishing today.

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

Oct 24

To Peter Lawler and his blogpost asking if we should venerate The Constitution. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

I don't know how we can determine whether we should venerate The Constitution without talking about the context in which the document was written. After all, it was written during a time of widespread dissent and soon after Shays Rebellion. As we observe from all of the Constitutional references to the Militia, one of the purposes of The Constitution was to strengthen the Federal Government so that it could better respond to insurrections. And when we look at Madison's view of one of the purposes of government, which is to 'protect the minority of the opulent against the majority' and that Senators were immune to public opinion by not just the length of their terms, but by being appointed rather than elected, we see the disdain that many of the framers of The Constitution had for direct democracy. We should also note that Federalists pejoratively referred to those with whom they disagreed with as belonging to 'factions.'

And many conservatives carry on that traditional disdain by equating democracy with 'mob rule,' as if the majority rule by elites (a.k.a., a republic) is more virtuous than majority rule by all the people. For if democracy is mob rule, then how can majority rule by elites be referred to in any other way than 'the mob rules'? Here we should note that The Constitution was written in an effort to maintain the status quo for the sake of domestic elites. And, as Federalists 10 pointed out, it is the union that is more important than the states. So how in the world can we see The Constitution as promoting limited government and states rights unless, from an apriori commitment, we perform eisegesis by reading it into the document?

Sure, if some want to put The Constitution on a pedestal and venerate it, they are free to do so. But all of us should remember that the higher that pedestal and the greater the veneration, the more we have the tyranny of tradition and thus a form of authoritarianism. This isn't to say that we should easily replace The Constitution by today's popular views. That would be the result of narcissism. It is to say that just as conservatives want government to be limited, so we should want the size of the pedestal on which we place The Constitution and its veneration to be limited as well. After all, we should remember that both The Constitution and the founding and expanding of our nation was racially based.