Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For December 22, 2021

Dec 14

To Stephen M. Klugewicz and his article about the nobility of conservative thinkers and how they sometimes fight for lost causes but often pessimistic because of the world around them. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog. 

According to the above article, conservative thinkers do not believe in utopias and theybelieve that the pursuit of them is dangerous. And yet, they seem to believe that they have a monopoly on what is true, good, and virtuous, which is a shared trait with those who attempt to build utopias.

According to the above article, conservative thinkers have everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them--a phraseology borrowed from Martin Luther King Jr. when he was talking about the West.

According to the above article, the conservative thinker thinks the same of himself in comparison with nonconservatives as the Pharisee thought of himself compared with the publican (see Luke 18:9-14).

Yes, conservatism has ideas to contribute to the well-being of mankind. But so do liberalism and leftist ideologies. We should note that none of those ideologies, along with any other ideologies not mentioned, are omniscient. And because of that, we all need to listen to those who hold to ideas and beliefs other than our own.

Finally, we should note that the person, conservative or nonconservative, who believes his own press is a sibling to the person who would act as his own lawyer.

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

Dec 15

To R. Scott Clark and Steve Dowling for Clark's quoting from Dowling's article that dissents from a PCA denominational hearing that decided to support the ordination of a Christian who is same sex attracted but does not act on that attraction and believes that he will always have that attraction. This appeared in Heidelblog.

Steve Dowling's article can be found at:

https://theaquilareport.com/dissenting-opinion-on-the-sjc-decision-in-the-missouri-presbytery-greg-johnson-case/

Why do my fellow religiously conservative Christians often resort to using pedophilia in comparisons with homosexuality? Why? Can't they see the differences between the two attractions or are they unintentionally using hyperbole to demean homosexuality?

We should note something from the NT, it is grossly significant sins that makes one's Christian faith questionable. Not all of those grossly significant sins include actions, but many do. We should note something else about homosexuality in the NT, though it is a grossly significant sin, there are sins, even sexual sins, that are worse. For example, a man having sexual relations with his father's wife, see I Cor 5, is a sin not even tolerated by pagans--which is unbelievers, not the motorcycle gang,  Meanwhile, an honest reading of Romans 1:18ff tells us that, though against nature, homosexuality among unbelievers should not surprise us. 

So what about those who are SSA compared with those who struggle with lusting after people of the opposite sex? What do we, people who are attracted to the opposite sex, really know about being SSA that we can render a fair judgment on those who are SSA? And are we going to be consistent with how we judge and respond to those who share our own sexual sins? If a Christian no longer acts on SSA, then doesn't their life demonstrate and aren't they acknowledging  an ongoing sanctification? If a Christian is no longer looking at porn, does their life not demonstrate and are they not acknowledging an ongoing sanctification? Even when a Christian acknowledges that a desire they have is sinful, that Christian can very well be demonstrating and acknowledging an ongoing sanctification.

Fear in Dowling's dissenting article I sense. And as we all know from intergalactic history, fear is the the path to the dark side. Fear is the path to becoming the Pharisee from the parable of the 2 men praying. Ok, maybe not the path, but it is a path all too often taken. I sense fear because Dowling's dissent is authoritarian in nature and authoritarianism is a fear driven response. It is the kind of fear that makes one reluctant to make distinctions, such as what we see in those with phobias. Here we should note that authoritarianism often employs black-white thinking and such thinking is strongly incapable of making distinctions. And from what I have read and understand about the situation, that seems to be the case here.

I have no problem with saying that a Christian who is applying/nominated for a church office who is also SSA needs closer scrutiny. They also may need more church resources in maintaining their resistance to their attraction. But having met Christians who are SSA and who are not acting on that attraction, we are making a horrible mistake when we automatically disqualify them from holding church offices because of the struggles they have. But worse than that, we are becoming more vulnerable to becoming the Pharisee from the parable of the two men praying when we adamantly oppose their being accepted and recognized as church officers.

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

Dec 16

To W. Robert Godfrey and his adult Church School lessons on the passing of Christendom. This appeared in the Abounding Grace Radio blog.

Perhaps a reason that we are confused about the end of Christendom is because of how we see  our history. On the one hand, Godfrey says that there are exceptions to his generalities. On the other hand, Americans did not have to address anyone by calling them 'Lord.'

So I guess that how slaves had to address their masters is simply an exception to one of his generalities and thus what life was like for slaves was seen merely as an exception and thus was not covered by Godfrey's depiction of life in America. The same could be said for some free Blacks, Native Americans, and women. Not that any had to call anyone 'Lord,' but the independence and freedom Godfrey described in America back in its past was not often experienced by those group of people. Thus Godfrey is presenting a white male, Christian centric view of American history. And he is doing that because his description of life in America back then as monolithic.

However, I could agree with Godfrey's assessment that Americans don't appreciate history like they should. And it isn't just the kids who don't fully appreciate American history. After all, just look at how many adults condemn in total the 1619 Project and CRT and work to prohibit them from being taught in our schools today.

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

Dec 17

To R. Scott Clark and his article against using a 17th century doxology in singing praise to God. This appeared in the Heidelblog.

Having taught I believe that the mere repetition of text does not always show that one has learned its meaning. It's not until people put that text in their own words that the extent that real learning has taken place. So why not sing both from the Psalms, or the other Scriptures, and the 17th century Doxology as well as hymns written by Christians? Why employ an exclusive-or logic here?

I find the exclusive singing of Psalms to be motivated out of fear rather than faith. The exclusive singing of the Psalms or any parts of the Scriptures acts as a fence that guards us from singing wrong words and concepts. But it also acts as camouflage that can hide our hymns and songs show an adequate understanding of the Scriptures. Besides, unless we sing in the original languages of the Scriptures, we are going to sing wrong words anyway. Yes it limits it, but it is still the case.

Exclusive singing of the Psalms or the Scriptures is an attempt to avoid making mistakes some of which could lead slippery slopes. But it is also an attempt at perfectionism. And, as mentioned before, it can easily hide our misunderstanding of the text. I find it ironic that some people who liken wokeness to seeking justification by works can be so strict and legalistic about not using musical instruments or hymns in worship. 

 

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For July 7, 2021

 July 6

To R. Scott Clark and his article on the importance of one's ethnicity to the Christian. This appeared in the Heidelblog.

In a world of oppressor vs oppressed and of both the privileged and marginalized, we need to add to the above. For what is written above about the relationship between Christians and ethnicities is very good, it doesn't cover how Christians should want different ethnic groups be treated in society. 

For example, just as white Christians should welcome blacks to their churches, white Christians should want blacks to be treated well in society. And we should work with those groups that are working toward that end.

So in a world of oppressor vs the oppressed and of both the privileged and marginalized, Christians should not just welcome those from oppressed races and ethnicities to their churches, they should work for their equality in society and the end of their marginalization. And one way to do that is to regard the different races and ethnicities in our current world as the Bible tells us to regard the wealthy and the poor. There is no doubt that the wealthy enjoy status and a privileged place in society. Though not always the case, many of the wealthy have arrived at their place in life by oppressing others and exercising their financially gained privileges. In the New Testament's war against pride, James 1 says that those who are lowly should boast of their high position in Christ while the rich should take pride in their own humiliation. Isaiah 40 has a similar message.

To apply that principle to races and ethnic groups in society, those from races and ethnic groups that are privileged in society should focus on the shortcomings of those in their own race and/or ethnicity while those from races and ethnic groups that are marginalized should celebrate not just their accomplishments, but their equality with those from privileged races and ethnic groups. Of course, those that are privileged can be relative to one's location. 

Thus, here in America. whites have been the privileged race since European settlers have arrived here. Therefore, shouldn't Christians work to have whites commemorate the sins and failures of their ancestors while have those who are people of color celebrate what they and their ancestors have accomplished? And if that is a Biblical parallel to the rich taking pride in their humiliation and the poor taking pride in their high position, shouldn't Christians be more amenable to those theories that promote such principles in society?

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

To Jerry Salyer and his article arguing for the merits of patriotism. In fact, he regards call of patriotism as a natural law. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.]

Salyer's case for patriotism being part of natural law is rather weak. He bases his claim on the longevity of its existence. There are many human practices that have even a greater longevity than group belonging and yet we don't consider them to be part of natural law. Sin is perhaps the longest practiced behavior and yet no one goes around saying that natural law demands that we sin. Fallen nature does, but natural law does not.

The warnings of the danger of oikophobia also do not bolster the case for patriotism. We can think of Abraham leaving home for a promise which he never received. Jacob's family moved down to Egypt in order to survive a famine. Or we can think of the prostitute Rahab and how she aided the Hebrews as they were invading her own city.

But most of all, we can think of the Apostle Paul who, in Galatians 3:28, abolished the divisions between Greek and Jew in the family of God. Or we can think of his laying aside any significance of his Jewish heritage in order to gain significance only from belonging to Christ in Philippians 3. Or we can think of him leaving home for good in order to preach the Gospel. 

We can think of one of the other apostles who chastises us for giving the wealthy favored treatment Showing such partisanship was sin to that Apostle. So how is it that showing preferential treatment to believers who are a given nationality is significantly different from showing preferential treatment because of wealth. Or there is the book of Hebrews which states that we have no home on earth or Peter who describes Christians as being in exile in this world.

Another problem with this article on patriotism is that there is no precise working definition of the term given in the article. So, from my past, I have come to define the word 'patriotism' by how it was exhibited in parades on Independence Day. It was described as having a deep love of country. But that also allows for patriotism to be the opiate for nationalism, which is nothing more than another kind of tribalism. A post Cold War sociological definition of tribalism is where one has a high degree of loyalty toward a group. And so in the context of the Cold War, the degree of loyalty to one's nation is so high that it enables a person to allow his loyalty to his nation to trump his commitment to principles and morals. The end game of such a loyalty is adherence to a relative moralism that says what is right or wrong depends on who does what to whom. For a strong enough loyalty to one's group will condone anything a group does for its own welfare and condemn any action taken against it.

We should note something  else about tribalism. It becomes a practice in group authoritarianism. And in the end, it seems to me that authoritarianism is what is being most promoted by the above article. 

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For June 2, 2021

 June 1

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost quoting from an article written by Keith Mathison that talks about how the Church's desire for political power, as in the days of the Roman Church in the Middle Ages, will be one of the factors that contribute to its death. This appeared in Heidelblog.

Link to article cited in Clark's article

https://www.keithmathison.org/post/the-shared-priority-of-american-evangelicalism-and-the-medieval-papacy

The question here is whether the Church, including the evangelical part of the Protestant branch, can speak prophetically to the state without lusting for power. For while the above post and article cited makes the traditional conservative mistake by viewing the Church's interaction with the state solely in the light of the past, we need to also consider the present. The present includes a significant laundry list of politically facilitated oppressions some of which are still promoted by Evangelicals including those who are providing the criticisms of evangelicalism described above.  One only needs to ask if homosexuality and same-sex marriage should be legally allowed to show that point.

We should also note that it isn't just liberals who, as described above, teach that cultural standards should replace the scriptures, conservatives do that too. Only conservatives know that the appearance of doing so raises red flags. And so instead of teaching people that we should replace what is taught in the scriptures with cultural values, they teach that their favorite sacred cow cultural values are also taught in the scriptures. Some of those cultural values include patriotism, conservative political ideology,  and capitalism. 

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

To Russell Kirk and his article, possibly written in 1973, about the need for order and how the American order, though not perfect, has brought freedom and justice to people. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

The more unjust the order, the greater risk of challenges to that order which can cause unjust changes in current order or a new order to  become more unjust. The latter happened in Russia following the October 1917 Revolution. The former seems to be happening in Israel with its Occupation of Palestinian territories. Now Israel faces a choice between military defeat and moral suicide. It seems to be vying for the latter. 

The perception of the justness of America's order often depends on whether or not one is privileged. One can quote Tocqueville to one is blue in the face, but he spoke as a member of the privileged from Europe. Thus he failed to see America's atrocities for what they were. Those who suffered the atrocities of the American order have seen things differently, and perhaps more realistically, than Tocqueville did.

We have a choice when facing the corruption of the current but weakening American order. Either we can insist on maintaining the current order because order is better than anarchy, or we can look to change the current order to become just--note that I didn't say more just. Those who are privileged, are looking for affirmation when they view the current American order. Their insecurity is evident when they either describe the merits of the current order or when minimize its atrocities. But because they have prospered by way of oppression, nagging self-doubts caused by guilt cause them to gloss over reality.

So the question is whether we will have the courage to face a real picture of the moral failures of the American order. We've already seen, through examples, what  our options will be if our courage fails.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For April 14, 2021

 April 7

To R. Schott Clark and his blogpost that criticizes churches for trying, as institutions, to end payday lending. This appeared in Heidelblog.

Sometimes our theological models provide a glue to the different parts of the Scriptures that help us see a fuller picture of what they are saying. But other times, our theological models limit or even mislead us as to what the Scriptures are saying. And that is especially true to those who exhibit a tribal loyalty to a given theological school of thought.

The above presents a standard 2KT viewpoint on whether it is the Church's job as an institution to end predatory payday lenders. And 2KT has contributions to make in that discussion. In particular, 2KT helps us see some of the differences that should exist between the Church and society. However, we should also note that with those differences comes the possibility that the Church's prophetic role in the world is obscured or infringed on. After all, shouldn't the Church preach the law along with the Gospel? And aren't many payday lenders breaking biblical laws that should apply to both the Church and society? Therefore, shouldn't the Church, as an institution, preach against payday lenders and how they exploit the vulnerable? And by the Church as an institution, I am referring to either the preaching or public stands taken by either individual churches or denominations.

But Clark frames the question of what the Church should do a little differently than the question asked. He asks if the Church should <b>END</b> payday lenders? Here, Clark's question assumes the ability of the Church to do so and that assumes that the Church should have a power in society that it really should not have.

But that isn't the question being asked in this comment. The question is whether the Church as an institution should preach against the exploitation practiced by payday lenders? If Clark says 'no,' then we should ask why should the Church, as an institution, speak out against the legalization of same-sex marriages in this nation? The Church as an institution certainly worked to prevent the legalization of same-sex marriages in this nation. Does Clark see same-sex marriages as not being similar enough in sinfulness to exploitive payday lending? And, isn't the Church, as an institution, actively working to end legal access to elective abortions.

We might also ask Clark why he takes the same approach to interpreting what Jesus said was the roles of the Church with how some view the roles of government according to Romans 13. For some Christians see Romans 13 as providing an exhaustive view of the roles of government even though that wasn't the purpose of that chapter. So is Clark correct in viewing Christ's words as an exhaustive view about what the Church should do? Should the Church be limited to preaching the Gospel and making disciples? After all, aren't there Scripture passages from both the Old and New Testaments which comment on how the Church should act in the world? Of course Clark's answers to these questions are questionable themselves. For Christ didn't say then that the Church should discipline its members but that was part of what Jesus had taught. So the question is, is preaching against payday lenders implied but what Jesus taught?

At this point, Clark not only fails to address the above questions, he retreats into his Reformed traditions and unquestionably uses their teachings to criticize what we now call other Christian denominations. And he does so with a certainty that the Reformed Traditions have everything to teach the other traditions and nothing to learn from them.

Clark's approach to interpreting and applying the Scriptures today regarding what should be the Church's duties in responding to payday lenders is quite literalistic. And such an approach assumes that there are no significant contextual differences between now and both the times of the Reformers as well as the times of the Apostolic Church. Such is a mistake.

We should note that both Jesus and the Apostles were concerned about the reputation of the Gospel. Jesus warned us not to become stumbling blocks to those who would hear the Gospel. And Paul tells his audiences not to harm the reputation of the Gospel by what they do or how they live. Thus we must ask this question: what if the Church's refusal to speak, as an institution, against payday lenders hurts the reputation of the Gospel? After all, we hear the Church, as an institution, speak against sexual and other personal sins committed by individuals. Doesn't the refusal to preach and take action against payday  lenders hurt the reputation of the Gospel of the Gospel and thus provides a stumbling block to some who would otherwise listen to the Church's preaching?

And we should add one more concern here. Is it possible that the reason Clark doesn't think that the Church, as an institution, has a responsibility to oppose payday lending in society perhaps because no one he goes to church with has become a victim of such businesses? On the other hand leaders of some Black churches from lower economic classes must constantly face of payday lending because too many of their members have become its victims? Contextual differences might be the real reason why Clark doesn't believe that the Church, as an institution, should be involved in battle against payday lending while some Black ministers from urban areas do.

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

April 13

To Barbara Elliot and her blogpost tat seeks to define conservatism as believing in the Truth, the good, and the Beautiful. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

Yes, we would all like to idealize the ideologies we subscribe to so we can claim that is why we follow this ideology or that one. The problem arises when we claim that our ideology or ideologies have a monopoly on what we claim is the ideal.

And so it is with conservatism, which has significant contributions to make. It's belief in the truth, the good, and the beautiful runs afoul of its belief in the individual and its stance against the concentration of power in the government.

For many conservatives seem to think that power only resides in authority, and such is not the case. Power is the ability to influence and that can occur in both the public and private sector. Elite individuals from the private sector often get to where they are by exploiting others. And when gov't is not big enough to defend people against elite individuals or when gov't is unduly influenced by these individuals, then individualism rules along with the abuse of other individuals.

In addition, conservatism doesn't seem to care about the accumulation of wealth. It pretends that power and wealth are unrelated in a Capitalist economic system.  In our nation, wealth and political power go hand in hand. as seen by what our lawmakers concern themselves with (see  https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B    ).

In addition, conservatives claim that the fundamental building block of society is the family. But again, conservatives claim to have a monopoly on what should be the working definition of the family. For in limiting the family to a heterosexual married couple with children, those individuals who wish to form a family around a same-sex marriage have their dreams crushed  because of how conservatives insist that society should define what is a family.

In addition, by not allowing gov't to help people in need, those who are abandoned by their own families or whose families do not have the resources to care for them and any special needs become neglected because caring for someone is the family’s responsibility. And what can happen in a family can happen in a community.

And what about the conservative belief in God? Are conservatives saying that society should only recognize one religion by prohibiting the following of other religions or by giving that religion special privileges and thus a place of supremacy over others in a multi-religious society?

I could go on but the point should be made. The problem with conservatives is not that they believe in the truth, the good, and the beautiful. The problem is conservatism's insistence  that it has a monopoly in identifying those qualities.. And by claiming that, conservatism starts to become inconsistent with its actions and thus acts like any other ideology that it condemns. And that is a shame  because conservatism has things to contribute.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For April 7, 2021

 April 6

To Bradley Birzer and his article on what Conservatism must to continue. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

Where I see conservatism is that it is at the center of denial. That denial is a failure to recognize the system racism and the oppression of other groups and its own culpability in that oppression. And thus recognizing the dignity of individuals does little to address people's needs when their problems are not adequately recognized. In addition, conservatism is in denial of its own inadequacies and its need to learn from other ideologies.

But conservatism is not the only group in such denial. Liberalism and the Left are in the same kind of denial as conservatives are. There are circles from all of these ideologies that fail to recognize both their own weaknesses and failures as well as the contributions other ideologies can make. what distinguishes conservatism from the other ideological groups in their denial is that in America, conservatism is the most boisterous of all the ideologies.

Conservatism has become tribal and with that tribalism has come hubris and the assumption that conservatism had everything to teach and nothing to learn from other isms and ideologies. and thus all other approaches are seen as threats by conservatism. One only needs to listen to conservative talk media or conservative politicians or blog sites like this one to observe that hubris.

It would be unfair to not to mention the hubris that exists in liberal and leftist circles as well. And that hubris makes each group act as if collaboration with other ideological group as compromising, if not a betraying, one's principles. But again, those in conservatism seem to be the most boisterous of all ideological groups.

What we see to today on all sides is ideological tribalism where in each tribe outsiders are shunned if not demonized. Such tribalism is divisive. Such tribalism causes people to declare culture wars in a forever king-of-the-hill battle for survival.

So conservatism is basically not just following the path that other ideologies are pursuing, it is leading the way. And the only way for conservatism to change course is to emerge from its current state of denial and to escape tribalism. And to do that, conservatism has to admit that it doesn't have all the answers and that it could a few things from liberals and leftists.

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

To Stephen Klugewicz and his article that criticizes MLB for moving its All-Star game from Atlanta in protest against Georgia’s new election laws. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

The above article shows nothing but contempt for those whose views oppose what Klugewicz believes. Broad assumptions are made of anyone who is woke--those who see and oppose systemic racism or promote equality for those in the LGBT community.

Does Klugewicz know how MLB made the decision to oppose Georgia's voting laws? Does Klugewicz understand the issues surrounding Georgia's election laws? What could be the goal of changing election laws when Trump appointed officials supported the fairness of the 2020 election? Does Klugewicz comment on the fact that Trump injected a conditional suspicion into the elections when he claimed during both the 2016 and 2020 campaigns that he could only lose if the election was rigged?

Does Klugewicz see systemic racism in our nation or is such a notion itself an insult to what he values?

The whole above article is nothing more than an ad hominem attack on wokeness without making any distinctions. Everyone who is woke to any degree is considered to only be self-serving and uninformed by Klugewicz. And it is  that kind of overgeneralized thinking and labeling of people that wokeness says is a major problem with this nation. Basically, in protesting wokeness, Klugewicz demonstrates the kind of thinking that bigotry is made of.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For March 10, 2021

March 9

To Bradley Birzer and his article on Conservatism. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative Blog

To define conservatism in idealistic terms, which is done at the beginning of the article above,  is to presume its correctness. But in reality, conservatism is relative to one's situation. And not all that conservatives wish to preserve is good.

In the Soviet Union,  liberals were aligned with the West while conservatism  supported "Communist" totalitarianism. The word "Communist" is in quotes because its closeness to Marxism is very questionable. In the pre Civil Rights Movement South, southern white Conservatives clung to and passionately defended segregation and discrimination.

In other words, what Conservatives wish to preserve is not always good. But we have one more idea to consider. That idea is that no ideology is omniscient. So in other words, Conservatism has contributions to make, so too do Liberalism and Leftist thinking. And in order to prevent changing what is perceived is "good," Conservatism sometimes claims to have a monopoly on knowing what is good and thus rejects everything from Liberalism and Leftist thinking. And, as with any group, Conservative, Liberal, or Leftist, because of that claim to have a monopoly on the truth or the representation of a given group of people, Conservatism has sometimes sought its own dictatorship over people.

As for those French Revolutionaries who attacked the Roman Church, they were both right and wrong. They were right in perceiving that the Church had  sided with the aristocracy. But because they believed that they had a monopoly on truth, they were wrong in how they overreacted to the Church and others whom they deemed were not just enemies, but had nothing to contribute.

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

To Pat Buchanan and his article that contests the charges that the Insurrectionists of Jan 6 could be rightly called, ‘domestic terrorists.’ This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

Since the definition of terrorism is the use or threat of violence to achieve a political end, then the Jan 6 insurrection at the Capitol is the epitome of domestic terrorism.

Buchanan goes at great lengths to minimize the violence employed there such as focusing on what was known before the insurrection or possibly falsely claiming that Officer Sicknick died from a stroke or comparing more violent past insurrections with the one on Jan 6. Regarding the cause of Officer Nicknack’s death, the FBI has not released the cause of his death. But suppose he died of a stroke, does that imply that there was no significant violence at the Capitol? If Buchanan believes so, then he should explain how over 100 officers were injured during melee or why the officers there felt betrayed by their leadership. Or he could look at the damage done to the Capitol or account for efforts made by the some of the insurrectionists to find members of Congress, the building of a gallows,  or the chant of 'Hang Mike Pence.'

The motive of the insurrectionists was clear: to 'stop the steal.' And they were told by the President not to take it any more and that they must show strength. So they went there to stop a Constitutional process after Trump learned that Mike Pence was going to obey The Constitution rather than him. Trump had told the public beforehand that it would be a wild time on January 6.

Buchanan's article is an exercise in moral relativism driven by tribal loyalties to Trump, Trump’s Republican following, and Buchanan’s own conservative ideology. And given Buchanan's religious history, practicing moral relativism seems to be inconsistent. But then again, that is what tribal loyalty to other causes than one’s faith can do a person.

BTW, in addition, we should note how seven Republicans not only voted to convict him during Trump's 2nd Impeachment, some other Republicans voted to exonerate him even though they publicly stated that Trump was guilty of inciting an insurrection. Yes Pat, there was an insurrection and it was violent.


 

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For January 20, 2021

 Jan 18

To Pat Buchanan and his article that attempts to criticize the House’s 2nd impeachment of Donald Trump. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

Buchanan gives a tribal response to the reimpeachment of Donald Trump. And because it is tribal, it is also  authoritarian. And because it is authoritarian, it will employ aspects of all-or-nothing thinking like employing a black-white worldview and selective focus.

The issue revolves around whether Donald Trump incited insurrection. And in denying that he did, Buchanan did not report on everything Trump and his co-speakers said. Buchanan did not mention the claim that has been rejected by all of the courts, even those presided over by Trump appointed judges, that the election was stolen. and that people needed to 'take America back." And Buchanan not did report how Trump told the audience how to do what he wanted them to do, they had to show strength, not weakness. And we don't hear Trump contradicting Rudy Giuliani who said that there must be trial by combat or Mo Brooks who told the audience to kick butt. Nor does Buchanan remind us what Trump said to the Proud Boys during his last debate that they were to 'Stand back and stand by.'

Now ties are being found between the Trump campaign the the event that led to the invasion of the Capitol. Those ties are being discovered by the AP as it matches names on permits with those being paid by Trump's 2020 campaign (see https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-donald-trump-capitol-siege-campaigns-elections-d14c78d53b3a212658223252fec87e99 ). And none of that includes Trump's initial reaction to the invasion of the Senate.

And neither does Buchanan mention that the reason for the "hatred" of Trump starts, if that is to be believed, swith Trump's action to incite insurrection. In fact, there were sufficient grounds to remove Trump because of the charges in the first impeachment but the Republican held Senate restricted evidence and witnesses from being considered by the Senate.

Buchanan's article is not written to engage with the evidence, it is written to keep the sheep  in line. His inadequate evidence makes impotent the logic Buchanan attempts to employ when defending Trump

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

Jan 19

To John Horvat and his article that seeks to redefine religion from having freedom of choice to that of having control over one’s passions. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

The above article doesn't recognize the contradiction of Ryszard Legutko's statements on freedom. On the one hand, freedom that recognizes our right to do what we want but is limited by the harm that we do to others is accused of only promoting self-interest. In addition that freedom is said to promote doing 'whatever, whenever. and wherever.'

Likewise, the other definition of freedom is not freedom because it does not deal with the liberty to choose. Rather, latter definition of freedom is defined by the ability to escape the consequences of wrong choices.  Of course the defense for that definition is that true freedom is the ability to control the passions. But what about following the passions is wrong? Isn't part of what is wrong about following the passions is when following them leads to hurting others? If so, isn't that part of the first definition of following freedom? And if so, then don't these two definitions have something in common?

Religiously speaking, there is a point to defining freedom in terms of having the ability to control one's passions. But we can be so vigilant in controlling the passions that we come to believe that some legitimate natural passions are evil.

At the same time, not all who live in a society where we have the freedom of religion agree on which passions should be and how they are to be controlled. Thus, if the above article could lead to the threatening of our freedom of religion since a given religion would be given a place of supremacy over other religions in determining which passions should be controlled.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blog For September 9, 2020

Sept 5

To David Deavel and his article that complains about a rush to judgment when Blacks are killed by the police which assumes those killings are murders. And the protests and riots that follow those deaths are examples of sentences passed before a verdict is released. The article seems to have trouble acknowledging that systemic racism exists in our nation and is evidenced by many of these police and other killings. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

The above article doesn't even identify the tip of the systemic racism iceberg that exists in our nation let alone warn us against the systemic racism that lies beneath the surface. And why the denial of systemic racism, as seen in putting the term in quotes, is not clear.

First, George Floyd was murdered by asphyxiation. The levels of fentanyl, especially since he was not in physical distress when apprehended, are irrelevant as they would be if he was shot to death before dying of any fentanyl poisoning. The kneeling on the neck alone for 8 and 1/2 minutes was enough to at least contribute to his death if not kill him by itself.  What Deavel seems to miss out on is not just the number of unjustified police killings of Blacks, some while in being defenseless in their own homes, or the number of Blacks who were pursued by pathological Barney Fife wannabes in trying to apprehend Blacks whom they deem as suspicious, we have racial profiling practiced by the police that adds to the problem. What else adds to the problem is a justice system that  that practices racial disparity in sentences passed on those who are found guilty. Or we could point to the various ways race-based  voter suppression is practiced in some states. Or we could point to past redlining and current gentrification in urban areas  as practiced in some cities. Or we could point to discrimination found in the job market where those with Black sounding names in the job market. Or we get the numerous 911 calls by whites made because they see Blacks doing normal things in what they suppose were white areas.

We who are White have no clue as to how the life experiences that many Blacks have had affect them. We have no way of understanding the rage that many, not all, understandably have. Nor do we recognize our own hypocrisy when talking about the presumption of guilt. How don't we recognize that the numerous ways by which we discriminate against Blacks point to our tendency to pass sentence before reaching a verdict? Another example of a sentence passed prior to a verdict being found is in the above article when it blames the rioting in Minnesota solely on the protesters when some of the destruction of property was done by a White Hells Angels member.

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

Sept 8

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost that condemns political correctness and tries to tie it closes to Marxism-Leninism. This appeared in the Heidelblog.


Besides the fact that Lenin was far more in line with Stalin than with Marx, I have a simple question: Can it be wrong for a white person to call a Black person the N-word? If so, isn't that political correctness at work?

The attempt to condemn political correctness because of some association not only fails, it misses the primary error of political correctness. And when one misses the primary error of political correctness, then one becomes vulnerable to repeating the error they were, in effect, condemning. The primary error of political correctness is not found in the foundational principles on which political correctness are based. Rather, it is in the implementation of political correctness. The primary error of political correctness is found in the all-or-nothing application of political correctness.

Like other attempts to correct long-term social injustices, those who implement political correctness often employ all-or-nothing thinking not just to eliminate current injustices, but to ensure that the social injustices do not reemerge. In essence, the way political correctness is implemented by many is to make it into a phobic reaction. That phobic reaction renders people unable to distinguish the harmless use of certain words from the harmful use of certain words in an effort to prevent all harmful uses of words.

As a result, both those who employ all-or-nothing think when asserting political correctness and those who employ such thinking when rejecting political correctness in its entirety are employing the same kind of faulty thinking. We need to understand why a given idea is unwelcome. If it is unwelcome because it actually contributes to the oppression of others, then why should we Christians welcome that idea and why should we Christians not welcome the efforts of political correctness with regards to that idea? But if a given idea as expressed by supposedly taboo words does not actually lead to oppression, then we can say that political correctness has gone to far rather than saying it is totally wrong.

The key to making political correctness work for everyone's benefit is to be able to make distinctions which serves as the  kryptonite to all-or-nothing thinking.

 

 

 

 

 

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For June 24, 2020

June 19

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost video on Maoism both then and now. This appeared in the Heidelblog.

Though the totalitarian rule of Mao is blamed on Marxism by some, in reality, totalitarianism and other degrees of authoritarianism  can come from vanguard movements. And such movements can emerge in any nation regardless of its political system or prominent political ideologies.

Lenin and the Bolsheviks were also a vanguard operation--something they recognized about themselves. And as such, just like the Tsars before them, they portrayed themselves as representing the proletariat revolution that the dissidents to the Bolsheviks were brutally treated as enemies of the people. The Tsars before them had so portrayed themselves  in the same way as well and regarded those who dissented as enemies of Russia.

Though being less authoritarian than the Tsars, Lenin and the Bolsheviks, and Mao, both the Republican and Democratic parties act as vanguards with the former portraying itself as the vanguard for American traditions, especially conservative ones, and the latter one as the vanguard for the marginalized. In truth, both major political parties are bought and paid for by wealthy elites.

And as for the authoritarianism, Scott should comment on how Trump has threatened all protesters, including peaceful ones, who would protest his Tulsa visit with violence.

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

June 23

To Pat Buchanan and his blogpost that criticizes the tearing down of statues that celebrated America’s past heroes. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

Buchanan is right about the purpose of status. It is for paying tribute and honoring people.

But where Buchanan has problems is in charging America's youth and the left with hating America's past, its history and its heroes.  It isn't that the tearing down of statues by mobs, not by the government, is not an act of hate. But the question Buchanan never considers is this: Who hated whom first? Or more pointedly, who hated whom the most?

Whether we are talking about Columbus with his multiple atrocities against the natives he discovered in Hispaniola, Jefferson and Washington with their owning of slaves and desires on Native American land to the West, Grant with his fighting against Native Americans, Francis Scott Key with his owning of slaves and celebrating the terrorizing of American slaves in the 3rd verse of the National Anthem, and finally the Confederate leaders who not only believed in white supremacy but fought to defend slavery and the race-based practice of treating people as mere property. Even with Roosevelt and Father Junípero Serra practiced or promoted racism. Can Buchanan say that such practices and attitudes were not acting out of hatred for their victims? Or does Buchanan not ask such questions about past heroes?

Did Buchanan object to Russians tearing down statues of Stalin and Lenin or the American military tearing down a statue of Saddam Hussein? I don't think so. And if I am right, isn't Buchanan practicing a double standard by objecting to the tearing down of statues of those who caused the suffering of so  many people?

While I don't approve of mobs tearing down statues because that is our government’s job, is the tearing down of statues the epitome of hatred?

When we look at the atrocities practiced to make this nation what it is today, shouldn't we hate some of America's past? Or should tribalism with its moral relativity be the rule of the day?

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For April 15, 2020

April 14

To Gleaves Whitney and his blogpost on what has caused Americans to be so strongly divided. In the end, he blames it on Post Modernism. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative Blog.

With many words Whitney in the end gives an traditional-American centric  view of what ails us. And that view is that despite our past imperfections, the real threat is what's new: Post Modernism. But such a view minimizes our nation's past indiscretions.

I don't think that many minority scholars would so easily describe America as having merely struggling to navigate polarities. From our founding fathers, we have been dominated by the post-Cold War definition of tribalism: extreme loyalty to a group, and I would add that such loyalty would trump commitment to universal moral values and including recognizing our equality. And while we could place part of the blame for that on the need for security, it is also do for the need for significance where significance is found in superiority. And again, the founding fathers embraced such tribaiism rather than try to give us mechanisms to temper it. The Federalists, many of whom contributed to the writing of The Constitution, used slander to describe those whose political and economic ideas they threatening and thus opposed them.

In addition, I am not sure about the diversity Toqueville saw because racial diversity was treated with more than just social distancing. Actually, America was founded on white supremacy. This is evident from land acquisition, The Constitution, rights recognized, wealth distribution, and society's pecking order. The exploitation of others was so much a part of American life as well as that of the Western World that Post Modernists saw that the real destroyer of any unified view of the world were those who came from Christianity and the Enlightenment. Post Modernists were simply that those who claimed to have a certain, especially exclusive, knowledge of what is truth denied that truth with their actions.

And thus, Whitney's description of Post Modernism invites the same divide that he writes against elsewhere.

But perhaps the reasons, as well as cures, for our divisions are simpler than what Whitney proposes. To Martin Luther King Jr., what divided us was not based in our animal nature or any deep philosophical divide. It was based on the fact that we value things more than people.

———————————

To David Deavel and his blogpost charging that the Covid-19 response in this nation has been an vast overreaction and that some of the stats being reported are inflated.  IN the end, he wants an end to the lockdown that he seems not to have though was necessary. He does make a valid point in noting that the lockdown has hurt our economy. this appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

Statsistics used in my response use statistics reported in the website: www.covid19stats.com and the worldometers.info/world-population websites.

I understand the conservative reaction to the Covid-19 response. The change is so drastic that the resulting dissonance looks for relief, and denying the threat of the virus is the easiest form of relief.

But one only needs to review the results of what has been happening in other nations  to see why our current response, though uncomfortable and threatening to some more than others, is certainly justified.

Italy saw 12.83% of those infected with the virus die and the demand on their healthcare resources was overwhelming.  Even with their late lockdown, they saw 0.263% f their people infected in just a couple of months. Spain, like Italy, responded late and saw  death rate from the infection of 10.44% while 0.364% of their population was infected in just a couple of months.

Sweden and the UK have not followed the same path that the US has and the rates from  the virus are at 8.39% and 12.67% respectively. But it should also be added that their rates of infection are below ours.

The unfortunate part of Deavel's work here deals with selective focus and the charge of inflated statistics. Little does he know that many deaths that were caused or contributed to by Covid-19 were not attributed to the virus because the person was not tested. And he seems to forget how the virus has hit minority communities very hard.

The model responses to the virus can be seen in places like Germany and South Korea. These nations responded much sooner to the virus than other nations. Both their infection and death rates are below that of the US.

I've been tracking the statistics for my state and I can say that what Deavel has been reporting has not occurred here. In addition, NYC resources were overwhelmed to the point that they opened field hospitals, built temporary hospital facilities, and saw the arrival of  Navy hospital ship--the latter was not for Covid-19 patients. Some hospitals had to transfer their Covid-19 patients to designated hospitals after their own treatment equipment broke down because of the demand those patients created on their systems.

At least part of the US has been shutdown for 1 and 1/2 months and we have already seen 580,000+ infections with a current death rate of 4.06%. And again, not all Covid-19 deaths are being recorded as such because not all have been tested for the virus. Part of that was because there is a shortage of tests here. Without the lockdown, those numbers would very easily be higher. And Deavel's point about not shutting down for the last flu season ignores what medical experts say about the death rate of the flu vs that of the virus.

Huge and sudden changes in the parts of life that we love create dissonance. And the easiest way to relief the dissonance is to deny the the circumstances. And as normal as that is,  it cannot argue against the facts on the ground. No one who has instituted a lockdown believe that such a response can be maintained. That is because of the economic realities of our lives here. At the same time, we can't afford to deny the other reality, the threat of the virus. And that is what Deavel seems to have done.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For April 8, 2020

April 5

To Fr. Dwight Longenecker and his blogpost on how he wants the post-pandemic world to fall in line with his idealistic wish list. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

The article is full of wishful thinking. If only society can be what he wants it be. For some that means that we would all live in Mayberry with Sheriff Taylor and Deputy Fife keeping watch. I believe that the author is the kind of person such a lifestyle appeals too.

Economically speaking, the kind of life described above would sustain whatever recession or depression that would result from the quarantine. So unless we change from a capitalist economy that relies on growth and consumption, what the writer wants not only isn't going to happen, but shouldn't happen.

In addition, small isn't always beautiful. The response that the gov't needs to make isn't small. The  necessary supplies needed to take care of the health care needs of the nation requires some things to be big. The military will always be big. Some of the very things we cherish from the recent past are big. Our population is big and its most basic needs are big.

And sorry, but our vacations have been wonderful. That includes flying to far off places, being tourists, and even taking a cruise. Great vacations depends on location and we have gone to some wonderful places.

But the writer is not the only one who has idealistic dreams of life after the pandemic. I dream that the pandemic motto: "we're all in this together' will last past the pandemic. But who are we kidding? Our communities, cities, states, nation, and the world are full of many people, 7.8b to be approximately precise, most of whom are different from us. And that points to the real problem that we had before pandemic: how do we share society, as well as the world, with those who are different as equals? Unfortunately, what the writer wants is for the post-pandemic new world to consist of a majority of people who are like him.

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

April 7

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost quote of William Perkins’s statement on how our good works are of no value to our justification before God. This appeared in Heidelblog

Though true, that good works do nothing to justify us has been misused to make some of us self-absorbed?

Are good works necessary? They are not necessary for being justified and that is because both God's standard for righteousness and His provision for us is way beyond our means.

However, good works are necessary to express love for others and also God. And so in that sense, good works are absolutely necessary. It is important that we serve those we love. And since we are commanded to love everyone, we are commanded to serve everyone as God served us. In fact, not loving and  serving others is a reason why we need to be justified outside of our own good works.

All of the above needs to be mentioned when addressing the issue of whether our good works can be used to help justify us lest we think that our faith in Christ is just about us.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For September 21, 2016

Sept 19

To Bruce Fronen and his blogpost on whether the mainstream media is trying to control Public Opinion. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative.

It seems that the real, but unexplored, issue here is what is causing the polarization in our nation. That the media and government have played a role in this are legitimate concerns that merit further investigation. In fact, Manufacturing Consent, by Chomsky and Herman, attempted to objectively determine whether the opinion of masses were being directed. That the government had put resources into controlling opinions seems to be a historical fact. And that there is physical evidence indicating that the media uses filters and has realistic motives for controlling public opinion should move us to at least consider the possibility that public opinion is being at least partially controlled.

But, again, what is up with the ongoing polarization of Americans? Here we should note that part of polarization is an intolerance for other views. And one cause for such intolerance is authoritarianism whether the authority figures consist of charismatic leaders, ideologies, or groups. Those who are passive authoritarian have trouble tolerating a lack of submission to their heroes. And here we should note a charge often made by the Left about today's educational system. That our educational system's first goal is to produce compliance and conformity. And a heavy hand is sometimes wielded against those who fail to submit. If this is difficult to believe, consider the different offenses that can cause children to not just be removed from the classroom, but to even be arrested. One such example was when a child was arrested and charged with a misdemeanor offense for burping in class (see http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2011/12/student-arrested-for-burping-during-class/  and  http://thefreethoughtproject.com/child-arrested-burping-police-state/  ). Such shows authoritarianism and tells us that the smallest, however natural, offense is potentially punishable by our justice system. It also tells us how fragile the position some authority figures in public education see themselves having.

The growing intolerance for the views of dissent is a possible result of the growing authoritarianism we have seen in our society. The increase of that authoritarianism saw a significant spike a while ago with our President's response to the 9/11 atrocities. And what is driving that authoritarianism is the desire of key groups in our nation to control others rather than to cooperate with them.

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

Sept 20

To Joe Carter and his blogpost on 5 facts about The Constitution. This appeared in the Acton blog.

There is at least one of the above facts that needs correction or modification.  In addition, there are some other facts that need to be included. Point or fact #3 is difficult to find  the documentation for. Yates' notes on the Constitutional debates never indicate a quota in terms of the number of troops nor does The Constitution. That doesn't imply that a quota was being considered. But we do know that the only limitation for a standing army is the 2 year term of its funding. A standing army cannot be funded for more than two years. In addition, it was the Militia, under the command of the President and whose funding is provided by Congress that should be used to repel invasions as well as put down insurrections.

And the putting down of insurrections leads us to a fact not included in the above list. That fact is that The Constitution was written as a response to widespread dissent and Shays Rebellion. Thus, The Constitution was written to strengthen the Federal Government so that it could better respond to future rebellions. And on further examination, what we find is that The Constitution was written to help preserve the position of America's financial elites in society. The events of the time as well as statements made about the militia point to this, so do both the structure provided for the Senate as well as documents like Henry Knox's  letter to George Washington about the then current discontent support this point. And it was James Madison who described government's job of protecting the rich from democracy after talking about opposing the opening of election to all classes of people.

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

To Kyle Hanby and his blogpost on how, according to an article by Dylan Pahman, our current approach to industrialization and free trade is the best answer to the Pope’s concern over climate change. For, according to Pahman, it is in our economic approach that we can best meet challenges to the environment while lifting people out of poverty.  This appeared in the Acton blog.

One of the problems with this article is that it deals too much with vague references. The same applies to the reference immediately cited. For example, how has the world economy grown? Well, that depends on where in the world one is. In America, our economy has shifted from a manufacturing based economy to a financial one. Thus growing a financial economy will have less of a physical impact on the environment than a growth in a manufacturing based economy. And where we see poverty being reduced, that is reduced from a standard based on around $1.35 per day, we see an increase in manufacturing. But how much poverty has one escaped when one is living on a little bit more than the bare minimum? In addition, we might want to ask what the economic impact on other parts of the world have been with the growth of industrialization in the areas where poverty is being reduced the most.

We could measure the social changes that have occurred with the growth of industrialization in nations like China, but such is not the subject of the article above. What is the subject is using a study on human footprint where industrialization is increasing dramatically to answer the Pope's concern with climate change. According to the cited article, as the world's population and economy have grown 23% and 153% respectively, the human footprint has only gown 9%. But if we note the title of the article Pahman cites for his data, the human footprint measured in terms of terrestrial effects only. The impact on air quality as well as changes in the atmosphere are not included as part of measuring the human footprint. Thus, the question becomes this: What good is the information Pahman is citing in answering the Pope's concern with climate change? For the name of the article Pahman is Sixteen Years Of Change In The Global Terrestrial Human Footprint And Implications For Biodiversity Conservation. And again, the Pope was saying how climate change is a sin. Thus how can the study that Pahman cites answer the Pope's concern with climate change?

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For July 13, 2016

July 7

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost on what the Iowa Civil Rights Commission expects from churches. This appeared in the Heidelblog.

If you read the Iowa Civil Rights Act, the most probable reason for the approach that the Iowa Civil Rights Commission is taking to churches and religious institutions is that the Commission is applying the same criteria to the term 'public accommodation'  for churches and other religious institutions as it applies for private clubs. So that a private club is considered to be Public Accommodations if it  'caters or offers services, facilities, or goods to the nonmembers for fee or charge or gratuitously, it shall be deemed a public accommodation during such period' for an event.  (see the definition of Public Accommodation in https://coolice.legis.iowa.gov/Cool-ICE/default.asp?category=billinfo&service=IowaCode&ga=83&input=216. ). Thus, there is no targeting of religious institution in the law and thus, IMO, the title of this blogpost is a bit of an overstatement.

The problem though is the question of whether the Iowa Civil Rights Act should use the same criteria for public accommodations for church services and other religious institution events as is applied to private club events. After all, how is that we can equate sermons and other parts of a religious service to the catering, kinds of services, facilities, or goods that a private club might offer to the public? In addition, the Iowa Civil Rights Act does not provide a precise definition for the term 'religious purpose.'

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

July 9

To Russell Kirk and his article that was posted on a review of Edmund Burke’s view of what makes  a good constitution. This was posted in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

In essence, Burke's principles on constitutions, as reported by Russell Kirk, was built from an exalted view of both one's own upbringing as well as The Constitution of the United States. And nothing indicates this more than principles #2 & #3.  With principle #2, his emphasis that man is a religious animal and that there is a need to be accountable to a divine authority for people to be principled kind of forgets all of the abuses people have practiced in the name of their religion. The Church's support for wealth and power prior to the French Revolution should have taught Burke something different about the need for religion. Also, in terms of how his emphasis on a national religion for America, there is no national church here is that the Revolution required a certain level of manpower and that manpower could only be drawn from a religiously diverse group.

But another point must be made about religion. That all too often the Church, that is the branch of the Church that is dominant in a given nation, has supported wealth and power at the expense of justice for many of the people. Yes, the Church can contribute to a stable society by doing so. At the same time, when that stable society can no longer be tolerated, the Church suffers persecution while it causes the Gospel to be dishonored. Though I am not a fan of Vladimir Lenin, we should note his criticism/observation about Christianity in Russia prior to the Revolution (see https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1905/dec/03.htm ):

Religion is one of the forms of spiritual oppression which everywhere weighs down heavily upon the masses of the people, over burdened by their perpetual work for others, by want and isolation. Impotence of the exploited classes in their struggle against the exploiters just as inevitably gives rise to the belief in a better life after death as impotence of the savage in his battle with nature gives rise to belief in gods, devils, miracles, and the like. Those who toil and live in want all their lives are taught by religion to be submissive and patient while here on earth, and to take comfort in the hope of a heavenly reward. But those who live by the labour of others are taught by religion to practise charity while on earth, thus offering them a very cheap way of justifying their entire existence as exploiters and selling them at a moderate price tickets to well-being in heaven. Religion is opium for the people. Religion is a sort of spiritual booze,   in which the slaves of capital drown their human image, their demand for a life more or less worthy of man.

Of course what Burke, according to Kirk, is praising, Lenin is protesting and it has strong connections with his next point. In point #3, Burke praises a 'natural aristocracy' which he equates with men who have made it in the business world and that any democracy that he envisions is heavily reliant on this aristocracy. Burke must have had his wish with The Constitution because it was for the most part written by America's own natural aristocracy  and it was written to maintain the status quo for their benefit against the interests of others.

Something could also be said about Burke's point #4 as interpreted by Kirk, he calls for a balance between the claims of freedom and the claims for order. But order for whom or for whose benefit? Is this order so that Burke's natural aristocracy can fulfill its role in society? The trouble here is that the elevation of any group in society goes against the grain of democracy for democracy is about sharing power rather than seeking control. For control corrupts and destroys democracy. In addition, regarding Burke's notion of natural law, we should note that natural law does not carry a universal definition.

What appeals to Burke about constitutions should not surprise anyone. His notion of an acceptable constitution, despite its use of democracy, is one that is based on a certain degree of authoritarianism. In comparison to a dictatorship, we could refer to this as authoritarianism-lite. The reliance on authoritarianism is part in parcel with Conservatism's emphasis on maintaining traditional values. And here there exists an inverse relationship between how comprehensive the traditional set of values emphasized by a given set of conservatives is to governing life and both democracy and freedom.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To Joe Carter and his blogpost defending churches’ current tax exempt status. This appeared in the Acton blog.

I have to disagree with both the blogpost above and the article it cites. One of the reasons cited from the article is that making churches tax-exempt cuts them loose from the 'burdens of tax laws.' But any church that pays employees must meed the burdens of following some of our tax laws already. And my feeling is that churches don't want to be taxed because of the tax laws themselves, it is due to the result of following those tax laws. That is paying tax bills. And if a church cannot pay its tax bills, then it is not paying its fair share for the government services it consumes. Thus, others are left with the bill for those services.

Much of the argument here is a survival one. Making churches tax exempt allows them to operate. We should note that businesses that shirk at least some of their tax responsibilities are operating under the same idea.

In addition, there is a small government argument embedded in apologetic for keeping the tax exemption status for churches. Since making churches tax exempt gives them a better chance of surviving economically, and since religious institutions provides avenues by which voluntary associations of people can be used to provide services for people which reduces the number of services government has to provide, religious institutions should remain tax exempt. Such employs a reasoning that, in the end, makes businesses a main beneficiary of keeping churches tax exempt. Why? Because the more responsibilities that the gov't doles out to religious institutions to provide safety nets for the people, the less gov't has to spend on those safety nets and thus the less in taxes businesses must pay. But such forgets a key point when gov't attempts to help individuals or groups that are in need. That key point is that when gov't helps those in need, it demonstrating that the gov't is representing the people it is helping. On the other hand, the fewer government safety nets there are, the less the gov't is representing those in need.

Finally, there is the argument that says that keeping churches tax exempt lessens government's regulatory power.  Here we should note that the 2008 economic collapse was due in large part to the lessening of the regulatory power of the gov't. And here, we should note that the gov't already regulates religious institutions by the necessity of definition.  Regulations are needed to determine if an institution is a religious one or not.

There is no good argument for defending tax exemptions for churches. But that conservatives defend that tax exempt status shows how the Church here in America is imitating the Church during the pre-revolutionary times in France, Russia, and Spain. The Church supported those with wealth and power and the favor was returned. We should note how many religiously conservative Christians favor reducing the number of regulations and the taxes paid by businesses. And the less that businesses, especially the wealthy ones, avoid paying their fare share in taxes, the more the tax burden is shifted over to working people. Such was one of the situations that existed just before the French Revolution.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

July 10

To Annie Holmquist and her blogpost that recommended the reading of the Anti-Federalist Papers. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative Website.

At some point, we have to move off the Federalist/Anti-Federalist continuum to include with, rather than just replacing, it with a concern for and proposals for Constitutional amendments that would protect individuals from being oppressed by other individuals. We should note that the there were both Federalists and And-Federals who oppressed Blacks through the institution of slavery. And fans of both groups supported Jim Crow and support Jim Crow II. And currently there are those who still try to deny equality and civil rights for those in the LGBT community.

The government is not our only potential enemy and our Founding Fathers knew this because many of them exploited Blacks through slavery. Thus, what The Constitution with the Bill of Rights allowed for was the continuation of  individuals infringing on the rights of other individuals and thus both supported the status quo of their time.

BTW, did anyone notice what the anti-Federalists said about prosperity:

A republican, or free government, can only exist where the body of the people are virtuous, and where property is pretty equally divided

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

July 12

To Denny Burk and his blogpost quoting the Dallas Police Chief as saying that too much is being asked of police officers today. This appeared in Denny Burk’s blog.

I agree with the police chief. We should also note how difficult a police officer's job can be without asking them to do too much.

The solution to the problem recognized by the police chief has multiple parts. Yes, we need children to be born in families and for families to remain intact. However, we also need revitalize economic opportunities for men of all ages living in densely populated urban areas for families to stay together. We also need to renew gov't provision of some of the services mentioned by the police chief. And for all of that to happen, we need to switch from an economic system built on the Ayn Rand's self-centered philosophy to one that is based on participation to the point of contributing, sharing, and cooperation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To Alexander Salter and his blogpost stating that the Brexit vote shows that it is necessary, for our own good, that democracy should be limited as recommended by the founding fathers. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.


We should note why the Federalists despised a more direct democracy, it was a threat to the status quo from which the Federalists so easily benefited from at the expense of others. After all, The Constitution was written in response to widespread dissent and Shays Rebellion. And what some of the people who opposed the new American elite proposed was politically called innovation by the Federalists. Federalists, like James Madison, believed in elite-centered rule couched in a republic where Senators were protected from the wrath of American voters which made up of around 5% of the people when The Constitution became law.
As for Jefferson's quote, there are two problems. First, logically speaking, the decisions in a Republic are made in a similar way as the decisions in a democracy only fewer people, more likely the elites, are the ones voting. So if we could call democracy, where 51% of the people rule, 'mob rule,' we could call our republic, where either 51% or 60% of the elected elites rule 'the mob rules.' Unless you have a dictatorship, the majority will have their way.

However, there is another problem with the Thomas Jefferson quote shown above is that the The Jefferson Monticello Website has no evidence that Thomas Jefferson ever said anything related to that quote (see https://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/democracy-nothing-more-mob-rule ).

In the end, those who are most opposed to Democracy are following in line with the Federalists of old. And it should surprise no one that a religiously conservative website like this one should want limits on democracy because those who are religiously conservative tend to be authoritarians. And that is where the issue lies. Will we be self-governing for which only Democracy provides the necessary political structures or should we leave the important decisions up to our elites in hopes that, in the face of any conflict of interest, they will rule with our best interests at heart? 



 

How To Imitate One's Opponents

Bruce Frohnen (click here for a bio) has just written an article on the Imaginative Conservative blog about how today's college progressives are steamrolling over the views and even rights of their peers on their certain campuses making these campuses into places of unrest(click here for the article). Some of the reactions to the rude behaviors of these progressives include accusing them of hypocrisy for not showing tolerance for others while portraying themselves as believers in tolerance, muzzling the views of others, and pressuring some officials into resigning. Frohnen then takes the opportunity to stereotype all progressives of wanting something no one can have: a tolerant setting where anything goes with regard to ideas that can be expressed freely. 

Frohnen proposes then that real tolerance, one that does not result in the uncivil behavior he cites which is permeating college campuses, can exist provided that the following two conditions are met. The first condition is that toleration has its limits so that ideas that are too radical cannot be expressed or listened to. The second condition is that there exists a certain orthodoxy in terms of what is believed and accepted in the public square that most, if not all, people in society hold to be true. Frohnen is writing these views from a conservative Christian perspective so who knows what orthodoxy he is referring to. Nevertheless, without both of these conditions being met, tolerance can only eventually become intolerance as evidenced by progressives he describes in his article.

Before commenting any further, we should mention that there are merits to what Frohnen is saying. First, there are campuses where some progressives are disruptively attempting to silence the views of others. Second, certain common beliefs or code of ethics must be present for dissident views to be freely expressed. But one question is the following: What are these common beliefs or accepted behavioral standards that enable an accepted level of tolerance? In addition, how different from the norm can dissident views be and still be expressed in the public square?

There are also problems with Frohnen's views as expressed in the article cited above. The first problem is that he speaks of the incivility of college campuses in such a general way but does not cite specific examples that could verify his claim. Reading his article makes me think that campus incivility due to political fighting is widespread. I do know that some members in the BDS movement on some college campuses have practiced incivility as they vehemently certain events and speakers. That is very wrong and undemocratic. And we have had a number of colleges make the news  because of the racial tensions that exist on campus. The most famous one of these was the University of Missouri where the football team threatened to stop practicing and playing for the school until the then school president resigned from his position.

But my own experience of teaching for 19 and 1/2 years tells me that Frohnen's claims about unrest on campuses are not as widespread as he would have us believe.

Frohnen's second problem is that he seems to be exhibiting an opportunism in attributing the incivility that does exist on campuses solely to all progressives and their idealistic notion that all views should be tolerated while exhibiting intolerance to people they find offensive. Let's take the BDS student movement at California's state universities for example. Before the latest decision made by the regents of those universities, some members of this movement were guilty of displaying anti-Semitism as well as interfering with some events that would promote pro-Israel sentiments. Rather than being content with trying to correct the abuses of individuals in the movement, the regents of the state universities of California decided that BDS and challenges to Israel's right to exist as a Jewish State would be classified as being racist and therefore the airing of these views on any of the California State universities would not be tolerated. One could say that such a decision could result in civility, but the decision is also an attempt at silencing dissenting views on campus?

Frohnen traces the progressive views on tolerance and their intolerant actions toward others to the radicals of the 1960s and even to the radicals who dissented from Woodrow Wilson, when he  tried to get the Princeton faculty involved with both spreading democracy and working for progress in the public square when he was President there. Frohnen seems to forget that Wilson's brand of democracy when he was President of the US during WW I allowed him to jail some who opposed America's entry into the War. And the people he jailed included leftist radicals about whom Frohnen speaks so disparagingly about. 

In short, what separates, in his mind, Frohnen from the progressives he so disapproves of is the civility of how they promote their views. The progressives are uncivil while he is quite restrained and proper in writing his article. But seeing that Frohnen is trying silence these progressives by trying to discredit them,  he becomes no different than them. And this is the point made by this review. For what is more important here, rudeness of actions or presentations or the lack of openness and allowing those who dissent their right to speak? Yes, those BDS members who interfere with the rights of others to speak are wrong. But weren't the regents just as wrong? And isn't what spared the regents from having to act disruptively and rudely when silencing others is that they had authority to make their decisions binding on others? So if Frohnen is trying to silence progressives by misrepresenting them and trying to discredit them, yes, he may be speaking politely, but his trying to silence his opponent nonetheless.

There are a number of factors that can keep us from imitating our own opponents. First, if instead of immediately reacting to their latest provocations of those we oppose, we would first try to understand what they are reacting to, then we might be more likely to act differently to our adversaries than they have acted us. For example, if the regents at California's state universities looked at what those in the BDS movement are so upset about, then perhaps they would target the misbehaviors of those in the movement rather than the members themselves by recognizing that the movement has legitimate concerns. If they had done all of that, then they would not be imitating those in the BDS movement who are trying to silence others.

Second, if we remember the parable of the two men praying (Luke 18:9-14), we would realize that we too are not only vulnerable to engage in the kinds of behaviors that offended us when practiced by our opponents, we have probably previously done what they have to us or others. Understanding this parable keeps us from externalizing evil and pretending to be better than we really are.

Third, if we understand democracy is about sharing more than about voting, we would look to include our opponents in the public square rather than looking for excuses to exclude them. Voting is simply a democratic process. But sharing the public square with others as equals is what democracy is all about. After all, democracy is much more than just political processes, it is a state of being for society. This means that we need to look at how we can share the public square with our opponents.

Keeping these three ideas in mind can help us from imitating our opponents especially when our opponents go wild and behave poorly. Had Frohnen practiced these three suggestions, his criticisms of progressives would carry more legitimacy since they would help prevent him from imitating his opponents' worse qualities.