Looking For Statistics In All Of The Wrong Places

 At the end of February, Trump ordered the military to start a war of choice against Iran. It is a war of choice because Iran posed no immediate military threat to the U.S. At least that was the opinion of at least some of our allies and U.S. intelligence agents.

With that in mind, the question became how would this war of choice affect American voters. The focus then revolved around gas prices and inflation. That a prolonged war in which gas prices were high close or up to the midterm elections, that it could cause Trumpˋs party to lose control over at least one chamber of Congress.

The problem with that analysis, if true, is what that prediction reveals about Americans moral values. For if inflation statistics were the most prominent factor in determining how Americans respond to war, then Americans believe only in transactional voting. That seems to be an apt description of the MAGA voters who oppose Trumpˋs decision to go to war  because they feel that Trump was following an Israel first policy.

If moral values are more important to us than inflation, the statistics we would be looking at would include: the number of civilians whom the Iranian regime has killed, the number of Iranian civilians who have been killed by the war, the number of Iranian refugees who are fleeing from the war, the number of civilians killed in Lebanon, and the number of displaced people from there The statistics from Lebanon are as much a part of our statistics even though the U.S. is not attacking Lebanon. That is because  Israel is using American made weapons in its war against Lebanon .

But the above are not the only statistics to consider. That is because there are future statistics to consider. For example, what if our war against Iran produces a civil war within Iran between supporters of the regime and its opposition? Or how many Iranians will die as a result of injuries or the destruction to infrastructure that the current war will causing? We could also consider how many people from other nations will die because their enemies acted unilaterally without consulting the international community just as the U.S. and Israel did in attacking Iran? Finally, how many people will die when the continued use of war eventually results in the exchange of WMDs between waring nations as warned against in the Russell-Einstein Manifesto?

When we just consider the moral statistics, we find grounds for both going to and refraining from waging war against Iran. But regarding the number of innocent civilians killed by the Iranian regime, if that is an adequate justification for waging war against Iran, does it also provide an adequate justification for the U.S. or another nation to go to war against Israel for Israelˋs treatment of the Palestinians in the Occupied territories? Perhaps that has been Iran's justification for using proxies to attack Israel. And if that is the case, just maybe we are more like our enemy than we care to admit

It seems that the price of gas should be less of a factor than the statistics mentioned above in determining the midterm elections At least it should be that way if Americans hope to keep their democracy. That is because authoritarian candidates can more easily win elections based on transactional voting such as what financial benefits they promise to voters. And so elections can be their way of getting their feet in the door of high government positions.

The news networks that have reported that inflation is a major issue in determining how voters will vote in the midterm elections might just be right. But then we Americans must be honest with ourselves. We must then admit that the more transactional we are in our voting, the more we put Democracy at risk. That is because Democracy is based on values such as on the principle of equality. Transactional concerns do not involve equality, but they can include personal weath. That is not to say that personal wealth is unimportant. It is that Democracy should be more important to voters than immediate financial fixes, or even long-term ones.

Will Americans Sell Their Principles For Profits?

It was a dark and stormy time. A man who, in the past, had used violence in a failed attempt to overthrow the government and gain power, tried again using democratic means to gain a leadership position. Even before he gained power, he scapegoated certain ethnic groups and then used his portrayal of those groups to justify his seeking for more power. In addition, he showed significant disregard for the vulnerable and attacked some of the foundations of his nation's democracy.

And despite his shipping to warehouse particular ethnic groups and dissenters in harsh conditions, his people learned to tolerate, by both forgiving and forgetting, his societal transgressions and his authoritarian ways. And why did his people learn to tolerate him? It was because this man put his country first by fixing its economy. 

Except for the very last sentence, which currently remains to be seen, the above description fits two national leaders. One leader is from an ugly past and the other is currently in power. And the question becomes, if the current leader's economic plans  bring new riches to his country, will his people, who would be us Americans, learn to forgive and forget his attacks on democracy, on different ethnic groups of people, and on his  dissenters.

Of course the man from the past that was described above is Adolf Hitler and the man currently in power is Trump. The point of this article is not to compare Trump with Hitler though some comparisons could easily be made with the Hitler of 1933. Rather, the point here is will we Americans embrace an ends justifies the means attitude towards Trump's plans should his economic plans work? In other words, will we Americans sell our democratic and other principles, which includes beliefs in diversity and equality, in exchange for our material comfort?

That question touches on the influence that our nation's two great institutions have on us. Those institutions are our democracy and the market place. Which institution holds the greatest sway over the affections of American people can be seen in which institution influences the other one the most. If the market place is more important to us than our democracy, then we could expect people to approve of a cutthroat seeking for governmental power and extreme efforts to maximize the centralization of one's power over the government. If democracy is more important to us, then we could expect the market place's distribution of wealth to be more, but not completely, egalitarian. And so is it our democratic principles or our wealth and materialism which are most important to us?

What allowed Hitler to gain and maintain power for some time in Germany? He revitalized the nation's economy. He brought back the good times for many people. He brought prosperity to those who were ethnically pure enough. And because he went beyond just alleviating the economic hardships that his nation was enduring at that time, people closed their eyes to the injustices he was just beginning to commit.

Is that what is happening here? Is Trump revitalizing the American economy with his use of tariffs and other means? Time will tell. But what we Americans need to ask ourselves here is this: Will we tolerate Trump's abuse of power and the injustices he is visiting on both democracy and certain groups of people if he makes the enough of the rest of us rich as he promised to do? We should note that he is currently promising tough times until his policies bear fruit. But will we sacrifice our belief in democratic principles and our concern for the vulnerable if we expect to eventually strike it rich under Trump?

Of course there will be some Americans who refuse  to compromise their commitment to democracy even if Trump brings increased prosperity to them. But will enough Americans be so offended by Trump's trampling on our democratic principles and his cutting off of aid to the vulnerable  so as to pressure the rest of our government officials into opposing him?

The above question being asked is even more important to us Christians. Why? It is because of all the New Testament passages that speak against the love of money. For example, in his first letter to Timothy, Paul writes the following (see I Timothy 6:9-10):

9 But those who want to get rich fall into temptation and a snare and many foolish and harmful desires which plunge men into ruin and destruction. 10 For the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil, and some by longing for it have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.

How faithful, and note that very few if any of us are faithful enough, will we be to what the New Testament teaches about fairness, equality, and concern for the vulnerable should Trump's promise to make the nation wealthy come true? A measurement, and certainly not the only one, of our faithfulness to what the New Testament teaches about wealth can be seen in how we respond to Trump's agenda. As an old protest chant from the 1960s reminds us, 'the whole world is watching.'

On Soros's Payroll?

I spend a lot of time participating on Christian blogs. All of those blogs are religiously conservative Christian blogs and all but one of them are politically conservative blogs too. 

I participated on those blogs despite my now past health problems because it is less taxing to respond to an article than it is to write one from scratch.

One of the best religiously conservative blogs I've seen is Roger Olson's My Evangelical Arminian Theological Musings (click here for the blog). Though we do have some differences of opinion on a couple of important topics, such as I'm a Calvinist and he isn't, his articles are well thought out and I have learned much from them and appreciate how he manages his blog. In addition, Olson is very much an independent thinker both theologically and politically.  Olson's blog is a safe blog to comment on because it is tightly moderated. He does not allow personal attacks to appear in the comments. If only all religiously conservative Christian blogs would follow that example.

On one of the politically conservative blogs on which I comment on, I have received a few comments FALSELY claiming that I am being paid by George Soros. Those comments are derisive and so I am not sure how literal they are being in their accusations. But such comments are directed at me because I have expressed many political views that are not conservative on that blog. I have found that to share non-conservative political views on most religiously conservative Christian blogs invites personal attacks and accusations. Some of the attacks can be described in no other way than abusive. 

Soros seems to be a favorite whipping boy and scapegoat for most of my politically conservative Christian friends. A lot of that is due to Soros's political leanings and philanthropic efforts. Soros believes in democracy with an open society while almost all of my religiously conservative Christian friends are politically conservative. And we should stop here and note the contrast: democracy with an open society vs political conservatism. Btw, his pairing of democracy with an open society is similar to my pairing of democracy with equality except that my pairing sees equality as being inextricably linked to democracy. That is you can't have democracy without equality.

I found that many of the claims about Soros made by my fellow religiously conservative Christian friends are nothing more than false accusations that often stem from conspiracy theories. And so when I saw the documentary Soros on the list of Tube movies, I decided to watch it (click here to see the movie).

The way that Soros has made his fortune did not impress me. Why? It is because he made his fortune as a hedge fund manager. Such an occupation and the values that come with it often, if not always, practice and promote what Martin Luther King Jr. associated with a choosing a thing-oriented society rather than a person-oriented society. A thing-oriented society is where the people value gadgets, profit motives and property rights more than they value people.

However, the combination of Soros's life growing up in Hungary, which included the time of Nazi occupation, and his current approach to philanthropy has given me a great respect for the man. So that the next time I am accused of being on Soros's payroll, I'll take it as a very high compliment, but one that I don't deserve. For his philanthropy consists of more than just charity to relieve an immediate survival needs, it also includes projects that promote education and democracy with an open society. And those projects are designed to produce lasting results.

But here, we need to return to King's statement that was quoted in my last post. In his speech against the Vietnam War, along with his 1967 interview with Xander Vanocur, King said that we need to change from being a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society so that people are more important than our gadgets, profit motives, and property rights. For, according to King, it is only then that we can eliminate racism, economic exploitation, and militarism (click here and proceed to around the 21:17 point in that interview). And though Soros has so generously donated money to financially help groups and communities out of poverty and to promote an open society, we need to change from being a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society for Soros's donations to have lasting effects. 

Though Soros's donations has done much to restore freedom and equality to parts of the world that had been oppressed with tyranny, and though His donations have also helped to improve those nations that claim to lean toward democracy with equality, there is a new threat to Soros's projects, among other things, that has emerged in Europe and the U.S. For just as Putin has undone almost all of Gorbachev's work to establish openness in Russia, so today's Nationalist movements in Europe and America are threatening not just to undo much of what Soros's donations have helped to enable, they are threatening to reverse any nation's leaning toward building a democracy with equality.

Here we should note that those nationalist movements are nothing more than authoritarian ethnocratic movements. Here we should note that the term 'authoritarian ethnocratic' is repetitive. That is because all ethnocracies are authoritarian to varying degrees. For with an ethnocracy, a particular ethnic group, whether the ethnicity of that group is based on race, national origin or language, descent, or religion, has a greater claim to and control over the nation and its society of a multiethnic nation than the people from the other ethnic groups--btw, the list of the ethnic categories comes from from Jeff Halper's book, An Israeli In Palestine: Resisting Dispossession, Redeeming Israel. And that greater claim to and level of control over a multiethnic nation denies, to varying degrees, the equal rights and status of people from the other ethnic groups.

And so it should come as no surprise that authoritarianism in the guise of ethnocratic conservative movements in Europe and here in the U.S. are threatening to undo whatever portion of openness we have as well. That a significant contributing factor to those movements has to do with the distribution of wealth especially in the face of growing refugee problems. 

But those authoritarian ethnocratic movements have cultural concerns to when it comes to refugees. People in those movements are scared that the culture of their society will change with an influx of foreign refugees. Here we should note that there is only one way for a nation to protect its culture from changing: DON'T HAVE CHILDREN. Maybe it is because I am a child of the 1960s when the young people radically changed the culture, but it seems that each new generation here in America has made significant changes to our own culture. And regarding accepting immigrants who are refugees trying to escape poverty and violence, we must ask ourselves if we care more about whatever comfort we have with our culture than we care about human life?

In addition, we Westerners need to admit that much, if not most, of our refugee immigrants problems are due to Western economic and/or militaristic foreign policies. Those authoritarian ethnocratic movements either support or do not oppose those policies that made messes in other parts of the world. They only care about not having to deal with the aftermath of those messes when that aftermath emigrates to where those movements live. And there is often racism in the refusal to deal with those messes. Here note the different response that Ukrainian refugees receive from their European neighbors in contrast to how Middle East refugees are received in Europe and how refugees from south of the border are received here in America.

Soros is understandably troubled and concerned over the rise of these authoritarian ethonocratic movements for at least a couple of reasons. First, he escaped the clutches of such a movement in Hungary during WW II because of his father's daring and wisdom. But he still saw its horrific effects on friends, family, and others. Also, as mentioned before, those authoritarian ethnocratic movements are threatening to undo some of the projects that promote domocracy with open societies which he started and so heavily invested in. 

It is so deeply tragic to acknowledge that most of those in America's religiously conservative Christian community embrace authoritarian ethnocratic movements. Their embracement of those movements  promote varying levels of authoritarianism. And the lower the degree of authoritarianism promoted by a given movement, the more that ethnocratic movement can disguise its character and goals in plain site.

For those of us who want Soros's projects to experience more and  lasting success, we must look to change society. As King said, we need to change from being a thing-oriented society to being a person-oriented society. To do that we must learn to value people over our gadgets and machines, our profit motives, and our proper rights. That does not mean that we can't appreciate our gadgets and machines or that we believe that profit motives and property rights are not important. It means that we must continue to learn to value people, especially those who are vulnerable, more than we value those things. 

Even though America is leaning a little more toward democracy with equality thanks to a not infallible wokeism, there is still more work to be done. There is still a revolution in values that our nation needs to undergo and our structures still need changing. And that revolution and needed change will not occur without everyone's participation.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For February 7, 2024

Sept 10

To Patrick Garry and his article that first criticizes the 4 indictments of Donald Trump as being political silencing and then praises conservative activists as they try to influence local governments. This article was posted in the Imaginative Conservative Blog.

The criticisms that Garry makes on the 4 indictments of Donald Trump borders on, if not fully embraces, lunacy. For at least 3 of those indictments, we have clear, already publicly available evidence that justifies investigations. And then, without access to the evidence that the 4 Grand Juries examined, Garry calls each indictment an attempt to political silence Trump. If we didn't have the publicly available evidence, Garry might have a case. But we do have the evidence along with Trump's admissions that he can do whatever he wants.

It is political tribalism that Garry is appealing to in the above article. But to make matters worse, Garry reduces democracy to our involvement with local governments while praising the conservative activists who are engaged with local governments.

Being involved in one's local government certainly is an exercise in democracy. But so is being involved in one's state and federal governments.

What conservatives overlook with their emphasis on downsizing the size of government, which is often done in order increase the power of business elites, is that democracy isn't measured by the size of a government. For government is like love in this way; size is not the issue, fidelity is. And one way to promote fidelity in every level of government is to ensure that each  group  of citizens is well represented in each level of government. This structurally forces people from different groups to work for the interests of others as well as their own. Here we need to remember that Thomas Jefferson warned us against using majority rule to oppress any minority by denying them their equal status and equal rights.

And so what conservatives are blind to is a demographic centralization of representation in every level of government. For example, when a given group of citizens has a significant enough majority of representatives, they can dominate what that particular level of  government does. 

Conservatives are not just blind to the toxicity that comes from a demographic centralization of representation, they passionately embrace it as long as they are the ones who have the power. Here we should realize that the real political silencing comes as a result of the demographic centralization of representatives in any level of our government. That is because the groups not represented by that kind of majority have no say in government. BTW, that we allow that to happen, let alone not even notice it, proves what Hegel said about how we learn nothing from history.

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

Sept 21

To Heidelblog and Carl Trueman for the portion of Trueman's article that harshly criticizes some of the ways leaders would appear while leading worship at a specific church.

Trueman's whole article can be accessed at:

    https://wng.org/opinions/turning-worship-into-a-clown-show-1691540989

I think that Trueman's criticisms are too harsh. There seems to be no attempt on his part to see the rationality behind why some leaders would lead worship dressed as cartoon characters. It seems to me that one of the motivations for leading worship that way is  the same motivation for  worship music bands to lead singing. That motivation is trying to be relevant.

But when we try too hard to be relevant, we sacrifice some of the reverence that we are to have when worshiping. And that reverence is suppose to revolve around what Trueman mentioned: the holiness and transcendence of God. And so when we try to be too hard to be relevant in our worship of God, we overemphasize the immanence of God at the expense of acknowledging His holiness and transcendence.

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

Sept 29

To Heidelblog and Carl Trueman for the portion of Trueman's article that complains about the 'sexual imperialism' sought by the LGBT community as well as its interpretation of the article, Queering the Mary Rose‘s Collection

Trueman's full article:

https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2023/08/queering-a-tudor-warship

The Article referred to:

https://maryrose.org/blog/collections/the-collections-team/queering-the-mary-rose-s-collection/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=CampaignMonitor_Editorial&utm_campaign=LNCH%20%2020230809%20%20House%20Ads%20%20JO+CID_2ce6f81ac95a44b47d43901aab4eb61f

In his article, Trueman seems to be hiding from the real social, not ecclesiastical, issue here: full equality for the LGBT community. Trueman's complaint about 'sexual imperialism' is made selectively since he is really complaining about the change in society's views about sexual orientation and gender identity. He would have no problem if society reverted back to its previous views  about sexual orientation and gender identity that were held to during Christendom. And when complaining about imperialism, what did Trueman think Christendom was? In addition, Trueman's pejorative use of the label, 'anti-Western left,' is used to manipulate is audience to believe that those he opposes on this issue as their enemies.

History has examples of liberal reforms being followed by conservative efforts to undo those reforms. That is what we have here with the LGBT issue. On the one hand, will Christians help push society to steer a steady course toward full equality for the LGBT community? On the other hand, will the LGBT community learn how to make distinctions between  legitimate criticisms from implied calls to bring back the old status quo. A failure to make those distinctions can lead to the LGBT community becoming a mirror image of its enemies.

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

Oct 22

To Heidelblog and Rosaria Butterfield and the Butterfield video making a public comment against teachers who would keep information about a child's transitioning from their parents.

It is important to use comparable objects when making a point. The question becomes whether comparing those who are anorexic with those who have gender dysphoria is valid. Regarding anorexia, there are physical and nonphysical possible causes. Most of them revolve around perfectionism.

The possible physical causes of gender dysphoria include the inability of the body to process certain hormones as well as a disparity between one's brain structure with one's assigned biological sex. Note that there is a male brain structure and a female one. It is possible that at least some with gender dysphoria have the brain structure of the gender they are identifying as. Overall, no one knows what is causing gender dysphoria.

It is the possible physical causes, especially the last one, that seems to have slipped the notice of Christians who are adamant that the science is on their side. The science they refer to is Genesis 1:27, which is a statement made before the Fall. Their science says that there are two discrete biological sexes: male and female. But the science listed above presents a more complicated picture of biological sex. For example, along with the presence of those who are intersex, if a disparity between one's biological sex and the sex associated with one's brain structure along with what we see in some of nature suggest that the biological sexes should be placed on a continuum.

Placing the biological sex categories on a continuum should not threaten to contradict Genesis 1:27. Why? It is because the interpretation that the biological sexes should be regarded as discrete categories does not account for Adam's sin and the Fall. For the Fall just didn't introduce a sin nature in Adam and his descendants, nature fell too according to Paul. So acknowledging what science is investigating does not imply that Genesis 1:27 is false.

A similar argument is made about homosexuality. Many prominent Christian leaders and influencers deny any physical cause for homosexuality. Instead, they attribute homosexuality simply to man's sin nature--which is the part in us that chooses sin over obeying God. But same sex behavior (SSB) occurrs in 1,500 species of animals--living creatures that have no sin nature. So what else is there to attribute SSB to but nature.

And here is the point. Certainly there is a universal side of nature that has been defined by the Scriptures. That side tells us what God designed nature to be. But because of Adam's sin, nature fell too and so there is also an individual personal side of nature where what nature is saying to us depends on how we are biologically constructed and function.

Finally, regarding the high percentage of children in whom gender dysphoria does not persist, there is some missing information. That missing information includes social factors, external pressures, and personal reasons that might cause a person with gender dysphoria to stop their transitioning. Included in the personal reason those children who had gender dysphoria who develop and change in sexual orientation and due to sexual experiences.

The high percentage of children who have gender dysphoria does not negate the existence of those whose gender dysphoria persists. And all of that calls on the medical profession to develop a more stringent set of criteria for diagnosing gender dysphoria and standards in how they will treat gender dysphoria in people of all ages. Perhaps, some protection for children from their parents is needed because of how the parents might react to those whose gender dysphoria will persist through their lifetime. 

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

Nov 9

To Heidelblog and Carl Truman for the portion of Truman's article that claimed that the LGBT community is waging war against their bodies by their sexual orientation and/or gender identity and transitioning. 

Truman's full article can be found at:

https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2023/09/the-battle-for-the-body

Unfortunately,  for many of us religiously conservative Christian the understanding of the body stops at Genesis 1:27, a verse that precedes the Fall. However, science has been providing evidence that the body might being giving some people different messages than what would be expected from Genesis 1:27. And if we understand enough ramifications from the Fall, this would not make us feel threatened when trusting Genesis 1:27.

We see in the animal kingdom same sex behavior in some 1,500 species as of the last count. We also see some species in which the gender of an animal is not fixed and that gender roles can vary from species to species. Science has also told us that at least some people with gender dysphoria have the brain structure not of the gender that was assigned based on external genitalia, but the structure of the gender they identify with. Science also tells us that some bodies process or fail to process certain hormones in ways that could contribute to gender dysphoria.

And despite all of that, many of us religiously conservative Christians insist that we know the messages being sent by the body based on Genesis 1:27. Just as with geocentrism or with the denial of certain aspects and degrees of evolution, the statements that some of us are making about science could hurt the reputation of the Gospel because they are wrong.

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

I used google translate to read the article posted below.

Dec 2

To R. Scott Clark and his article in Turkish about whether the civil government was bound to follow what Paul wrote about women teaching and leading in the Church. This appeared in Heidelblog. BTW, the article is in Turkish. I used Google translate to read the article.

Most of what is written above is good. The problem is at the end. Musical instruments were a type of Christ and thus should not be used in worship today?

Or it is clear in Romans 13 that the government governs by Natural Law? But whose Natural Law? Is Clark referring to the second table of the law? Then what about children who don't honor their parents or those who commit adultery? What about homosexuality? The government is to  criminalize those who don't honor their parents? We should throw in jail those who commit adultery or who practice homosexuality?

If Natural Law is based on observation of nature, then the criminalizing of homosexuality would be inconsistent. But as for the first and third questions, didn't Paul show an apathy toward sexual purity in society in I Cor 5? Didn't Paul seem to say that homosexuality should not be seen as a surprise in unbelievers in Romans 1? And aren't those 2 questions borrowing from what Clark observed Paul saying regarding the civil order? And aren't both tables of the law written on the consciences of all people? This seems to be part of Paul's writing in Romans 1:18ff.

I wrote the above because it seems that the basis that Clark uses to say that some of the Mosaic law is no longer binding also applies to practices that Clark sees as binding on civil governments today. In other words, Clark is inconsistent here. Then again, we all have our inconsistencies. 

Plus, that the older Reformed churches eliminated the use of musical instruments should cause us to look at those older Reformed churches as having erred in how they read the Scriptures in addition to the obvious contributions they made to reading the Scriptures. Here, we should be leery of following the traditions of men too closely.

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

Dec 10

To R. Scott Clark and his article on the concept of 'Always Reforming.' Clark's article was written in Spanish and I used Google Translate in order to read what Clark wrote. This appeared in Heidelblog.

Like all other traditions, the Reformed is a mixed bag of good and bad regardless of their intent to be faithful to the Scriptures. After all, didn't most leaders of groups have that same intention during Christendom?

And like other traditionalists, Reformed traditionalists commit the same mistake that Martin Luther King Jr. mentioned when he spoke out against the Vietnam War:

'The Western arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not just'

For if we replace the word '<b>Western</b>' with a fill-in-the-blank, we find that all traditionalists are guilty of harboring the same arrogance. And I write that because of the English translation, which comes from Google Translate, from the above article includes the following:

They did not imagine that the theology, piety, and practice of the Reformed church according to the Scriptures were inherently deficient and needed to be supplemented by other traditions.

The 'they' refers to Calvin and other Reformed writers. The arrogance says that they had no deficiency and thus did not believe that what they said needed to be supplemented from the outside is the kind of arrogance about which Martin Luther King spoke. But it could also be at least part of the arrogance exhibited by the Pharisee in the parable of the two men praying.

Hopefully that translated sentence from Clark's article is more projection than a historically accurate assessment of Calvin and the Reformed writers about whom Clark wrote. In any case, the belief that oneself or one's group has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them, regardless of how accurate that one or one's own group can be about some essential doctrines, seems to go against the Scriptures. After all, we are not talking about the Apostles.

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

Dec 15

To Stephen Wolfe and his article on it being ok to be a Christian American. This appeared in the sovereignnations.com website.

There are a variety of Christian families. Perhaps there are families where the parents are professing Christians, go to church, pray, and read the Scriptures. At the same time, the father beats the kids or the mother is having an affair or the kids are on drugs. Would we call such families Christian families?

What have we seen in America? Didn’t America start as white supremacist nation. Never mind The Constitution’s acknowledging racism, the Naturalization Laws of 1790 and 1795 prohibited anyone except for free whites from becoming citizens. Many Blacks were slaves. Women could not become full citizens until the early 1920s. Native Americans could not become citizens until 1924. Blacks could become citizens shortly after the Civil War but following the brief respite provided by Reconstructionism, came Jim Crow. And still many Blacks experience what they call systemic racism today. 

Is it odd that when America was considered to be a Christian nation, racism ruled. When the nation started to leave that Christian status in the 1960s, racism began to be mitigated.There is no need to mention the subjugation of women, the ethnic cleansing of Native Americans from the land, the use of state power to violently suppress workers who struggled to have rights recognized. We could also note how America started to become an overseas empire during the latter part of Christendom’s hold on America.

So the question becomes whether America is just a Christian Nation or has it always been a mixed bag? Or has it always been a Christian Nation in name only? We could cite Christian based laws written in the Constitutions of some of our states, but if we break one law, don’t we become lawbreakers according to James?

Either we can deduce the importance of our national identity from highly regarded traditional Christian writers, or we could take our cue from Paul in Philippians 3 when he counted his ethnic identity, as well as his own personal righteousness, as meaningless in the light of belonging to Christ. And that belonging to Christ was the work of God only. Or we could go to Galatians where there is no Gentile or Jew when it comes to being Christians.

There are at least two reasons why we belong to groups: security and a sense of significance. Some divisions in the Church occur when too much of our sense of significance comes from the other groups we belong to and not enough sense of significance comes from belonging to Christ. Though Paul used his Roman citizenship to help his preaching of the Gospel to more people, didn’t Paul also regard such ties as being of the flesh and thus nothing to be proud of? In fact, doesn’t Paul speak of pride as being the antithesis of faith?

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

To Hiram R. Did, III and his article that sharply disagrees with Trueman's views that we are in a time period of excessive individualism. This reaction was posted in the Sovereign Nations website.

I am a Christian fundamentalist and politically lean toward Marx, and contrary to what was expressed in the above article, I find Trueman's model of thought regarding excessive individualism to be very flawed.

But I also find the above analysis of Trueman's thought to be flawed too. Why? It pronounces Trueman's model of thought as being guilty by association--its association with Marx and Hegel. And so to pronounce it flawed because of that association is to beg the question of the validity of the ideas of Hegel and Marx which are being borrowed. Such an interpretation is an authoritarian approach because the authoritarian test for truth depends on  the use of irrelevant criteria. And while all of what Hegel and Marx wrote assumed rather than proven to be wrong, the association of Trueman's ideas with Hegel and Marx becomes irrelevant criteria. And remember that I disagree with Trueman's model of thought.

What also shows an authoritarian approach to Trueman in the above article is the all-or-nothing view of Marx and Hegel. Forms of all-or-nothing thinking, a black-white worldview in particular, are traits of the authoritarian personality. 

Compare the all-or-nothing approach to Hegel and Marx with the approach that Martin Luther King Jr. demonstrated when comparing Marx and Capitalism in his book 'Stride Toward Freedom.' King's criticism of Marxism and Communism, which he unfortunately conflated is that it forgot that life was individual. When King turns toward Capitalism, he remarks that it forgot that life was social. Thus King acknowledge where parts of both Marxism and Capitalism were wrong, and by implication other parts in both Marxism and Capitalism were said to be right. His analysis stands in stark contrast to the analysis given in the above article. 

Where Trueman is wrong in his analysis is that it is an overreaction to the rejection of traditional authority structures. In addition, and I get the following from reading his articles rather than his book, Trueman is not aware of the individual physical nature of people who are either homosexual or transgendered. Science could have told him about that if Trueman didn't take Genesis 1:27 and Romans 1 as the final word of science on the issues of gender and sexual attraction. Science has been finding evidence of physical and natural causes for homosexuality and gender dysphoria even though both can have multiple causes.

But Trueman is a true ideologue and, as all ideologues are, he is approaching what he sees with an authoritarian mindset. And with that, Trueman and the above article, from different ideologies, share an authoritarian reaction to contrary views.

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

Dec 17

To John Hornet and his article that says we need godly leaders to lead because unbelievers cannot represent the godly. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog

The other pandemic is authoritarianism. And so what we are seeing in many nations today is a battle between democracy with equality and authoritarianism with inequality. While the former is based on sharing power and collaborating, the latter revolves around conquering and controlling.

So where does what the above article claims and is calling for fit in with that model of thought? Seeing that we religiously conservative Christians have a penchant for authoritarianism, the above article is calling us to repeat the mistakes of Christendom. We should note here that Christendom is just one of the natural parents of Critical Theory and Post Modernism.

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

Jan 31

To R. Scott Clark and his 2nd article on how to respond to Satanists and other pagans. This appeared in the Heidelblog.

Before we assess the present and near future threat of our persecution, we need to distinguish how much animosity is being shown to the Gospel as opposed to Christendom and its after effects. For if we could separate the Gospel from Christendom, we could find legitimate points of agreement with unbelievers and such would be a Biblical and rational approach to living at peace with unbelieving neighbors. It would also be a biblical and rational approach to mitigating unnecessary persecution. 

Also, to predict any significant degree of persecution that is coming could be in football terms a false start at playing the victim role.

A Partial Return Of The Blog

I had to shutdown the blog for health concerns. I spent part of that time trying to get in the best shape for surgery, and now I am spending time recovering from surgery with which there were complications.

Last year, I spent quite a bit of time talking about the threat of the other pandemic: authoritarianism. That time was spent on this blog as well as in my comments on other blogs. The threat of authoritarianism around the world is real and growing. In the U.S., it is politically most pronounced in today's Republican Party, especially in its leaders like Donald Trump and Ron DeSantis. It is also exhibited in groups like Moms For Liberty and results in many of the state laws passed regarding voting and gender transitioning. Religiously, it is most pronounced in those fellow religiously conservative Christians who are Christian Nationalists. Those working for such a nation are being driven by authoritarian sentiments more than by biblical concerns as seen in the sources they use to prove their claims.

In discussing authoritarianism, we can further define it by its alternative: democracy. For with authoritarianism comes hierarchy while with democracy comes equality. The hierarchy that comes with authoritarianism can manifest itself in terms of the power of a single leader, the power of a small group of elites, or the power of an ethnicity and/or an economic class. With the last classification comes the notion of a shadow nation. A shadow nation is where a given nation is seen as belonging more to one ethnicity and/or economic class than it belongs to the rest of its citizens. Evidence of a shadow nation can be seen in the laws passed by a nation's government. Do they favor a specific economic class more than the other economic classes? If so, and they do so here in America (click here and there), then we could classify a nation as a classocracy. If the laws passed by a nation give a privileged position to a given ethnicity in a multi-ethnic nation so that there is a diminishing of the equal rights of other ethnic groups, there is an ethnocracy. Totalitarian regimes can also be ethnocracies and/or classocracies. There are at least two ethnic groups vying to establish an ethnocracy in America or parts of it: whites and every form of Christian Nationalism. And what makes every form of Christian Nationalism a Biblical problem is that it puts all of us Christians in the inevitable position of 'lording it over others.' And it puts all of us Christians in the inevitable position having privilege and supremacy over the group to which we are to preach the Gospel. Is it unreasonable to suppose that many to whom we preach the Gospel will have already stopped listening because they first noticed the inferior position in society they have to us?

Starting this year, I will try to focus on the Martin Luther King Jr. quote below even with a partial return of the blog. It is partial because I will be posting at the most one article per week except for the first week. On the first week I will also post one article showing comments that were blocked on conservative blogs that same week. I will provide other posts like the one on blocked comments on a regular basis when I am able to.The King quote is below (click here for the source):

I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin the shift from a "thing-oriented" society to a "person-oriented" society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered. 

If we were to apply King's statement, we find that it speaks to us as individuals, to our institutions, to our businesses, financial institutions, and corporations, and to the nation as a whole. As consumers, we are so easily sold on the latest technological gadgets. We are also hyper aware of what our expenses, including taxes, are compared to our income. We are even more conscious of what others get, especially from the government, in comparison to what we receive. But we are not a monolith.

Some know all of the above from the perspective of deprivation. Others know it from a treading water status. While others know all of the above as the results of having done well  and some of them have succeeded by exploiting others. It is natural and right for those from the first two categories to speak out because they are doing so for survival. 

But what about those who done well? What about those including both individuals and businesses of all kinds who are wealthy? Do they have the right to complain when their taxes pay to assist those who are from the first two categories? Do they have the right to complain about paying taxes that would benefit the education of the children whose parents are from those first two categories? Do they have a right to complain when some fellow citizens work to change our economic structure so that there are fewer people who are either living in deprivation or are just treading water?

And for those who have done well, do they really think that their own charitable giving is enough? If they do, then they should read the next two quotes.

The first quote is from King. It is a continuation of the quote given above. King said (click here for the source):

A true revolution of values will soon cause us to question the fairness and justice of many of our past and present policies. n the one hand we are called to play the good Samaritan on life's roadside; but that will be only an initial act. One day we must come to see that the whole Jericho road must be transformed so that men and women will not be constantly beaten and robbed as they make their journey on life's highway. True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar; it is not haphazard and superficial. It comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring. 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." The Western arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not just.

Now below is a quote from Vlad Lenin. Generally, I don't like Lenin. He acted as a prototype to Stalin and the structure of his government, as Rosa Luxemburg noted, was based on a bourgeoisie dictatorship model rather than a socialist one. But the following quote from Lenin coincides significantly with was just quoted from King (click here for the quote):

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...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.

Another way of saying what Lenin said is that, for many of the wealthy, charity can become an indulgence that removes the guilt that comes from either directly exploiting others or a system in which people are economically exploited. Again, charity is a bandaid used to cover the wounds of a the disease of economic exploitation. And so for the wealthy who would believe that giving charity is all that is morally required, they must realize that they need to go farther. They need to remove the structures and policies by which their abundance of wealth is due to taking advantage of others. 

And isn't that what King is saying too? It isn't enough to give charity and to help individuals or even groups. We need to change the structure of our economy so that there are fewer and fewer victims and beggars on the road on which we all travel in life. 

We should note that our current form of Capitalism, is not the form of Capitalism that was employed in America and around the world after WW II. That form was called the Bretton-Woods System. The Bretton-Woods System was a form of economics that, while employing a significant measure of Capitalism, gave national governments more control over their economies. And in a democracy, that translates giving the people, who elected those leaders, more control of their own economy.

Our current form of Capitalism, which was introduced to some nations through manufactured crises, is called Neoliberalism. Neoliberalism eliminated many of the powers that were reserved for the government. As a result, private investors, sometimes even those who are from other nations, gained more power in determining a given nation's economy. And many of those private investors religiously followed the maximize profit ethic, which is a cannibalizing ethic that devours all of its peers. And as a result, disparities in wealth and income, both between the economic classes and the races, have continued to increase for the past few decades. Can we now see how the economic road on which we all travel needs to be changed so that there are fewer people in need? 

BTW, we also need to see that Neoliberalism has both a domestic side and a foreign side. That distinction was made in the 2016 election between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. While Clinton favored trade agreements that would give more control of our economy to foreign investors, Trump favored tax and regulation cuts that gave American corporations and financial institutions more control over our economy. Only Trump successfully obscured the fact that he was still promoting a Neoliberal capitalism.

Not all in our society have preferred to be part of a thing-oriented society rather than a person-oriented society. And not all who have preferred to be part of a thing-oriented society do so to the same degree.  Certainly the Democratic Party is a mixed bag in terms of caring more about people than it does about profits and property rights. Some third parties and individuals try to promote a person-oriented society to varying degrees.

In contrast to those who are working to advance a person-oriented society, there is Wall Street. Clearly, Wall Street favors profit motives and property rights over people as do many from corporate America. And here we should note that the "wokism" promoted by many in corporate America does not imply that a corporation is promoting a person-oriented society over a thing-oriented society. That is because many in corporate America can favor certain woke causes that do not interfere with the economic policies they lobby for that make profits and property rights more important than people's need to be able to earn livable wages, the needs that people have for government assistance, and/or regulations that protect people and the need to protect the environment.

The Republican Party under Trump has cared and continues to care much more about profits and property rights than it does about people. That was shown by the policies of Trump that decreased the financial and social responsibilities of corporations and financial institutions in order to increase their immediate profits. And their increase in profits also contributed to a spike in the deficit.

Today's Republican Party under Trump has become the political home for Cain when he rhetorically asked God, 'am I my brother's keeper'?Of course, one could retort that at least that such a question is Biblical, but it is Biblical in the same way of how Pharaoh treated the Hebrews who were being led by Moses. Despite that, today's Evangelical support for the Republican Party under Trump is continuing a conservative Church tradition over the past few centuries of siding with wealth and power. Such was done in France, Russia, and Spain before their respective revolutions. 

We should note that the Church paid dearly both during and after those revolutions. And the reputation of the Gospel has been harmed because of the oppression and abuses that were logical consequences of Christendom. Both Critical Theory and Post Modernism have accurately pointed out the failures that came with Christendom and other sources. That oppression from and brutal treatment by those who claim to have an exclusive knowledge of the truth is part of the history that Critical Theory and Post Modernism is directing our attention too. Sadly, neither Critical Theory nor Post Modernism have provided viable solutions to what Christendom wrought. And worse, those who want to bring back Christendom, with the promise that they can do domination right, are speaking louder and louder and are stirring up a growing audience because the Christians in that audience are in fear from anticipating the coming of a real persecution as secularism becomes more pervasive.

The New Testament tells us that 'the love of money is a root for all sorts of evil' (click I Timothy 6:10 for the source). That is true not just for the individual Christian, it is true for everyone. And it is true not just for individual people, it is true for businesses, corporations, financial institutions, society, and the nation. It's not that profits and property rights are not important, they are necessary for economic survival. It is that when gadgets, profit motives, and property rights are more important than people to our institutions, businesses, society, and nation, we are all forced to merge onto a highway leading to self-destruction.

At the same time, it is not enough to point out the failures of others. James 3 tells us that 'we all stumble in many ways.' Paul tells us in Romans 3:9 that both the person who denies the existence of God and the religious person are equal in sin and are thus in the same boat. And so to the best of our ability we need to point out those failures in the same way that we want others to point out our own failures. We need to point out those failures as fellow sinners. We need to point out those failures not as those who are morally superior to sinners or as a way of tearing others down, but as a way of offering an alternative way to live. We need to point out those failures not as authoritarians who are virtue-signaling by seeking to punish others. Instead, we need to point out those failures as peers in sin who want people to change for their own benefit so that they can be better than ourselves. I have not mastered that way of pointing out the faults of others. In fact I am still trying to begin to learn how to do that. At the same time, some things must be immediately pointed out.

So, hopefully, the importance of not just distinguishing a person-oriented society from a thing-oriented society will be the focus of this blog during this year, but the importance of promoting the former society over the latter one will also be emphasized.

You're In Seminary Now To Study Church And State, Part 2

This article is a continuation of last Friday's article. It is a reaction to a seminary lecture by Kevin DeYoung on the relationship between Church and State. A link to DeYoung's personal description was given in the previous article (click here for the link to the lecture covered by today's article).

It is worthwhile for one to listen to the lecture. I will give a brief summary here and then react. That means that I will probably omit mentioning  some interesting details in the lecture.

DeYoung's lecture revolves around the views of James Bannerman, an 19th century Scottish Presbyterian. He first describes, using Bannerman's model,  4 different relationships that can exist between between the Church and the State, only here he will be referring to it as the relationship between Christianity and politics. DeYoung himself likes to combine insights from each of the 4 relationships described in his view of the relationship between the two. Those relationships consist of:

1. Christianity against politics
2. Christianity above politics
3. Christianity as politics
4. Christianity under politics

Christianity against politics is the view that a Christian should not be involved in politics because any such involvement is idolatrous. One weakness of that approach is that it promotes and ignorance of important issues of the day.

Christianity above politics is the view that Christians can read about politics but they must be careful not to conflate any particular ism or ideology with Christianity. DeYoung notes that the weakness with this approach is that one is tempted to see equal value and the same level of contributions to the world from all isms and ideology. DeYoung used capitalism and Marxism as his examples in noting the weakness of this approach.

Christian as politics is the view that there is a conflation between  Christianity and country or Christianity and an ideology or ism. Examples of this view come from both the Left and the Right, according to DeYoung. The problem is that there is no room left for one's judgment on the different views that are identified as Christian.

Christianity under politics says that Christianity is the or part of the base for Western Civilization or the founding of America as a nation. The problem here lies in making Christianity the servant of promoting Western Civilization or the founding of America so that Christianity can only say what promotes the interests of Western Civilization or America.

After this, DeYoung goes into what Bannerman says are the distinctions between the Church and State while not cutting the cord between the two. It was well understood that Christianity used to provide public truth in how things were generally perceived. And how the State should maintain that public truth without favoring a particular denomination.

DeYoung states that our nation's Founding Fathers had that view of America. The view that says that Christianity provided the public truth of how to perceive things.  And that they also believed that the Republic could not survive unless the people were a religious people of the right religion without favoring any denomination.

And so though Church and State are different and independent, there are still ties between them which started from the founding of the nation. DeYoung describes the Establishment Principle and how Bannerman saw that playing out. The Establishment Principle states that the State must recognize that Christ is the head of all things and must promote Christianity. It can do so in various ways without violating the First Amendment, in the view of Bannerman and others.

All of that puts the Church in a crisis today because of the drastic change in public truth. In general, the public does not view Christianity as providing an explanation for the general state of things. And the question becomes how should the Church respond.

For the Christian, the answer to that question depends on the similarities and differences one sees between the Church and state along with the ties between them.

Now the following response does not require all of the details of the lecture to be listed. What should be noted here is that only a theological view of both the State and Church are seen as providing the grounds for any view regarding how the Church and State should relate. Here, no definition of democracy, since we regard our nation as a democratic republic, is considered in determining how the State and Church should relate.

Here I would like to include a quote from Jeff Halper on the difference between a democracy and what he considers to be an ethnocracy (see pg 74 from Halper's book, An Israeli In Palestine:Resisting Dispossession, Redeeming Israel):

An ethnocracy is the opposite of a democracy, although it might incorporate some elements of democracy such as universal citizenship and elections. It arises when one particular group—the Jews in Israel, the Russians in Russia, the Protestants in pre-1972 Northern Ireland,  the whites in apartheid South Africa,  the Shi’ite Muslims of Iran, the Malay of Malaysia and, if they had their way, the white Christian fundamentalist in the US—seizes control of the government and the armed forces in order to enforce a regime of exclusive privilege over other groups in what is in fact a multi-ethic or multi-religious society. Ethnocracy, or ethno-nationalism, privileges ethnos over demos. whereby one’s ethnic affiliation, be it defined by race, descent, religion, language or national origin, takes precedence over citizenship in determining to whom a country actually “belongs.” Israel is referred to explicitly by its political leaders as a “Jewish Democracy.”

I would even use a looser definition of an ethnocracy than Halper does with the main point focusing on a given religion's degree of privilege in the nation. The point being is that when Bannerman, or DeYoung, or anyone else ascribes to any religion some level of privilege or degree of supremacy, the essential part of Democracy, which is equality, is lost. And so apologists and promoters for a special place for any religion have made themselves enemies of Democracy. 

The change in America's public truth has changed the status of Christianity and the Church in America. And except for those who belong to Christianity against politics group, this change in public truth has caused a crisis. And we don't know how to respond to the change. 

But there is another change that DeYoung seems not to have recognized. That with Christianity losing its place as providing the public truth for the nation, we have been switching from being an ethnocracy to some degree more towards being a Democracy. So we have to consider how will the Church be perceived if we seek to undo that change.

DeYoung spends quite a bit of time describing how Christianity served as a basis for the founding of America. That all of the Founding Fathers, according to DeYoung, believed that religion was a vital part of keeping the republic. That is because a republic requires a virtuous people and, according to some, being virtuous requires being religious, especially being religious in terms of the true religion: Christianity.

But in so doing, DeYoung overlooks the lack of virtue in an America that could be considered to be more Christian than it is today. In other words, DeYoung is glossing over a lot of history in talking about America's past. 

Just take his comments on the Founding Fathers and the founding of the nation for example. DeYoung doesn't mention why the Founding Fathers gathered to write The Constitution. The Founding Fathers gathered to write that document in response to Shays Rebellion and the widespread dissent over the economy at that time. 

Evidence pointing to that claim can be seen in Henry Knox's letter to George Washington which refers to the widespread dissent. In his letter, Knox speaks pejoratively about those who were rebelling while never mentioning that many of those who were rebelling were veterans of the Revolutionary War. In addition, the references to the Militia in The Constitution makes it clear that the Founding Fathers were looking to create a stronger central government than what the Articles of Confederation provided. After all, one of the purposes of the Militia was to put down insurrections.

Challenges to America's virtue from the past when Christianity provided the public truth for the nation rely on the various levels of white supremacy. Evidence for the reliance on white supremacy can be seen in the enslavement of Blacks and the ethnic cleansing of Native Americans. And for almost the first 80 years of America's existence as a nation, only whites could become American citizens. After a brief respite from the oppression of Blacks provided by the aftermath of the Civil War and Reconstruction came the Jim Crow era. Native Americans were still being ethnically cleansed and, btw, women were subjugated during this whole time.

Even after the Civil Rights Movement, we still see quite a bit of evidence of systemic racism. And until recently, those in the LGBT community could be incarcerated for their practices.  So now the Church has to deal with the question of equality for that community without compromising Biblical standards of morality. So far, the Church has not handle that problem well. For here is the next place where the Church can be seen as an opponent to equality and, thus, Democracy.

In short, what DeYoung has not accounted for in the Church's place in America is what has turned off others to Christianity and unnecessarily created enemies of the Church and scars on the credibility of the Gospel: disillusionment. With so many injustices to account for while Christianity was seen as providing the public truth, is it any wonder that the public truth has changed vendors?

More could be said here. For example, how does the existence of corporate sins affect the relationship between the Church and State? With the existence of corporate sins practiced by the State and in society, doesn't the Church have a responsibility to, out of evangelism, call on the State and public to repent of such sins, while challenging its members not to participate in such sins?

What has been said in the questioning of DeYoung's approach shows the weakness of the approaches of many of my fellow religiously conservative Christians to the relationship between the Church and State. That weakness? It is myopic approach to the subject and not just by DeYoung in his lecture, but in many of my fellow religiously conservative Christians. The insularity of DeYoung's approach shows that perhaps the conservative Church is not yet ready to listen to those to whom the Church wants to preach and by whom the Church wants to be heard. Perhaps here, when talking about the relationship between Church and State, before seeking to restore Christianity's past role of providing the public truth, it should first practice the Golden Rule.

Returning To The "Good" Old Days?

 In the 18th century, it seemed that there was a move in the western world away from authoritarian rule and toward democracy. The attempts in those first efforts were significantly flawed. America's independence followed by its new Constitution, which though providing an improvement over European aristocracies, was written in order to maintain the status quo for America's new elites. In the meantime, France's initial attempt for democracy simply saw one set of authoritarians replace another. The same occurred in Russia's 1917 October Revolution. 

Of course, we are taught to think that Western democracy started with America.  Those exceptional claims that we Americans make about ourselves is just one of our "charms" that so "endears" us to the world. Of course, some of us who would pretend to be educated point back to Greece as providing the origin of democracy. But some Americans, like Ben Franklin, were influenced by what the Iroquois (actually the Haudenosaunee) Confederation had constructed.

Over time, America has become more democratic even though it still has a long way to go. A nation founded on white supremacy cannot be counted as a full democracy until that white supremacy is utterly destroyed and is not replaced by another ethnocracy or a classocracy.

Though Germany experimented with a democracy just after WW I, democracy did not really take hold until some time after WW II. I cannot speak to France's evolution to democracy even though the French seem to have a better vision of what a democracy is than we Americans have.

But here is the point. Evidence that democracy is on the upswing when  authoritarian nation start evolving toward democracy has its counterpart by noting that democracy is dying out when seemingly democratic nations drift toward authoritarian rule. And that is where we have to look at America again.

Right now, America is flirting with embracing a fascist type ruler. That is the kind of leadership that both Trump and DeSantis are offering. Both are looking to end the influence of competitors so that people who agree with them and support their agendas can experience more freedom while those who disagree receive either revenge or are silenced. Little do they know that Freedom - Equality = Privilege. And thus, instead of working, and fighting in some cases, for freedom, they are actually striving for privilege and control. And that can be clearly seen when Republican leaders vow to or work on eliminating wokism. For the Trump side of the Republican Party seems to only believe that there should be one Constitutional right: the right to conform to their beliefs.

We should note here that our nation has 2 foundational secular institutions: our democracy and the free market. And counter to any claims by conservative ideologues, these 2 institutions oppose each other. Democracy and the free market are ideological enemies. For whereas democracy is egalitarian because it is based on 1-person/1-vote. The free market is based on 1-dollar/1-vote. That means that in a land where everyone is supposedly equal, some are more equal than others because they have more dollars. And we have seen a similar theme expressed before in an Orwell novel.

However, we should also note that democracy is more than just allowing majority rule, it is about preserving every group's equal status in society. Thomas Jefferson warned us that denying the minority their equal rights and standing is synonymous with oppression. And thus, democracy has a self-limiting discipline in any group's or person's pursuit of self-interest. That self-limiting discipline is to avoid denying another person's or group's equality while seeking one's own interests. In fact, the more democratic we are, the more conscientious we are about protecting the rights and equality of others.

The battle we see in America is between democracy and the free market. If the free market provides the biggest influence on democracy, then what we will see is an endless king-of-the-hill political battle between the candidates and parties to see who will win control the nation. For the free market is about competing to conquer and control, so long as you don't give the appearance of having a monopoly.

When democracy is influencing the free market more than the other way around, then we will see a more egalitarian sharing of wealth and resources in the economy. That doesn't mean that we will have neither the wealthy nor the poor. But it does means that our wealth and income disparities won't continue to grow as they have with our current form of neoliberal capitalism for the past few decades.

A prerequisite for a democracy is that people can see complexity in the world. They need to be able to see complexity because democracy is sometimes about balancing the rights of opposing groups--simplistic thinking would only consider the rights of one group. In addition, with  democracy, they can see that most, if not all, opponents are not all bad especially since democracy demands that we share power and collaborate with others. And so when we are able to recognize complexity in people, we also see that all of us are a mix of good and bad. 

A prerequisite for authoritarian rule is to have enough people who hold to a black-white world view. With such a view, people are seen as being all good or all bad depending on whether they side with one's own group or leader. And when people see those from other groups that way, there is a growing reluctance to share power and collaborate with them on how to solve problems. So guess what kind of thinking does the free market encourage? Does it encourage us to share with those who have different views or to wrestle to conquer them in order to gain exclusive control?

So here we should think about the influencers that surround us. How are they teaching us to think? Are they teaching us in ways that will move us to promote democracy? Or are they teaching us defeat our opponents before they beat us?

Here we should note that influencers don't have to be ideological or religious leaders. Influencers can also include artists on whom we depend for entertainment and a break from the real world. Here we need to ask if our entertainers or artists promote a simple worldview where we are preoccupied solely with our own interests and concerns or do they enable us to also recognize the needs and rights of others. 

Because of the above, the future of America frightens me especially because that future will affect my children and grandchildren more than it will affect me. In addition to looking at the other trends in culture, I see culture favoring simplistic, black-white pictures of the world. Such a view is in our news, our education, our religions, and in our arts and entertainment. Those black-white worldviews can sabotage the best social justice efforts because such worldviews prohibit us from being careful not to violate the rights and equality of others while seeking our own or our group's rights. The black-white worldviews also interfere with our trusting others because those who have some disagreements with us are then regarded as having no redeemable contributions or claims to make.

And so the above paints an horrific picture of America's future. Not only does our preference for the market mean that we favor control over others, but the kind of thinking we are encouraged to employ pushes us to accept authoritarian rule out of self-defense if not out of ambition.

What Happened To Germany, American Style

What is meant here in the title? It refers to the time period of the search for absolute power by the Nazi Party with Adolf Hitler. The birth of the Nazi Party was made possible by the Versailles Treaty that became the final settlement of World War I. The treaty itself imposed such harsh economic conditions on post war Germany that the emergence of extremist political parties became an inevitability. The Nazi Party was one of those inevitabilities. And that period culminated Adolf Hitler's becoming Germany's leader in 1933.

We should not be surprised that harsh economic conditions can cause extremism. Such conditions cause enough deep suffering that people will, out of desperation, latch onto any kind of group or ideology that explains their current condition in simplistic terms and thus promises a simple and certain solution to alleviate the suffering. 

Of course, one of the perceived solutions was to find the scoundrels who were responsible for the then economic conditions. The end of World War I provided the scapegoats needed for Nazi extremism to eventually thrive. The scapegoats were the political non-conservatives, in particular the Jews who were associated Marxist Socialism, who betrayed and corrupted the nation according to Hitler. It was those political non-conservatives who were portrayed as having moved Germany to unnecessarily surrender in World War I. That surrender deeply embittered many German soldiers who were returning home. On the other hand, those soldiers may not have been aware of the harsh conditions that fighting World War I forced on the German people.

We should note that Nazism's growth had an inverse relationship with the German economy. When the economy went well, the Nazi Party was unpopular. But with the Stock Market collapse and the Great Depression, coupled with the crippling sanctions of the Versailles Treaty, the once proud German nation was reduced to ruins causing much poverty among the people. This caused an increase in interest in what the Nazi Party was saying.

When Hitler campaigned in the 1930 elections he denounced the abandonment of German traditional values and preached a Germany-first approach to policies. In stressing traditional values, Hitler emphasized the family, race, and the people and he opposed materialism, cosmopolitanism, and “bourgeois intellectualism (click here for source). In essence, Hitler wanted to make Germany great again and to do that Hitler wanted to eliminate every source of corruption to the German people whether that corruption was in the form of ideas or race. 

With Hitler's Germany First approach, he taught that virtues like  loyalty, struggle, self-sacrifice, and discipline were German values. Hitler also preached that harmony with nature was a cultural value. Hitler opposed homosexuality because he saw it as a cause for the fall of Ancient Greece (click here for source).

We should note that Hitler tried to gain control of Germany two times. He unsuccessfully used violence the first time in what some call the Beer Hall Putsch. He used democratic political means to gain control the second time. What was ironic was that Hitler opposed democracy in Germany because, according to him, it failed (click here for the source).

So what do we see in America today? We see not just Trump, but those who follow either him or his side of the Republican Party. We saw Trump's side resort to violence in the January 6th Insurrection in order to maintain his presidency even though he lost the election. So what does Trump want to do now? He wants to win back the Presidency. And if he wins, he is promising to take revenge on those who spoke against or slighted him. We should note that Trump's leading rival for the Republican nomination has already shown that he will use his political power to take revenge on at least some who oppose his agenda. Of course I am referring to Ron DeSantis and his war of vengeance against Disney World for Disney World's speaking out against a DeSantis bill that targeted the mention of homosexuality for some elementary school children. But that is not all DeSantis has done. He has declared war on all wokism whether it deals with equality for the LGBT community or the teaching of CRT. And we should also note that many state Republican leaders took revenge on fellow party members who voted to impeach Trump or sat on the January 6 committee.

We should also note that in a recent poll, the majority of Republicans and some Democrats favored their leaders using strong-armed speech tactics to force their ways on government (click here for source). Such tactics are against the spirit of democracy and can lead to authoritarian rule.

We should also note similarities in what Hitler proposed and what the Trump side of the Republican Part has campaigned on. They include the restoration of traditional values, opposition to homosexuality, and an America-First approach to policies. And while Hitler promoted the idea Aryan superiority, conservatives more than liberals believe that America is the greatest nation in the history of the world. These conservatives are afraid of America being corrupted by immigrants and political non-conservatives. In addition, both Hitler and the Trump side of the Republican Party have believed that those people who were different from them were corrupting their nation. For Hitler that involved non-Aryans. For the Trump side of the Republican Party it includes the LGBT community and immigrants from South of the Border or who are Muslims.

As for America, Sinclair Lewis said the following

When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.

Conservative self-proclaimed patriots on the right seem to be deliberately trying to prove Lewis right. Like with the Nazis, these self-proclaimed patriots see all who are not members of their side of the Republican Party as enemies and thus feel the need to seek absolute control over  America at all levels of government from seeking to overthrow a Presidential election, to controlling Congress, and to expelling one state's legislators because they protested against the lack of action on gun control. In the meantime, volunteer groups are looking to purge school libraries of not just LGBT materials, but any material that presents a CRT view of racism in AmericaIn addition, classic books written by some well-known classic works by authors like F. Scott Fitzgerald, George Orwell, John Steinbeck, Alice Walker, James Joyce and others are being banned from school libraries.

There are other disturbing similarities that will be omitted here. The point being is that the Trump side of the Republican Party is seeking to undo our democracy and take a kind of fascist control over the nation. Its MAGA slogan and its spiritual direction from many of my fellow religiously conservative Christians shows little tolerance to moral behaviors that in contrast with our moral beliefs. It seems that many who are not seeking to redefine America as a nation that follows the 10 Commandments, they are seeking to make America into a Christian ethnocracy where religiously conservative Christians seek varying levels of control over the government and its laws. And many of these Christians are proud Americans.

But until Russia's invasion of Ukraine, there were quite a few Christians who admired Putin's reign in Russia especially because of his ties to the Russian Orthodox Church and his opposition, or persecution, to the LGBT community in Russia. The problem with that fondness is that Putin's way of ruling is autocratic. Yes, they have elections, but other nations have taught us that the presence of elections does not imply the existence of democracy.

Just as Germany's moment lasted years before it was resolved in the most unfortunate way, Germany's moment, American Style will be with us for quite a few years. It is aided by our 2-party system that would force many Republicans, who would normally not vote for candidates with autocratic tendencies like Trump and DeSantis, to vote for such candidates  in order to avoid electing the alternative.

Gone are the days when serious misconduct by a Republican candidate would be fairly objectively scrutinized by members of his own party. What we have now is a situation where America seems to be treading water to avoid sinking into fascism. And so the question that comes into play here is, how long can we tread water?