Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For June 22, 2022

 Around June 16

To Bruce Frohnen and his article on what a true patriot, or conservative patriot, such as Edmund Burke is like. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

There is more than one way to define what a conservative is. One way is to consider the context of location and ideology of a given individual. But such a context makes the definition of a conservative a floating definition. What is a conservative in the US was not what a conservative was in the Soviet Union. And what is a conservative capitalist is not a conservative Marxist. Thus, from this perspective, the often used distinction between conservatives and progressives fails us not just because what is a conservative and what is a progressive are contextually defined, but also because the contextual basis for the definition of a conservative ensures that neither conservatives nor progressives are monoliths.

Another approach to defining what a conservative is is to describe what one would call the ideal person and then call that person a conservative. That seems to be the approach used above. For how ideal is the person who can decipher what we should conserve from the past and what we should change. The problem is that we are all trying to preserve what we value from the past and to change what we think needs to be changed. But such does not make us all conservatives.

A similar problem exists when it comes time to the definition of a 'patriot.' The love of one's own nation is identified as part of patriotism and, just by that alone, it is easy to see how patriotism can become the opiate of nationalism. So Frohnen distinguishes between a 'true' patriot from a 'false' one. Of course, the ideal version of a patriot is the true patriot and, in this article, is embodied by Edmund Burke. And so one gets the impression that definitions are being crafted for the benefit of a message.

So then the article tries to define a conservative  and a true patriot by using broader or absolute standards such as those provided by Natural Law and Western Civilization. So-and-so is a conservative because they promote the following of Natural Law. Such is appealing when using an assumed universal definition of Natural Law. The problem is that Natural Law means something different to different people. Hitler believed that nature teaches us the survival of the fittest. Social Darwinism has its own either deliberate or default mode of survival of the fittest in a Capitalistic nation in order to prevent big government and to cut the social responsibilities of companies to society. The result is that people are more likely to be left to either fend for themselves or hope that a private charity group will help them. T

o those in the LGBT community, the same-sex behavior seen in hundreds of if not over one thousand species is proof that homosexuality does not go against Natural Law.  

And what about using one's work to continue Western Civilization, which includes Christianity, common law, and constitutionalism? Does a true patriot and conservative then promote practices and beliefs that break with what was promoted and used in Western Civilization? And while Frohnen's hero of the article, Edmund Burke, objected to Britain's imperialism, much of Western Civilization involves European imperialism including the colonization of the Western Hemisphere. With imperialism being so much a part of Western Civilization, how is it that remaining true to Western Civilization makes one a true patriot.

We live in a multiethnic, multicultural, multireligious society. So how does Frohnen's idea of a true patriot, which includes the Christian version of Natural Law along with the task of preserving Western Civilization, which is basically white,  work without being oppressive to some who have a different understanding of Natural Law and come from a civilization other than Western Civilization? After all, according to Frohnen, we should be willing to fight and die for the universal principles that our Christian, European heritage has provided.

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

June 17

To Heidelblog and Jon Payne for the part of Payne's article quoted by a Heidelblog post about Christians who agree with parts of theories like CRT, Critical Theory, and Intersectionality. The quote and the article presents these Christians in a very negative light. This post appeared in Heidelblog.

Jon Payne's complete article is linked to below:

    https://gospelreformation.net/the-courage-to-be-presbyterian/

What is really apparent among some religiously conservative Christian leaders, especially those who are from the Reformed Tradition, is this. Their black-white view of Critical Theory, Critical Race Theory, Marxism, Intersectionality, and other views is demonstrated by the pejorative labels and descriptions they give to these views so that they implied that Christians can't hold to any significant portion of those views without compromising their faith. 

In so doing, these leaders act as if they have everything to teach creators and promoters of those theories and nothing to learn from them. Such a view is arrogant and that arrogance runs contrary to God's Word. In addition, their black-white views indicate that they have embraced authoritarianism. That is also demonstrated by how they speak with and about other fellow believers and religiously conservative Christian leaders. That kind of authoritarianism is the kind that can enable people to either follow abusive leaders or be those kind of leaders themselves. 

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

June 18

To R. Scott Clark and his article imploring Christians to be involved in politics as individual Christians in order to oppose non-conservative political agendas. This appeared in Heidelblog.

The above article moved me to want to be involved in politics. That is that the above article is promoting bigotry and discrimination against the LGBT community in the name of Christ. It is not enough for Clark that the Church, rightfully, calls those in the LGBT community to repentance in our evangelism. Now, employers should be free to look at those in the LGBT community and assume that they are not fit to represent their businesses as employees.

What is so radical about demanding that those in the LGBT community be treated as equals in society? During Jim Crow, those who worked to promote full equality for Blacks were called 'radicals,' 'agitators,' 'communists,' and 'troublemakers. Are we seeing a repeat here?

While many religiously conservative Christians, particularly those who follow the Anabaptist tradition, want to shun politics, others, like Clark, as evidenced in the above article, want Christians to be involved in politics in order to send the LGBT community back to the margins of society. At least that is one of the reasons Clark wants Christians to be involved in society. The apparent irony is that Clark, a 2Ker, wants Christians to promote at least a partial return to Christendom..

Of course what is left off of Clark's agenda listed above is war, militarism, guns, poverty, economic exploitation, and climate change to name a few issues. What is suggested then is that God's Word clearly stated that we should have laws that address Christian sensitivity and fear of a growing LGBT influence but it is silent on other issues.

The above is nothing more than a call for Christians to support the kind of right-wing political views held by Clark and others. Non right-wing views are demonized in the above article. When will Clark realize that he has partially conflated the midwest political views he grew up with with his Christian faith? When will Clark realize that he is no longer supporter of democracy, but rather a supporter of some level of Christian control over society?

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 March 11, 2020

March 5

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost that quotes Rosaria Butterfield and her article that talks about how people who have been identified as victims by Intersectionality might respond to the objective truth of God’s Word as it speaks to their way of life. This appeared in Ta

Link for citation:  https://tabletalkmagazine.com/posts/intersectionality-and-the-church-2020-02/

Another way of describing material and perceived or dignitary or psychological harm, perhaps in a partial way, is to talk about physical and emotional abuse that sometimes occurs in Christian approved relationships. I don't see conservative Christians objecting to the existence of emotional abuse when it occurs in marriage. And if it occurs in some marriages and it can occur outside of that too. I also I don't see conservative Christians objecting to the existence of the kind of perceived or dignitary harm those who were marginalized via racism experienced. To deny that is to close one's eyes and ears to history.

So the question is whether sharing objective truth about sexual issues can result in real dignitary or perceived harm in the audience. At this point, some conservative Christians want to deny that such harm is possible because the message against those who are considered to have some kind of sexual disorder  in terms of identity or orientation deserve discomfort as a way of calling them to repentance.

But the question of what kind of discomfort do those whose gender identity or sexual orientation deserve. Do they deserve any discomfort that they might experience about their lifestyles or is some discomfort a natural result  of being by confronted with God's Word while other discomfort is not merited because it it is outside the bounds of what God's Word says?

In addition, considering the history of Western Civilization with its treatment of those who were not European Christians, does Intersectionality make legitimate points about the abuse of others which has come from Western Civilization? And if Intersectionality does make legitimate points about perceived or dignitary harm and we close our ears to those points, perhaps that is a sign that we have conflated, to some degree, Western Civilization and Christianity.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

March 6

To Gene Veith and his blogpost on why there is anti-Americanism among Americans. IN his blogpost, though Veith did mention some of America’s sins, he only recognized two emotions toward America: loving it and hating it. This appeared in the Cranach blog on the Patheos website.

America's significant sins are not limited to slavery and the ethnic cleansing of Native Americans from the land. The pervasive racism that has and still exists in America is not exhausted by how we treated Blacks during slavery and before and how we treated Native Americans. Latinos and Asians have also suffered from white supremacy in this nation. Jim Crow and the Second Jim Crow have survived the Civil War. Jews and Catholics were also targets of groups like the KKK. Women only began to emerge from their second-class citizenship because of the Sexual Revolution and the Women's Movement. Even whites experienced bigotry and violence from fellow whites because of their ethnic differences.

The racism that has and still exists in our foreign policies is also something to correct. As well as the exploitation of the environment and people practiced by our economic system.
Authoritarians, with their black-white thinking, will tend to try to limit our choices between their patriotism as a religion or the willingness to admit the truth about ourselves. And thus we get black-white reactions from those who either be in denial and love America or be accused of hating America. Though Veith has under reported America's sins, he, thanks to Chesterton, doesn't go that way entirely. But he does present our present choice as either loving our nation or hating it. When we see what the book of Hebrews says about not having our home on earthy, it would seem that there are at least 50 shades of gray between those two emotions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To a comment Chemical made in our discussion on patriotism and nationalism for the same blogpost involving the above comment. His comment can be read by accessing this link and waiting for the comment to appear.

Chemical,
the definitions of patriotism and nationalism vary based on the points people want to make. If nationalism is defined as self-rule with a self-awareness of justice and the global community, then I fully agree with it. To me, patriotism is the opiate of nationalism. The reason why I reverse the order you used is because patriotism includes the displays of emotion people have for their nation.

At this point it is best to fixate on the concepts rather than the specific words.


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

On approximately March 6

To Roger McKinny and one of his comments that argues for using the economic system specified in the Torah the model for our economic system. It is one that stresses conservative approaches to gov’t and makes the Church the only institution to help the poor so that government has no responsibility to help the poor. His comments appeared in the discussion section of Gene Veith’s article on Nietzsche and Puritanism on the Cranach blog located on Patheos

The issue isn't wrote the Old Testament too, it is what is the context of the Old Testament? That last question helps tell us why certain laws and practices were not continued during New Testament times.

The gov't in the old testament does not give us a model of how to structure gov't in the New Testament either. Why? That is because while the nation of Israel was God's people in the Old Testament, God's people is the Church in the New Testament. And Israel was a theocracy, we are not called to create any theocracies here. In addition, with the Church serving as the New Testament version of Israel, there are no structural constraints that the Torah places on governments today.

The Church is suppose to exist in all nations. And it exists as exiles somewhat like Israel existed during the Babylon exile--that is with some key differences--rather than as rulers or being at home, And note, that many of the civil penalties that existed during Old Testaments along with the dietary and other laws are no longer practiced now. There is no reason to believe that the structure and duties of Israel's gov't as expressed in the Torah was to serve as serve as to limit what services today's governments can provide. Israel existed as a theocracy, we not called to follow that. In fact, there is nothing in the New Testament that encourages your approach here. In addition, Israel's governmental structure changed throughout the Old Testament and finally ended up as a kingdom.

But you did forget a concern of the government that was clearly there in the Old Testament: that was to care for the vulnerable. This was partially done through the tithes given to the religious leaders. But it was also the concern of the King and the nation. To ignore the vulnerable, along with idol worship and breaking the Sabbath, were the primary sins Israel punished for. Ezekiel 16:48-50 shows what can happen when the poor are ignored--please note what happened to Sodom. In fact, leaders who ignored the vulnerable brought judgment of God themselves and the nation while caring for the vulnerable was equated with knowing God (Jeremiah 22:15-16).

Isaiah 58:6-7 tell us the duty of all the people of Israel. How is that the King was not included in that charge?
Finally, your model of thought strictly limits what any representative gov't can do for its people. According to your model of thought, gov't is only to represent those who are self-sufficient and is to turn a deaf ear to the needs of the vulnerable. In a participatory gov't system like we have today, that means that it is the people who are turning a deaf ear to the cries of the vulnerable. However, if you insist on doing that, realize that it was Torah that required people to not so harvest their fields so that the poor can have something to eat (Lev 19:9-10)-- a principle that goes against the maximize personal profits code of Capitalism. That could only be enforceable by the gov't in a non-theocratic government. In addition, Deuteronomy 10:17-18 states that it is God who executes justice for the vulnerable and who loves and provides for the strangers. Tell me what the Torah said about taking care of the alien.

Your model of though clearly forgets the discontinuity between the Old and New Testaments and opportunistically forgets the context of what was commanded. It opportunistically focuses on form rather than the heart of God's Old Testament laws.

ONIM For June 11, 2018

10 Best Fact Checking Sites Found Here.

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


Christian News

• How One Institution's Toxic Culture Is Causing A Black Exodus -- Witness: A Black Christian Collective
• Reclaiming The Center Of Evangelism -- First Things
• U.S. Supreme Court Backs Christian Baker Who Rebuffed Gay Couple -- Reuters
• Michael Curry V. Robert Jeffress On The Biblical View Of Government -- Religion News Service
• Bishop Michael Curry Walks A Fine Line In The Political Fray -- Religion News Service
• Teacher Says School's Transgender Name Policy Goes Against His Religious Beliefs -- USA Today
• For The Love Of Those Fighting Against Homosexuality -- Mortification Of Spin

World News

• America's 'War On Terror' Has Cost Taxpayers $5.6 Trillion -- Nation
• Pruitt Asks Staff For Help Finding Apartment, Used Mattress From Trump Hotel, Aide Says -- ABC News
• Senator Jeff Merkley Denied Entry Into One Migrant Detention Center, Claims He Saw Kids Caged In Another --  CBS News
• Oregon Senator Denied Entry To Immigration Detention Center, Has Police Called On Him -- Huffington Post
• Court Orders Records Unsealed In Penn State Officials' Case -- Seattle Times
• CEO Of Nonprofit Shelter That Called Police On Senator For Trying To Visit Detained Children Is Paid $770,860 -- Newsweek
• White Nationalist Who Marched In Charlottesville Elected To Local GOP Office -- Huffington Post
• Why Do Whites Oppose The NFL Protests? -- Chicago Tribune
• DOJ Watchdog Finds James Comey Defied Authority As FBI Directory, Sources Say -- ABC News
• Scott Pruitt Gives Nonsensical Explanation For Chick-Fil-A Controversy -- Huffington Post
• 2 Top Scott Pruitt Aides Resign From EPA -- Huffington Post
• Ivanka Trump Told Michael Cohen To Talk To Russian About Tower In Moscow: Report -- Newsweek
• Not Much Intelligent Life In Washington. Outer Space Is Another Story -- Yahoo News
• Infinite War -- ZNet
• South Dakota Lawmaker Starts Down Slippery Slope To Segregation -- Miami Herald
• Protests Erupt At G-7 Summit In Quebec -- Yahoo News
• NASA Just Woke Up A Nuclear-Powered Probe 1 Billion Miles Beyond Pluto--And It's Approaching The Farthest Object Humans Have Ever Tried To Visit -- Business Insider
• The Democratic Party Is In A Murky Mess -- Guardian

Israel-Palestine

• Knesset Still Bans Bill To Define Israel As State For All Its Citizens -- Haaretz
• Knesset Disqualifies Bill Seeking Equal Status For Jews And Arabs -- Aljazeera
• Israeli Army Says Didn't Deliberately Kill Nurse In Gaza -- Reuters
• Anonymous Snipers And A Lethal Verdict -- Haaretz
• Liberal Israeli Leaders Were Contemplating Genocide In Gaza Already In 1967 -- Mondoweiss
• As Aid Dries Up, Gaza Families Are Pushed Deeper Into Poverty -- Fox News
• Will Israel And Iran Go To War? Leaders Warn Of Imminent Threat During Netanyahu's Trip To Europe -- Newsweek
• Why Did Latin America Stop Standing Up For Palestine? -- Aljazeera
• New Mars Discoveries Advance Case For Possible Life -- AP News
• Ramadan Public Wakers Face Arrest, Fines In Jerusalem --  Fox News
• Enough Already. Not All Criticism Of Israel Is Anti-Semitism -- Los Angeles Times
• Israeli Troops Kill Four Palestinians As Gaza Protest Resumes --  Reuters
• Netanyahu Confronted Over Gaza Deaths By Prominent UK Politician -- CNN

Donald Trump News

• Trump Says Appointment Of Special Counsel Is 'Totally Unconstitutional' -- New York Times
• Trump: I Could Pardon Myself--But Why Bother? -- Yahoo News
• Donald Trump Calls Off Eagles' White House Visit Over National Anthem Dispute -- Yahoo News
• The United Nations Says Trump Is Making Life Harder For The Poor -- Washington Post
• Trump Blames Russia Probe On Jeff Sessions -- Yahoo News
• Trump To NFL Players: Patriotism Is My Way Or The Highway -- CNN
• Trump Promises To Promote American 'Patriotism' In Schools As President -- Guardian
• Trump's NFL War Is Racism As False Patriotism -- Newsweek
• US Army Colonel Who Studied Russian Intelligence Practices Levels Stunning Accusation About Trump's Relationship With Putin -- Business Insider
• Vladimir Putin Says Russia Will Make Sure Donald Trump's Meeting With Kim Jung Un Goes Well -- Newsweek
• Trump's Immigration Policies Are Making It Harder For Foreign Doctors To Work In The U.S.--And That Could Hurt Patients -- Time
• Trump Barrels Into G-7 Summit, Ready To Fight US Allies -- ABC News
• Shocked By Trump Aggression Against Reporters And Sources? The Blueprint Was Made By Obama -- Chicago Tribune
• Got A Preexisting Condition? The Trump Administration Wants Insurers To Deny You Coverage -- Los Angeles Times

Pick(s) Of The Litter

• The Supreme Court Gives Police A Green Light To 'Shoot First And Think Later' -- ACLU
• Extreme Poverty In America: Read The UN Special Monitor's Report -- Guardian
• Taking Migrant Children From Parents Is Illegal, U.N. Tells U.S. -- New York Times
• Nicaragua On The Brink Of Calamity -- Boston Globe
• U.S., Britain And France Inflicted Worse Destruction 'In Decades' Killing Civilians In ISIS-Held City Of Raqqa, Report Says -- Independent
• Black Firefighter Takes Heat After Taking Knee At Police-Fire Football Game -- Chicago Sun-Times
• Arizona Cops On Paid Leave After Video Shows Them Beating Unarmed Man -- Huffington Post
• Iran Stands Ground On Nuclear Inspections As France Warns Of Red Line -- Reuters
• Explaining Exactly What's Wrong With Libertarianism -- ZNet
• Digging Deeper -- ZNet
• 4,645 Deaths In Puerto Rico "State-Sponsored" Mass Killing -- ZNet
• Judge Sessions, Feds Over 'Sanctuary Cities' -- CNN
• What Senator Jeff Merkley Saw At An Immigration Detention Center For Children -- Nation
• US Suicide Rates Increase More Than 25% Since 1999, CDC Says -- CNN
•  Unarmed Man Beaten By Police: 'I Want Mesa To Be Held Accountable' -- Detroit Free Press
• Exclusive: U.S. Sending 1,600 Immigration Detainees To Federal Prisons -- Reuters

Just For Fun

•  Schools Cancel White House Tours Fearing That Trump Might Teach Kids History -- Borowitz Report
• Philadelphia Eagles Accept Mueller's Offer To Celebrate With Him -- Borowitz Report
• Curiosity Rove Finds Five Bucks On Mars -- Onion
• Justify, Bravazo Get Into Skirmish During Belmont Stakes Weigh-In -- Onion
• Fox News Slams Jesus For Never Once Standing During National Anthem -- Babylon Bee

Comments Which Conservtaives Block From Their Blogs For April 25, 2018

April 22

To Joe Carter and his blogpost on how to unreservedly embrace patriotism. This appeared in the Acton Blog.

I am confused as to why one would want to brag about being patriotic. If the ideal and real America are too different, then the real America is seen as a failure or even a delusional attempt at creating a utopia. But if the ideal and real America are too similar, then whether one celebrates America or not depends on the privileges one's own group enjoys or is deprived of.

When one looks at the evidence, then one finds that history points to the ideal and real America being more similar than different. A rebellion against a founding empire allowed domestic elites to replace foreign elites as leaders of a nation just born. But when dissent and Shays Rebellion occurred a few years later, domestic elites refused to allow those who were resisting to follow the path set by those elites. And thus The Constitution was written. For in that document, the federal government was made more powerful partially so that it could better put down future insurrections. Just look at all of the instances of the word 'militia' is mentioned in The Constitution and the Bill of Rights to see evidence of this view.

From a Christian perspective, it seems to me that patriotism is just another religion that worships one's own group--especially when one's own group enjoys privilege over others, And thus for the Christian, embracing patriotism leads one into practicing polytheism. And here we should note what Paul wrote about his belonging to a group that was, in the past, chosen to be God's very own people (see  https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=philippians+3%3A1-11&version=NASB  ):

Finally, my brethren, rejoice in the Lord. To write the same things again is no trouble to me, and it is a safeguard for you.

2 Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of the false circumcision; 3 for we are the true circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh, 4 although I myself might have confidence even in the flesh. If anyone else has a mind to put confidence in the flesh, I far more: 5 circumcised the eighth day, of the nation of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the Law, a Pharisee; 6 as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to the righteousness which is in the Law, found blameless.

7 But whatever things were gain to me, those things I have counted as loss for the sake of Christ. 8 More than that, I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish so that I may gain Christ, 9 and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith, 10 that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death; 11 in order that I may attain to the resurrection from the dead.

Note all that Paul counts as loss because of the superior significance that belonging to  Christ involves. For he not only counts as loss his own achievements, but whatever identities he could claim from being a member of the tribe of Benjamin and being the cream of the crop of the chosen race of the Hebrews. And he does so to show that all his confidence is exclusively in Christ. All other confidence is leads to pride.

So why should we be so eager to embrace patriotism? Isn't the significance we gain from belonging to Christ enough?

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

April 24

To Rev. Ben Johnson and his blogpost that reviewed an article that claimed that the religious interest of people negatively correlated with the existence of effective government assistance programs. This appeared in the Acton blog.

Besides the fact that conclusions that are at the end of any scientific article are nothing more than the writers' interpretations of the data, Rev. Johnson sounds defensive. And the zenith of his defensiveness is exhibited in his following statement:

Philanthropy comes near the end of a longer process of conversion – after the person has personally accepted Jesus Christ’s unconditional love and mercy, seen Christ in his neighbor, and reacted accordingly.

Such a statement logically implies that only Christians  engage in philanthropy. That claim  is easily disproven by a single counterexample, let alone the many counterexamples that could easily be provided.

Likewise, his defensiveness is also shown in the statement below:

When private individuals set their hand to philanthropic works, the results are more effective and longer lasting than government programs. A sense of entitlement and the bureaucratic one-size-fits-all mentality cannot replace personalized care, real relationships, and a sense of belonging created by religious outreaches. The larger government gets, the more corruption and fraud crowd out a program’s noble intentions. One may be justified in asking whether big government is a near occasion of sin.

Such is an unsubstantiated statement. But we might ask Rev. Johnson which philanthropic work can compete with Social Security or Medicare in terms of providing resources and services for so many people? Again, a single counterexample is all that is needed to to dispel one of Rev. Johnson's claims.

Finally, to show how defensive Rev Johnson has become to the article he reviewed, one only needs to note how he describes that it is either government or God that provides for people. He never considered that God can use government and its programs to provide for people. That when we attribute our blessings to government only, or any other human agency, only, then all that has happened is that God was not given his due.

In addition, there is one more interpretation of the data that could be postulated. That some religions prey on the vulnerability of the people in order to draw followers. That vulnerability could be based on fear or deprivation. And that is why religiosity and the prevalence of effective government assistance programs have a negative correlation. Thus, opposing government assistance programs could be a logical strategy adopted by those religions that seek to take advantage of people's suffering. Perhaps that is the nerve that was hit by  the article Rev. Johnson commented on

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

To Chuck Chalberg and his blogpost on ‘single-issue liberals’ and how different Democratic liberals and Republican conservatives are. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

While teaching, I asked one of my colleagues who was from another country about how different our political parties were. My friend said, 'very little.' And this is the problem we have when sizing up people from the other side. If we were to be more reflective, we might realize that many  whom we thought were on the other side are actually on a different part of our own side.

In addition, any American who thinks that Democrats are on the left know little about both the Democrats and the Left. As a leftist, that is one who does not believe in Capitalism, not even Bernie Sanders is counted as one of us. Noam Chomsky has correctly labeled him as an "FDR New Dealer." That is he likes the social safety net programs FDR initiated while President. And many conservatives call that the left because they mistakenly equate big government and entitlements with socialism.

When one reads Marx, one realizes that the first agenda item to be addressed by any socialist from the Marxist tradition is the redistribution  of power, not wealth. And that redistribution isn't designated to an ominous, amorphous alien state, that redistribution channels power to the workers. For the abolition of private property for Marx occurs in its ideal sense when the proletariat can make laws that curb actions of wealthy landowners. Thus, Marx's abolition of private property assumed the existence of such property. And when we look at the left from that perspective, we find that Democrats and Republicans have far more in common than Democrats and the left.

Some of those shared views between establishment Democrats and Republicans include support for our current neoliberal form of Capitalism. Here we should note that during the 2016 election, both Trump and Clinton were supporting two different sides of neoliberal capitalism. For while Clinton was pushing for America to join the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), Trump was pushing for tax relief for and mass deregulation of American businesses.  In essence, both want the same kind of economic system only Clinton believed that it should include some fringe benefit bells and whistles in order to keep the masses happy. And now, it has been reported that Trump is reconsidering his position on the TPP.

Did both Trump and Clinton believe in big military budgets and American interventionism with impunity? Yes. Do both allow for a growing deficit? Yes. Did the DOJ from Clinton's Democratic predecessor fail to prosecute any of the financial wizards who were responsible for the economic collapse of 2008? Yes. Is Trump following suit? Yes.

All of the above leaves social issues, like same-sex marriage, as the only issues left for establishment Democrats and Republicans to debate over. Yes, there are fringe members and groups of each party which get their 15 minutes of fame, but they never seem to really change the direction of the Republican and Democratic establishments. So the article above seems both puzzling and uninformed. For the only thing that seems to really divide America is a manufactured tribalism over labels and those pesky social issues. And that obscures the reality of the real divisions that exists. For the real division in America today is the one that exists between the establishment of each party and their respective constituents. And for as long as we have a 2-party system, the establishment is sitting pretty.

Patriotism Or Equality

In an article about former Steelers' great and veteran Rocky Bleier and his view of the National Anthem protests, Bleier states that the situation should have 'never gotten to this point' (click here for the article). The point that Bleier is lamenting over is that players are protesting during the playing of the National Anthem. In his opinion, this should not be the case because players do not have a free speech right to protest then because they are at work. And while Bleier also sees fault with the owners, I have to say that I agree with him but for different reasons.

The National Anthem protests should have never become such a big controversy. Why? It is because the patriotic fervor that causes people to react so strongly against the kneeling protest should have never reached such a high level. That fervor transforms patriotism into a religion. And that is occurring in a nation where people are fond of wearing their religion on their sleeves.. All that makes the attempts to punish those players who don't show patriotism in the same way as Bleier or even don't feel patriotic at all, the latter includes me, into an inquisition based on nationalism. That makes it a secular inquisition.

But even much more important than the patriotism turned religion problem, things should have never gotten to where they are today in terms of the racism that so doggedly persists in our nation. And what Bleier thinks should have never gotten this far indicates, in both Bleier and those who agree with him, that too many privileged people in our nation, and by privileged people I mean whites especially those who are part of the middle or high economic class, live in a well insulated bubble. Why is it that so many of us white people are too eager to change the subject of the National Anthem protests to that of disrespecting the flag and those who fought waving it? Why does nonconformity in how some react to the playing of the National Anthem cause us more concern and, perhaps, makes us feel more threatened than the varying significant levels of racism that has plagued our nation from the beginning?

Why do so many of us think that it is far more virtuous to stand for the playing of the National Anthem than it is to care about those fellow Americans who are being systemically oppressed and even persecuted? Is being patriotic opposed to working for equality? That seems to be the message we communicate when we express more concern about protesting the flag than we say about the racism being opposed during the playing of the National Anthem. In fact, American history shows that equality has always played, at best, 2nd fiddle to patriotism in our nation.



 


references

1. https://sports.yahoo.com/steelers-icon-vietnam-vet-rocky-bleier-nfl-protests-never-gotten-point-182928379.html
2. 
   

America Is Not A Monolith

The answer to what is America is difficult to pin down even among Conservatives. From their perspective, we have multiple definitions of America. Writing for the Imaginative Conservative website, John Macius finds it difficult to precisely define America because of the diverse projects being carried out in the name of America now (click here for his article). However, in defining Patriotism, he, nevertheless, gives a description of America as being an idea and that inconsistencies with that idea should note merit overall condemnation of our nation.

In the meantime, part-time Libertarian, Bruce Frohnen, believes that loving America means loving its government if it allows for and protects people while they live locally in their shared faith communities, families, and local groups. We should note that while Frohnen has little regard for the social aspects of Conservative Libertarianism, his description about what government should be leans toward, in terms of government dynamics and structure, Conservative Libertarianism. According to Frohnen, for Conservatives to love America, they must have a love of the familiar as it emanates outward from our local family, faith, and our immediate community. In addition, America consists of the people who share our faith, our location, and our way of life'. The reason for Frohnen's emphasis on the local here is that he believes our local associations are our primary ones and a good patriotism should always want government to preserve that (click here for source).  

In the meantime, in his discussion on patriotism, Erick Erickson points to the principles associated with the idea of America. Erickson makes this point when distinguishing patriotism from nationalism. Nationalism, according to Erickson is tribal in that it is based on loyalty to race, ethnicity, and ancestry. Patriotism is based on principles, that it is based on ideals and values. Furthermore, patriotism includes a 'devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life.'

We should note that with both Frohen's and Erickson's descriptions of America, there is room for those who love America properly to criticize it and withdraw support from specific actions it undertakes. And with each person cited, there is a concern with letting the future be governed by the past so as not to cut the ties between them.

Of the 3 conservatives cited above, Macius comes the closest to correctly defining America. For what Frohnen doesn't see is that while America's formative years coincide with his conservative view of what America should be, America ended up being quite toxic to others in how it established communities with shared faiths, families, and community associations where our way of life was developed during that time period. How what we now call America, that is the European settlers who came here for a new life, treated native Americans is pretty much on par with how America treats Iraq with the exception of ethnic cleansing. We should note that Frohnen opposed America's neoconservative war against Iraq. Only here, we simply kicked out those who didn't share our faith and values.

As for Erickson, I would like to ask a question once I have channeled the sidekick of one of my two childhood heroes,Rocky J. Squirrel.  For while Erickson boasts that America is built on principles, we need to ask if they are friendly principles. For history shows that not all national principles have been moral. So we could also ask if America's founding principles were friendly to those outside of our then European immigrant groups. Of course, to find out what America's principles were back then, one does better to look at what America did rather than what America said about itself.  For most of us prefer flattery to realism, so our words mean nothing unless our actions back them up. 

In addition, Erickson should note that basing one's identity on principles does not make one immune to tribalism. There is such a thing call ideological tribalism. Those who believe that they alone have latched on to absolute principles by which they can judge all others but have nothing to learn from them perhaps provide vintage examples of those who are embrace ideological tribalism.

Now the main trouble with the Conservative definition of America, regardless of the definition one chooses is this: America changes with each new influx of immigrants or when each fringe group puts in a significant effort to escape marginalization. So while Conservatives are asking immigrants to totally assimilate when coming here, we should note that no such group in the past was required to do so. Yes, there is a partial assimilation practiced by each new group. But depending on the numbers of new people, changes to America also occur in order to allow new groups to breathe. Whether they go beyond breathing to fitting in depends if there is a new group following them which can take their place in serving as society's scapegoat.

That America changes with the influx of each new group threatens the Conservative concept of America. Why? Because of their love of and attachment to the familiar, each new set of changes looks like another nail of the coffin of what defined America in the past. And the fear is that the next nail will be the final one.

We should note that some time during this century, White, English speaking Americans will become a minority here. When that happens, should we still require new immigrants to speak English only in public even though the first language of the majority of Americans may not be English? See, such a change threatens the sense of well being for many a conservative whose definition of America is tightly bound to our Founding Fathers. But any attempt to prevent America from changing has to deny our our basic right to be free. In addition, each attempt to prevent America from changing prevents us from learning from others.

Kaepernick's Protest Has Both Good And Bad Parts

Despite being named to the backup quarterback position for the San Francisco 49ers, Colin Kaepernick has already caused some to forget the name of the team's starting quarterback. How did he do this? He did so by refusing to stand for the playing of the National Anthem. And his action, or inaction, was not noticed by anyone until the 3rd preseason game when it was the first time when he protested in uniform. Since then, Kaepernick has changed from sitting to kneeling during the anthem and, during practice, has worn socks that depict a pig wearing a police hat.



The good in Kaepernick's protest is in his courageous attempt to draw attention to the plight of those Blacks who have suffered from race based police brutality. He started this venture by himself. Since then, individuals and even whole teams from the NFL have found ways to join his protest. In addition, a US woman's soccer star, Megan Rapinoe, has decided to side with Kaepernick. 

We should note that racism is involved in some of the law enforcement and court cases we've seen in this nation which ranges from police injuring a child in a crib to the killing of unarmed Black men on the street to the killing of Blacks in custody to a Black man being awarded $18 in damages by a jury after police broke into his house, punched and tasered him all because of mistaken identity. If our nation thinks that it has solved its problems with racism, it has become delusional to the point of being psychotic.

So that part of Kaepernick's protest is both good and honorable and should be celebrated. The problem is that his protest has stirred much anger especially by those who describe themselves as patriotic Americans. The degree of anger felt and expressed by some is difficult to understand. For such anger is usually due to people feeling threatened or being morally outraged. And the question becomes how could the refusing to stand by one person for the playing of the National Anthem cause so much anger in some. Certainly none of these people could legitimately feel threatened by one person refusing to stand for the playing of the National Anthem. And since when has  refusing to stand for the playing for the National Anthem become a greater moral failure than the race based violence that has cost some innocent people their very lives?

Of course, the reason for such anger can be found in how patriotism is defined and experienced by those who are so angry. When one's anger results from seeing someone's failure to properly respect something or someone who has a special status, one is often responding as an authoritarian rather than a patriot. Thus, the anger could be an expressed desire to force submission on others to a person, office, or symbol. And there is the irony here for those who call themselves American patriots to be so angry at Kaepernick for his protest since America and its flag are suppose to stand for freedom.  For nothing contradicts freedom more than forced submission.

Thus, the patriotic anger being expressed at Kaepernick for his protest is grossly mislabeled. Rather, what is being directed Kaepernick's way in actuality is an authoritarian response by those who care more about getting people to conform to what they do than to protect freedom or promote moral standards. In the end, we just might discover that this patriotism is like Christianity, Judaism, and Islam in that it is simply another religion. And for some, these religions, including patriotism, end up being more about self worship or the worship of one's own group than the worship of some external entity.

But not all of Kaepernicks' protest here is good. He has worn socks that display cops as pigs. And this is as wrong and reprehensible as what Kaepernick is protesting. That is because depicting cops in this manner is as much a demonstration of bigotry as the racism he is protesting. In addition, the job of being a police officer is one of the most difficult jobs I can think of. I know that I certainly could never hold such a position. 

But here we should note that perhaps both the bigotry against the police and the bigotry seen in racism have some other things in common. One common attribute that both share is that they are examples of tribalism. I've always defined tribalism as when loyalty to one's group trumps one's commitment to morals and principles. The result of tribalism is that what is right and wrong is determined by who does what to whom. And one thing that drives tribalism is when people feel threatened. Such is what we see in the covering and excusing of police brutality as well as the excusing of violence and threats made toward the police. The more police brutality is protected from the enforcement of our laws, the more people, especially Blacks who suffer from racial profiling than most other groups, legitimately feel threatened. And the more disrespect and even violence that is shown toward the police, the more the police realistically feel threatened. And the more each group feels threatened, the more they wrongfully but understandably embrace tribalism and thus the more they become as gangs who oppose each other.

Kaepernick's protest, outside of the cited socks he has sometimes worn, is both honorable and good. But his calling attention to the issue of race based police brutality, as good as it is, is not enough. We need to combat the tribalism that each group is involved in here and falls prey to. Thus, we need for both the Black community and the police to reach out to each other to combat racism and police brutality. For as long as we tolerate tribalism by any group, we will continue to see current status quo thrive.


 

Protesting The Worship Of America

Jonathan Aigner (no bio could be found) recently wrote a short blogpost (click here for the article) protesting the worship of America in churches which typically occurs around July 4th. His protest could be divided into two parts. The first part comments on some of the hymns we sing in church that pay tribute, perhaps too much, to our nation. The second part asks the very poignant declaration that we cannot serve two masters. That last part tells us to decide between serving our nation first or serving God. And according to Aigner, when patriotism involves the singing of praises to our nation during worship serves, then patriotism has become idolatry.

The hymns Aigner lists are The Battle Hymn Of The Republic, America The Beautiful, and God Bless America. To the first hymn, Aigner asks how Christian could ever sing praises to war and rely on military strength for our salvation. To the second hymn, Aigner rightly laments over the idolization of America and an expression of faith in the American people. To the third hymn, Aigner questions the existence of any meaningful theology as well as the claim that America is a Christian nation that is a light to the nations. Aigner's retort is most appropriate; there is only one Christian nation in the world: the Church.

Aigner goes on to predict that America, like all other empires, will fall. And he asks could we really go on singing praises to our nation if Jesus was physically standing in our presence.

The second part of Aigner's protest declares what the Scriptures declare: that we cannot serve two masters. He goes on by listing the words of a hymn to show the difference between appreciating one's own nation and worshiping it.

Aigner's article is not deep, but it could not ring more true. However, there is another point that Aigner could have made which supports his contention. That worship of one's nation, in reality, is worship of oneself. This point is made clear by examining the religious reasons some Christians gave for supporting Jim Crow, and you could add for ethnically cleansing Native Americans from the land. The grounds for the "Christian" support for Jim Crow was the heretical belief that the White race was not just superior to the Black or Native American races, it included the notion that the White race was the chosen race. In other words, what those who used Christianity to support Jim Crow were worshiping was themselves, their own group. And if singing patriotic hymns around July 4th follows the same reasoning, then the singing of those patriotic hymns is merely another instance of us engaging in self-worship by praising our nation. And perhaps why refusing to sing praises to America or challenging its legitmacy angers some people so much is because to not sing America's praises is to rob those Americans of the worship they believe they deserve.

Preparing For The Fourth Of July

A week from yesterday will be July 4th. That is the day where we celebrate our independence as a nation, a nation that is alleged to believe in fairness, equality, justice, and opportunity. And when we slip up in the present, we can always resort to the past to set our ways straight.

But like the present, the past ain't what it use to be. Anyone who has read a balanced list of sources about the past can shout 'AMEN.' When we step back and observe how we celebrate the Fourth of July, we should note it has much in common with the other holidays we celebrate in that they are crafted so we can feel good or better about ourselves. On Thanksgiving Day, we feel good or better about ourselves by engaging in gluttony. We make ourselves feel better on Christmas by utilizing crass consumerism. And New Year's Eve and Day we use hope for the coming year and resolutions to feel better about ourselves. On Memorial Day, we prove ourselves by how we honor those who have given their lives in our nation's wars and interventions. As for next week, we will feel good by association as we honor the "independent" spirit of America as demonstrated by our nation's Founding Fathers.

This need, or compulsion, to feel good about ourselves, however, silences important but disturbing voices from history just as it silences the still small voice of our consciences. So we try to celebrate unincumbered by ignoring how our lives and freedom have affected others. This is no more true than when we celebrate our nation's past  and build pedestals for our Founding Fathers so it will be easier to pay homage to them. And to  the extent that we can celebrate their achievements and honor them, we feel connected to them and thus feel better about ourselves.

And yet, history's voices can never really be silenced as disturbing as they may be. Frederick Douglass's speech on what July 4th meant to slave documents this (click here).  For while Douglass praises the accomplishments of those from America's past, he notifies his audience that he has no share in their glory and thus in their joy. Why?  It is becuase of how his people have been treated. They were ripped away from their families and stolen from their homelands so that they could wear chains and live in the service of others. And if they objected, they were beaten and tortured. If they misbehaved like others, they received harsher penalties--much like today. For while the White Americans of his time, as well as our own, congratulated themselves for how they treated each other, they lived in deep denial for how they treated others.

History tells us that we need to listen, about the barbarity that America's European settlers showed to people of color: to Blacks as well as to Native Americans. Though we know how true this history is, our compulsion to feel good has often prevents us from being fully connected with the past. And while we tolerate our own disconnection with our past, we would never allow others to enjoy such a disconnect. For how would we react to Germans who no longer felt obligated to remember the Holocaust with sadness and a sense of shame. And yet, despite the fact that we had to ethnically cleanse Native Americans from what would become our portion of the continent and use slaves to help build our economy, we often feel offended if someone would suggest that we should include remorse when remembering the past. And what is more disturbing is that both Native Americans and Blacks still suffer from the effects of their ancestors' past while we try to forget past sins.

But today is unlike Douglass's day in that we have spread the suffering around the world by intervening in 50-plus nations with over 30 of them being democracies. And the result of many of those intrusions into the democracies of others have led to dictatorships. And yet, we feel strongly led to still declare that our nation is a 'city upon a hill.' Of course, that declaration is only meant for those who are like us and who share our values. For we now refrain from so flattering our nation because of those others who have infiltrated our nation and have corrupted it. Considering that in 2013, polls showed that America was seen as posing the greatest threat to peace in the world, perhaps we should take the cue for how we are to celebrate our past and present  from others who clearly see what we really look like.

This World Is Not Big Enough For Both Exceptionalism And Justice, Amongst Other Things

In chapter 2 of his book, Fear's Empire: War, Terrorism, And Democracy (click here for book reference), the book's author, Benjamin Barber, makes two important points about American Exceptionalism. His first point is that America is not the only nation to claim to be exceptional. The French have done, the Germans have done it, and even the Swiss have done it, as well as much of the rest of the world. This makes claiming to be special normal.

His second point is that the belief of America's people in their own exceptionalism has kept us in a state of innocence of sorts regarding America's ventures both on this continent and in the rest of the world. By innocence, what is meant is that many of us Americans are either oblivious to or in denial of what America has really done to others both here and abroad. This innocence not only enables many us to justify America's use of force even when self-defense was not involved; it makes proving to us that our nation has been wrong near impossible when we believe that our nation has been following its original principles. That is because with America being so special,  it normally has higher reasons than what other nations have for using force. It also allows other of us Americans to believe that America should practice some sort of isolationalism lest it becomes corrupted by the rest of the world.

The point here is that believing in the exceptionalism of our nation from its beginnings with the founding fathers allows us to assume our innocence rather than having to prove it.

What all of this shows is a link between the belief in the exceptionalism of one's own nation and the acceptance of the use of the rule of force. That is because those who believe in the exceptionalism of their own nation assume that how it treats others is just regardless of the evidence. In fact, to bring up evidence of wrongdoing to people who believe in the exceptionalism of their own nation is to sometimes court abuse if not martyrdom.

This lack of awareness of the sins and immoral acts practiced by one's own nation or, in short, its reliance on the rule of force rather than the rule of law is a normal condition for those who believe in exceptionalism. The rule of law is what the exceptional nation tries to force those inferior nations into following even when the rule of force is needed to do so.

Of course, to rely on the rule of force in a time when the proliferation of WMDs is inevitable is to do more than flirt with being bad, it also tests the ability of all nations to survive. That is because the continued use of the rule of force will invariably cause conflicts between nations or entities that have access to WMDs. And once there is the use of WMDs, there is no guaranteed way of stopping their use.

The problem is here is that belief in the exceptionalism of one's own nation does not just provide a hunting license on the rest of mankind, it is a siren call. Heeding its call brings makes people happy with themselves. 

However, we must face at least two sets of realities here. Because believing in the exceptionalism of one's own nation is natural, it is realistic to expect from the people of many nations. It not only gives people a license to mistreat others with impunity even from one's conscience, it gives people a reason to feel secure and makes them feel good. But such a belief  also not only allows for people to run roughshod over justice, it threatens everyone's future.

We especially see this belief in one's exceptionalism in those purists who call on their fellow countrymen to return to what made their naition so great. This shows another cost of believing in one's own exceptionalism: it shows a puritanical leaning that gives people to be intolerant of those not towing the original line.

We are soon entering a season when celebrating the specialness of America is not just in season, it is expected from all of its citizens. Yes, it is realistic to expect people to believe in their exceptionalism, but, again, there is another set of realities that come with believing in one's exceptionalism. It isn't that there is nothing to celebrate about America; it is whether we will balance that desire to celebrate our nation and ourselves with the knowledge of  the negative realities that comes with too much celebration, a.k.a., the belief in our exceptionalism, brings to ourselves, our neighbors, and the world.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For March 4, 2015

Feb 6

To David Robertson and his blogpost reviewing American Sniper The comment has been stuck in the limbo of awaiting moderation. This post appeared in the Wee Flea blog.

I would also add that the model of thought Chris Kyle’s father taught him is not Christian. This strict division of people into sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs denies the sinfulness of everybody and the complexity of people and situations. Finally, this model taught Chris to only see who America was affected by the actions of others and not the other way around.

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

Feb 23

To the comment section debate on the Wee Flea's blogpost about the number of Christians being martyred each year. The debate was between Brent and David Robertson. The later is the writer of the blog. This appeared in the Wee Flea blog.

Brent seemed to be intent on setting a trap and David Robertson kind of fell into it. But Robertson has some valid concerns about Brent and that he doesn't like the number of those killed in the first place. What can be gained here is that Muslim persecution of Christians isn't devastating as how some who use the numbers wish to imply. In addition, we need to be fair, we need to see where Christian supported gov't policies, regardless of the gov't, had persecuted Muslims whether because of the religion itself or because they were caught up in something political.

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

Feb 25

To Denny Burk and his blogpost about consent and 50 shades of grey. This appeared in Denny Burk's blog.

Mutual consent by participating adults is also a legal issue, not just a moral issue. And if we left it at that, we could better share how God's Word applies to the sexual orientations and practices which our cultures accepts. It's when we start legislating, that we've stepped over the line.

BTW, shouldn't we be asking ourselves whether we ourselves are obsessed with sex when we write so much about it but neglect to pay adequate attention many of the important problems in today's world?

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

To Eric's Feb 25 comment attacking me for being like a pharisee from the parable of the two men praying because I have challenged some conservatives and their thinking. His comment appeared with Bradley Birzer's blogpost on ideology and mass murder. This blogpost appeared on the Imaginative Conservative blog

Eric,
First, I've been up front in my above comment about the sins of the French Revolution as well as those of Lenin et. al. Please note that not all Marxists, Socialists, Communists are the same and there is plenty of historical documentation to show that. It is a historical mistake to equate the Soviet Union's Communism with Marx. And note that the key word there is 'equate.'

In addition, I have been up front here in saying I am a sinner who talks to fellow sinners. Now you have a choice. You either can admit that you are a fellow sinner too and thus what you say against me shouldn't discredit what I say anymore than your sinfulness would discredit what you say, or you can claim to be superior to me.

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

To Pat Buchanan and his blogpost criticizing Obama's telling of some of Christianity's dark times in history at the National Prayer Breakfast. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

The anger exhibited here by Buchanan is simply not Christian. It isn't how the apostles reacted when accusation were made against them. And it isn't how Jesus reacted when He faced accusations. And here, we should note Jesus' reaction foremost because He, not His followers, are the ones who make Christianity special. We, His followers, are sinners who must pray for forgiveness on a constant basis. 

Thus, to point our sins doesn't challenge the legitimacy of Christianity and the Gospel. After all, we aren't the ones who lived without sin, died a substitutionary death on the cross, and rose again from the dead. Our sins are the reason why God sent His Son into the world in the first place. That is why Paul said in Romans 3:27 that our boasting is 'excluded' because we are saved by faith in someone else than ourselves.

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

Feb 27

To Joe Carter and his blogpost description of the different kinds of patriotism and love of country one can have. This appeared in the Acton blog.


A few points need to be mentioned. First, I don't think this fully explains the differences in patriotism between people. For example, Pat Buchanan made the same claim about Obama as Guiliana did. Why did he make that claim? It was because Obama does not, according to Buchanan, recognize either our civilization or Christianity as being superior over their counterparts. Carter's projection that Giuliani's patriotism includes a belief in American Exceptionalism shows his own leaning as well as the expectations of what some have in determining the patriotism of others. 

According to Buchanan, proof of Obama's inability to see our superiority was seen in his willingness to list some of Christianity's past sins during the National Prayer Breakfast. And yet, Obama has demonstrated his belief in American Exceptionalism in both his public declarations and his policies. Thus, identifying the differences between the patriotism of people like both Giuliani and Buchanan and that of Obama becomes problematic. People like both Giuliani and Buchanan share old school, common core beliefs in American Exceptionalism, And we should note that belief in this Exceptionalism comes with baggage. That baggage includes a sense of entitlement to privileges which should be denied to others and the embracing of an active form of authoritarianism. The latter says that the exceptional one has the right, and perhaps even the duty,  to exercise control over others. And we should note that Obama has demonstrated both that sense of entitlement and that embracing of authoritarianism--though the latter is done to perhaps a lesser degree than what Giuliani and Buchanan do.

Now Carter makes two mistakes here and the first one revolves around the post-authentic label he uses. For while Obama refused to wear a flag pin after 9-11 because he didn't see it as being an authentic show of patriotism, Carter labels Obama as being post-authentic rather than Obama's perception of wearing the flag pin as being post-authentic. From that label, Carter distinguishes two kinds of patriotism. The authentic kind that relies on past traditions as guides for determining how one should make the necessary changes to the nation. The other, using Jonah Goldberg as a reference, post-authentic patriotism that is, relies on government to change the country because government is better than the people it serves.

In other words, Carter ends up with the age-old conservative view that we are in a battle between progressive big government vs its people--and we should note that, according to some conservatives, adding the word 'progressive' to big government is redundant. Such is an oversimplified view of the relationship between government and its people. And it is so because this authentic or conservative viewpoint assumes that elite rule only emanates the public sector. There is no recognition here of private sector elite rule over the nation. So Carter and Goldberg's view here understandably assumes an alien relationship between government and its people. It is understandable because government is rarely if ever seen as a possible democratic tool of its people. And though in many cases it isn't, it has the real potential to be.

But what is patriotism? Must patriotism include the belief in the superiority and exceptionalism of one's nation? If so, the real question that is begged here is that patriotism is a trait to be desired and honored. What else is left unsaid is what American traditions should be used as guides for the future. This is an important point because not all have experienced America in the same way.

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

To Joe Carter and his blogpost suggestion on how churches can help prevent people from being victims of predatory loans. This appeared on the Acton blog.

Yes, it's a great ministry and the idea is worthy of being practiced by other churches. But one question that arises is, with all of the other demands made on Churches and with all of the people in such need, can church created credit unions help enough people? But an even larger question looms here. Why can't the Church also demand that the Government steps in to alleviate the exploitation? For though churches can help, unlike government they are not the representatives of the people. So it seems that the people's should be representatives should also be involved.

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

March 1

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost about how a college could lose its accreditation and thus access to federal loans for student because of these college's biblical on homosexuality. This appeared in the Heidelblog.

The issue here isn't about our religious freedoms or our view of a particular set of sins. The issue here is whether a college that is receiving federal aid is potentially participating in the marginalization of a rightfully protected group of citizens. So perhaps the problem isn't the college's opposition to homosexuality per se. Perhaps the real problem is that the college has made an inadequate statement about homosexuality in that it doesn't distinguish how it believes homosexuality should be regarded personally from a Christian perspective from how it believes homosexuals should be viewed by society.

This is where the past context provided by many conservative Christians has produced a pendulum swing resulting in an oversensitivity about and overprotectiveness for homosexuals.

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

There was a March 3 comment to a post on the Imaginative Conservative that has now been posted. So the comment that was below is now deleted here. You can see the comment at the link below:

http://www.theimaginativeconservative.org/2015/03/progressively-redefining-human-nature.html