Fox News is Not Your Friend (Hat-Tip to Wretched)

Subcaption: Voddie Baucham Cut off As Soon as He Mentions the Cross

Video after the jump.

Here's the link to the original podcast that inspired the article title for this piece:

http://www.wretchedradio.com/podcast.cfm?h=62C14A71AA2030A715E5A1720DABEFD2&page=86

And now the piece de resistance. Black conservative pastor taken on conservative television station to talk about black violence and racism, and perhaps you think the producers will let him spread his conservative Christian views?

Haha. Nope.

See, Fox News is conservative, but that does not equivocate to Biblical Christianity. Sure, as Todd points out in the intro to the podcast, there might be many Christians on the side of the Republican Party, but that does not make the GOP a Christian, let alone Bible-based platform, party, or movement. It's most fair to say that it's influenced by Christians, but it disdains us in much the same way that the Democratic Party disdains the Republican Party. It's merely a matter of degree. Both groups want national influence, and they are strongly motivated to cast themselves as pro-Christian or the true representation of Christian virtue, in different ways, in order to court the support of believers.

But the parties as a whole and the nation as a whole is not Christian, and to say that Christianity influences them is becoming a more and more misleading statement.

No, Fox News exists to make money by selling commercial time based on viewership. They do whatever they can to get more views, hence the nauseating sensationalism. Yes, they bring up valid journalistic pieces that other networks don't, but then they do the same as those other networks. CNN might have spent 200 hours covering Carnival cruise disasters a few years ago, but FNC has covered Benghazi and that soldier stuck in a Mexican prison in just the same manner. "Breaking News: Nothing New To Report in the Politically Charged Issue We Keep Telling You About Because We've Staked Our Quarterly Profits On It." Ugh, just quit it.

I've Been Here Before...Pivotal Moments in My Journey

This will serve as the hub and first entry for a new series, where anyone who wishes can follow along and encounter the major moments that impacted the way I think about reality, and what is true.

My Testimony: Era of Uncertainty

I took a philosophy class in 2009 and chose to do some independent reading in the book I had had to buy for it, covering two chapters that were not focused on in the course. These concerned Neuroscience and Determinism. Determinism is simply the view that everything that happens is directly attributable to the immediately preceding state of the universe, and so on and so on. Reality is a complex machine that runs on physical laws and that's it. Technically, that's materialistic determinism. Determinism that allows for a supernatural aspect to the universe would hold that spiritual beings control your destiny and so whereas it's not all mechanically produced, you nevertheless do not have much of a choice in how your future unfolds. And neuroscience, from an atheist perspective, is often presented as a scientific argument against the soul, i.e. that all of your thoughts, emotions, desires, will, decisions etc are produced by neurochemical electrical interactions between the cells of your brain.

Take these two thoughts together, and what do you get? The idea that I couldn't trust my thoughts to be accurate, because my beliefs might just be deterministic phenomena, artifacts of physical processes in the brain, with nothing to connect them to truth or to give them meaningful significance. What if I only believed what I did because I was organically predisposed to believe it, and chance life experiences influenced my thoughts to produce that result? That there was no choice involved, and no transcendent truth.

Once the thought was comprehended, I couldn't ignore it. I had to deal with it.

Statistical Vindication of the Superiority of Pre-Marital Sexual Abstinence

That sounds like a scientific paper title. If you ever write for a technical journal, basically your header will encapsulate the conclusion of your research. Goes to show I really was paying attention in my writing-intensive elective seminar.

As I scrolled through the latest argument about sex on my university forum, I saw that the resident third-wave feminist had levied a research study's conclusions against a guy commenting on the same "slut survey" I wrote about in this post. He had said that he couldn't see why anyone would take pride in 'owning' the word slut and expressed that there must be something wrong with them. Feminista Number One's response made use of data from a blogspot article by The Social Pathologist to claim that women who had several sexual partners were less likely to divorce than women who had had a few, or women who had had numerous partners. This was supposedly evidence of the superiority of having more than one sexual partner. 

Nevertheless, FN1 couldn't deny the results also showing that virginity prior to marriage was far superior to any number of sexual partners, in serving as a predictor for the success (non-divorce over an extended period) of their first/only marriage. Intrigued, I went on to click on the link and peruse the article.

Here are some quotes of interest from the article at the blog link:

"...divorce rates are the lowest for those with zero pre‐marital partners. That part is unambiguous. Virgin brides are the least likely to divorce, all else equal. But why do  divorce rates rise with one or two premarital partners only to reverse and drop after two or more sexual partners? And next, why do divorce rates reverse and climb back up after the pre‐marital partner count goes into the double digits?"

"My own hypothesis is that a higher partner count (up to 5‐9 or so partners) is correlated with age and maturity in dating experience....Specifically, I suspect it’s not the 5‐9 pre‐marital sex partner count per se that drives the relative drop in the divorce rates, but rather it’s the maturity and experience that women have acquired while they’ve dated more men."

From a table constructed by the analyst,

"One can see that the divorce rate is nearly 50% for women who had only one pre‐marital partner and if that partner did not develop into her husband. The divorce rate falls to half the above rate (25.6%) if a woman later marries her first and only pre‐marital sex partner. However, both these divorce rates are higher than the divorce rate for virgin brides. Pre‐marital sexual experience with one’s future spouse does not beat out having no pre‐marital sex at all."

Thanks, Feminista Number One!

I initially thought I was going to be led  to a pro-3WF site where I would have to read between the lines. As it turns out, that's what FN1 was doing, herself. Intriguingly, the study cited was called the National Survey of Family Growth and was published by the Heritage Foundation. So FN1 is reading research spearheaded by conservatives. One can only hope she doesn't fail to be persuasively influenced by her dabbling in the enemy's camp, over time.

It should be noted that it isn't the mere fact of virginity or sexual activity that has an effect on marital success, but what it implies, either in terms of the type of character or decision making that went into the choice to have or abstain from intercourse, or in terms of the type of effect that such a decision consequently has on that person. But if you're a foolish person, doing the right thing without knowing why is not morally wrong, it's just less beneficial to you; nevertheless, since it gives you time to figure out a coherent ethic justifying your choice, you will reap the reward for it over time, even if you do "the right thing for the wrong reasons." 

~ Rak Chazak

Categories of American Conservatism

There's a reason why terms like 'conservative' and 'liberal' sometimes serve to confuse political discussions. It's because those words are adjectives -- another word for adjective is a "noun modifier." In other words, nothing is conservative or liberal in and of itself, but with respect to something that can be conserved or loosened. Let's look at the terms:

Conserve: to conserve, restrain, hold back, maintain, preserve, hold fast to, etc.

Liberally: profusely; Liberate: to loosen, set free, relinquish control over, etc.

From what I remember, the Founders made a distinction between the concepts of "freedom" and "liberty." The short summary is this: total individual freedom, a 'state of nature,' is not true freedom at all because it's unstable. The strong eventually conquer the weak and impose their own rules. By contrast, liberty is freedom with some minimal, reasonable restrictions on the individual, that makes society safe for individuals to exercise their freedom, enabling them to be more free than they would be otherwise, without those restrictions.

Back on topic: Conservatives wish to conserve something, but Liberals wish to relax, or be free from those things. But what is that thing?

This is where I wish to make an important point. Conservatism and Liberalism mean different things in different countries, because their different histories by definition mean that that which would be conserved varies based on the established historical culture of those places.

That's why, in Iran, conservatism means Shia Islam. In Saudi Arabia, it's Wahhabi Islam. In Spain and Italy, it's Roman Catholicism. In the UK and US, it's Protestant Christianity. In Russia, it's Communism, and in China, it's a mixture of that and, religiously, ancestor-worship is the traditional spiritual belief. So on and so forth.

The US differs from the UK, however. While they have a similar theological history, their political culture is very distinct. The UK was a Constitutional Monarchy since the good old days when King John signed the Magna Carta. It still is, but the monarchy is much weakened in its power. The US, on the other hand, has never had a king. It has always been a mixture of a Republic (leaders decide the laws on behalf of the people) and a Democracy (the leaders are chosen by the people). The democratic aspect of this is deeply embedded in American society because of generations of asserting the ideal of individualism. In America, the political unit is the individual. This is in turn supported by the theological teachings of Christianity, which says that all people are made in God's image and are responsible for themselves.

American Conservatism, then, is extremely unique because no other country has over a hundred years of history at its foundation that supports the political position that says that every individual has the right and responsibility to make their own decisions, provided they are not immoral, without any other person interfering with their ability and prerogative to do so.

That's why Conservatism in the US can be boiled down to a single phrase, as far as it concerns the relationship between the individual and his government: personal responsibility.

To be more specific, however, American Conservatism, understood historically, means the maintaining of Biblical Christian principles in all areas of public and private life.

That's my working definition.

The liberal view would be, rather than maintaining those principles, loosening and/or abandoning those principles.

Now that we have a basic definition of conservatism as it regards America, I need to address the obvious fact that people are not either totally conservative, or totally opposed to conservatism. As a result, I set about determining what broad categories of policy exist under which a person can adopt either a conservative or a liberal view.

Here are the categories I've found that individuals' views differ under:

Fiscally Conservative

Economically Conservative

Military Conservative

Foreign Policy Conservative

Constitutional Conservative

Social Conservative

Cultural Conservative

Theological Conservative

Legal Conservative

Government Conservative

Environmental Conservative

Educational Conservative

And consequently, this is why there's division inside the Republican Party base. Not everyone is conservative in the same way. Libertarians who are not Christians tend to be fiscally conservative, constitutionally conservative, governmentally and legally conservative. But their views diverge when it comes to social issues and military issues.

Note: conservatism is NOT to be understood as simply wanting a small government. The government has several important functions, defined in the Constitution, and these include, for example, providing for the common defense and promoting the general welfare. When libertarians argue for isolationism in our military and foreign policy and want to remove all social safety nets, bar-none, then they are not arguing for conservative principles, but more properly are arguing for reductionist principles--namely, they are trying to get there to be as little government as possible. 

If there is one issue in the 12 that I highlighted above, that libertarians value the most, to the exclusion of the others, it would be governmental conservatism -- limiting the size of government. Contrary to conservatives, libertarians have no point at which they would stop, seeing fit to remove government completely if they could. And if there is one issue in the 12 above that conservatives emphasize the most it would be theological conservatism, because a proper Biblical understanding is what guides the individual's actions in all other areas and it is from that belief that all the other policy positions are derived.

I'll briefly define the different categories I brought up and I'll call that the end of this article. :)

Fiscal conservatism concerns itself with how the government spends money. When the government spends $385,000 to study variations in duck penis length, that is a fiscally liberal policy.

Economic conservatism concerns itself with how best to maintain a healthy economy and how the government should be involved in it. Conservatives would be mostly libertarian on this issue, wanting government to be as little involved in manipulating the economy as possible. The only valid reasons for government intervention are to ensure that everybody plays by the same rules. You know, no fake currency, no false advertising, no price gouging -- and this is one that needs to be tread carefully around, since determining what's too high is very subjective -- and a few other minimal involvements. Economic conservatives may or may not believe that a gold standard is best, for example. Seeing as that changed 150 years ago, an argument could be made for either position being conservative, under the definition I've supplied.

Military conservatism concerns itself with the size of our military and how it is used. Opposing women in active combat roles would be a conservative position. Being opposed to the president waging de facto war without consent of congress would be a conservative position -- that would also happen to overlap with constitutional conservatism.

Foreign policy conservatism isn't strictly to do with the military, but concerns itself with America's interaction with other countries. Wanting to support Israel would be a conservative position. Disagreeing with Obama's plan to send billions of dollars to the terrorist organization currently in charge of Egypt, which has called for Israel's destruction, would also be a conservative foreign policy position. An argument for limiting the number of bases we have around the world would fall either under military or foreign policy conservatism, and it could be argued either way. The only positions which are not conservative are extreme isolationism and having America play "world police." America has a stake in world affairs but it has no duty to micromanage other nations when it is having trouble at home. The question comes to where you draw the line on how much 'intervention' is too much.

Constitutional conservatism is simple: conserve the Constitution. And in terms of how to interpret the Constitution, the method of Textual Originalism is the way to go. The Constitution does not get reinterpreted or disregarded according to the changing times.

Social Conservatism is well known. It concerns the "hot-button" topics like abortion, gay 'marriage,' civil rights, affirmative action, entitlements, feminism, etc. 

Cultural conservatism rarely affects national policy these days. I'm just including it to make a distinction between it and social conservatism. Social conservatism may have to do with whether you agree with the birth control mandate in the ACA, whereas Cultural conservatism may have to do with whether you buy your 12-year old daughter thongs and let your kids watch 8 hours of television every day. It's more of a personal application of your beliefs, and hence it doesn't really have much to do with national politics, because few if any people want to push their culturally conservative beliefs on others. One other way of seeing it is as if cultural conservatism is the graded area between theological and social conservatism.

Theological conservatism -- you believe the Bible is God's inerrant word, and you go from there. You naturally result in believing that salvation can't be earned by doing good works but is a free gift made possible by Jesus Christ taking your place and bearing the punishment you deserve for your wickedness. This is the essence of Christianity; you consequently view anything that denies this as unchristian, and rightly so. All of your beliefs are ultimately able to be supported by verses of Scripture.

Legal conservatism is slightly different from constitutional conservatism. While the latter has to do with honoring the Constitution, the former has to do with being very limited in the amount of laws passed, and ensuring that the laws that do get passed honor the Constitution and do not increase corruption or open the door for government tyranny. 

Government conservatism has to do with the size of government. Should there be millions of people across the country holding administrative jobs that are paid for by tax dollars? Conservatives will always lean towards less government but unlike their radical libertarian counterparts, they do at least see a purpose for government, and want to strike a balance so that the government that does exist does its job and doesn't simply waste money and increase corruption.

The last two are somewhat unique because they play a big part in government but it isn't obvious that these would be inherent categories. As it turns out, they are.

Environmental conservatism differs from unrestricted capitalism in that it does believe man has a duty to responsibly maintain the environment, but it differs from radical environmentalism in that it does not see animals as equal to people, or as nature being something to worship. Instead, it sees man as a God-ordained steward of creation, with responsibility for the earth, but as having more value than the earth, and human lives as worth sacrificing a section of forest for. Sustainability is definitely conservative, but be careful what this means. Sometimes 'sustainability' is code for "zero sum game," and that's not a conservative position.

Educational conservatism is my grab-bag. It does have to do with how we see schools but even broader than that, it has to do with the question of developing people from a young age until they are mature, and even in educating older people. Primarily, the raising of children is the job of parents, uplifting the poor is the duty of the Church, and the government has no right nor responsibility to require people to submit to a legal training academy of any sort. The fact that such a state of affairs currently exists raises additional questions of how best to replace the obviously-flawed system with a better one without causing chaos in the interim.

Maybe you agree, maybe you disagree, with all the things I've said here. But maybe it makes sense. I hope so. The reason why there are intraparty debates and struggles over which direction to go is because the words 'conservative' and 'liberal' are too simplistic to describe the reality of the varying beliefs of the individuals that make up America. We are not a monolith. We have always been stronger when we recognized that we had differences, and were able to work together because of them. In contrast to denying that we have differences, and struggling to treat everyone exactly the same in spite of them.

For an interesting essay about the divide within the Republican Party, see here: 
A Tale of Two Republican Parties

~ Rak Chazak