This is to comment on “What is Identity Politics?” or “Why Conservatives Struggle with Identity Politics,” by Joshua Mitchell, National Affairs, No. 40, Summer 2019, Page 117.
Introduction
While I am grateful to Joshua Mitchell for a plausible explanation of identity politics, I think his views are so narrow as to represent an ancient, egregious, pervasive, identity politics: Abrahamic religions as civic moralities. He cites the “Adam’s sin” story but overlooks that it epically represented ancient identity politics that accelerated over perhaps the recent 4,000 years of 10,000 years’ cultural evolution. Just as Marxism seems economic more than religious, the ancient identity politics seems economically motivated. Constantine partnered with the Church to canonize the Bible (with NT by 405 AD) so as to convert pagan identities to Christian identities in order to control the people under Chapter XI Machiavellianism (The Prince, 1513)[i].
Moreover, to claim Adam’s sin for Western tradition ignores the Arab world that produced the early Abrahamic traditions---Jews, Christians, Muslims, and eight others. Christians and Muslims comprise 55.3% of the world’s population and Jews 0.2%. [ii] In other words, 44.5% of the world’s population is excluded from Mitchell’s religious concerns yet are included in the consequential political and economic drain.
By writing to impose his Christianity on the world economy, Mitchell unintentionally makes our case. We propose reform from competition to preserve dominant traditions to an education system that encourages human integrity; in other words a system that approves and encourages fidelity to the-objective-truth. Thereby, when a person does not know, he or she may freely develop responsible hopes against the unknowns. Thereby, civic cultures may develop individual benefits for living people.
Specifically in the USA, we propose to encourage fellow citizens to establish the preamble to the U.S. Constitution (the U.S. preamble) under the-objective-truth. That is, under the ineluctable evidence on which truth is measured.
Lastly, "mercy" invokes an act of forgiveness for an infidelity that caused harm. The party that perceives harm forgives the party that caused the harm, whether the harmful party admits to guilt or not. Therefore, a plea for mercy is an admission of responsibility for harm. This reader is waiting to learn what Mitchell expresses in his plea for mercy to Protestants.
Sophistic gems in Mitchell’s article
I am impressed with some of the expressions Mitchell shared, more as an opportunity to express my opinion than to appreciate his.
First, Mitchell writes for everyone from proprietary Protestantism. In diverse ways, the Abrahamic religions compete for the image “God’s chosen people.” Mitchell seems to assume that eventually, the worthy people will all understand and accept his Protestantism. He does not seem to realize that the 800 thousand Universal Unitarians in the world have a different political identity as do people who see no need for religious beliefs. I don’t intend to fill in the gaps but to address Mitchell’s points.
On Page 117, Mitchell starts with humankind’s cultural evolution into nations. He clarifies not that the establishments were based on relationships, mostly injurious standards passed on as inheritances. The inheritance of injurious standards can be ended by collaboration, communication, and connection to discover and benefit from the-objective-truth.[iii]
“To be American today is to have an American identity” perhaps begins Mitchell’s Protestant complaint. An American trusts-in and commits-to the preamble to the U.S. Constitution’s proposition. It proposes five public institutions---Union, Justice, Tranquility, defense, and Welfare---in order to secure responsible human liberty to living citizens. Protestantism is not cited in the preamble.
There are only a few Americans who are aware of the preamble’s proposition and none would express it as I do. But the few are strong enough to keep America’s promise to the world alive.
On Page 118, Mitchell, not accepting the U.S. preamble’s exclusion of religion, introduces Christianity into the political-enmity relationships that divided the nations of people into “innocents” and “transgressors.” Adam’s sin story is chronologically Jewish tradition then Muslim competition then Christian imposition. Nevertheless, Mitchell writes, “Pressing Christian imagery further while at the same time distorting it considerably, the transgressor, like Christ, also stands in for those who are purportedly innocent and covers over their stains, so no judgment against their identity may be rendered.” Why doesn’t Mitchell write that Jesus was without sin but was crucified for transgressor’s sins? Why doesn’t Mitchell write that Jesus was God? Does he write for civic clarification or for private satisfaction? It seems psychologically healthy for the believer to consider the mystery of whatever-God-is rather than express the hubris to prefer a human opinion to "know" God. How does whatever-God-is react to the believer's god?
Is Mitchell’s personal frustration exposed when he complains that “white heterosexual men” are “the prime transgressors”? He could admit that political identity with the subjugation of women is a prime mover in the current reform. Then he might begin to get the clue that political imposition of Christianity is offensive. The believer may advantageously, beneficially admit that “the Christian thing to do” is often un-civic identity politics.
On Page 118, Mitchell dates the current dilemma as originating in the 1950s with attention to “progressivism” and “Marxism”; cites the dubious “founding fathers”; and lists authorities on economics, tradition, physics, revelation, and equality. Three of those five topics seem erroneous. Tradition does not aid the living citizen beyond journaling errors to be avoided; revelation is internal to the believer or circular; and equality is not a human condition for either the unique ovum or its embryo. I sometimes read Smith, Hayek, Burke, Aquinas, about Calvin, Lincoln, Einstein, and George Will to avoid mistakes. Only physics, as the object of study plus its offspring such as economics, are of interest to living people in beneficial politics or accountable government. Imaginative human constructs do overrule ineluctable evidence.
On Page 120-21, Mitchell cites the 1991 end of the USSR as the pivot for GOP “agreement to disagree” to surface as failure. He recommends GOP focus on economic viability and adds preservation of “tradition.” He cites economic viability while introducing “mysterious calculus of mercy.” “Conservatives who defend free markets understand only monetary price and relentless competition. Their defense of a middle-class commercial republic, of competent citizens building a world together, therefore falls short of the necessary measure of mercy.” Discovery of better provisions rather than “relentless competition” is fiscally conservative. “Mercy” applies to offenders. People who cannot help themselves need support. However, charity is sometimes necessary to help someone survive rather than to forgive them for offense. From a civic viewpoint, there is no offense in objecting to the public imposition of Protestantism---someone else’s tradition. Protestantism fails as the civic, civil, and legal norm or standard.
On page 122, Mitchell attacks my political identity when he narrows his Protestantism according to “the heartless father . . . and the compassionate wife and mother.” Mitchell’s syntax---no husband and father to balance wife and mother---discloses no appreciation for monogamous marriage for each other's lifetime. It seems Mitchell thinks a woman is valued only for childbearing. I regrettably recall the subjugation of women.
My political identity is not my inheritance: it is the commitments I learned by being a husband and father of three unique humans who originated as my wife’s viable ova. The mature, adolescent male knows that each fertile woman has the potential to produce about 400 viable ova during her fertile years. The authentic man has what I call heterophobia: Awesome appreciation of the obligations of monogamy for life and the potential to become a grandfather. In no way would an authentic man threaten his own happiness by being sexually intimate with a woman he does not appreciate for her confident serenity or other excellent character. Mitchell’s praise of “the heartless father” who makes certain the bills are paid may unintentionally inspire single-parenthood, which is on the rise globally, above 1/3 in American families, and over 2/3 in black American families. Not by heartlessness but by fidelity to the-objective-truth a father decides whether he is worthy or not. Failure to consider the-objective-truth rather than to justify opinion portends repetition of observable misery no one would choose.
Mitchell calls this male dominance “patriarchal” justice, setting up the equivocation of church-charity as mercy. “[The] distorted effort to eliminate the world of payment altogether, which produces a soul that demands everything” morphs from spiritual mystery to civil obligation. On page 123 “[When] the state . . . disburses welfare payments . . . the parishioner and citizen [is] inspired to substitute mercy for justice.” When did the Church have the charity to stop building wealth and using money for power? And charity is like slavery: few want to receive charity.
Fiscal conservatives understand that, through justice as responsible human liberty, “citizens can build a world together” without harmful practices that beg mercy. Mitchell’s harmful practice is the attempt to justify making his Protestant faith a public issue. Let me say this another way. Protestantism as a personal pursuit is not harmful: the attempt to impose Protestantism on a civic people begs ruin.
On page 124, I am reminded that I overlooked many of Mitchell’s patent falsehoods. “Cultural conservatives within the Republican Party . . . defend tradition because civilization is impossible to sustain without it: no inheritance, no civilization.” Tradition is valuable as a journal of past mistakes that living citizens can avoid and otherwise is of no use, for example, consider the present confrontation with “Adam’s sin” as an erroneous story about justice in ancient speculation about whatever-God-is.
Undaunted by a mind that must be screaming for relief, Mitchel, on page 126, erroneously indicts my identity politics with four claims about me: 1) I may appropriate Christ’s innocence, 2) many white, heterosexual men promote the subjugation of women, 3) political justice trumps religious tradition, and 4) Christ’s innocence was political. I do not claim the first opinion, affirm the second and third, and think “maybe so, but so what?” about the fourth.
Mitchell imposes his beliefs as civic issues. “The early Protestants began from an understanding of the brokenness of man and his world. They labored in competence, and sought the grace of God until He returned and "saved the world." Mitchell may admit to himself that he expresses his identity politics in a world that admits at last that nobody knows whatever-God-may-be. Mitchell’s identity politics would “purge all” except “white, heterosexual men.”
On page 127, Mitchell impresses me that he does not care to collaborate, communicate, and connect for mutual, comprehensive safety and security. He introduces his Armageddon. He states, “The comprehensive project that remains, now that the long history of transgression is nearing an end, involves recovering the silenced traditions of the innocents.” Mitchell does not list the innocents’ traditions. I value the U.S. preamble’s proposition for responsible human liberty under the-objective-truth. I think a few Americans have always had these values but never articulate them.
On page 128, Mitchell expresses his most egregious absolute: “Nothing in the world can bring about the redemption of the world.” After 13.7 billion years' evolution of physics, 4.6 billion years evolution of earth, 60 million years evolution of placental mammals, 3 million years evolution of humanoids, 150 thousand years evolution of grammar, and about 10,000 years’ evolution of culture, it seems evident that whatever-God-may-be depends upon humankind to develop peace in this world. And I think development of responsible human liberty using the-objective-truth, whether the U.S. preamble’s proposition is used or not, can develop the five institutions needed to secure liberty to living citizens. The world has no original sin and is developing integrity, so there is no need for either redemption or mercy.
I did not yet comment on Mitchell's curiosity about "identity politics" usage. Google says "a tendency for people of a particular religion, race, social background, etc., to form exclusive political alliances, moving away from traditional broad-based party politics." Wikipedia's says "a political approach and analysis based on people prioritizing the concerns most relevant to their particular racial, religious, ethnic, sexual, social, cultural or other identity, and forming exclusive political alliances with others of this group, instead of engaging in more traditional, broad-based party politics. Those who prioritize their particular type of identity politics may promote their group's interests without regard for the interests of larger, more diverse political groups that are based in shared theory. In academic usage, the term identity politics has been used to refer to a wide range of political activities and theoretical analysis rooted in experiences of injustice shared by different social groups. In this usage, identity politics typically aims to reclaim greater self-determination and political freedom for marginalized groups through understanding each interest group's distinctive nature and challenging externally imposed characterizations, instead of organizing solely around belief systems or party affiliations. Identity is used ‘as a tool to frame political claims, promote political ideologies, or stimulate and orientate social and political action, usually in a larger context of inequality or injustice and with the aim of asserting group distinctiveness and belonging and gaining power and recognition.’" Merriam-Webster lists various usages. Some of the explanations remind me of assertions by either Alinsky-Marxist organizations (AMO), Marxism, or liberation theology. Mitchell did not seem to care.
That completes my page by page review of my opinions about some of Mitchell’s opinions. I now turn to a thematic response to the article.
Themes in Mitchell’s article
Perhaps Mitchell’s thesis is that his heritage that is, his Protestantism, has given the world so much good that it deserves mercy without reform from the bad---just keep the tradition alive. He claims, “[The] project of [identity politics is] substituting mercy for justice.” He cites Adam’s sin and attributes it to Christian tradition rather than Jewish lore. Adam seems a personification in a controversially Jewish creation story that was appropriated by Muslims (before they were called Muslims), early Christians, and others.
After all the "scholarship" about epic stories, each of the 3 major Abrahamic religions is divided by its own identity politics. For example, the Church of England seems like one of the reformed Catholicisms more than a Protestantism. There are thousands of Protestantisms.
From Adam to the kingdom stories leading to Abraham, the mystery of whatever-God-is (perhaps either an almighty intelligence that leaves ultimate survival to humankind, or statistical chaos, or military strength) manages what Mitchell refers to as “inheritances” and eventually makes covenants with Abraham.[iv] A key covenant is with Abraham and his son, either Isaac or Ishmael or both.[v]
Jews, Muslims, and Christians each interpret the covenants in ways to claim their favor from whatever-God-is. None of them publicly appreciate that whatever-God-is seems not to respond to reason, revelation, history, or other erroneous human construct. Military strength seems key to establishing dominant opinion. For example, Native Americans think whatever-God-is has red skin if any. That is, Native Americans argue skin color in opposition to oppression by "white skins" under the 15th century, Catholic doctrine of discovery that was accelerated by competing Protestant kings.
Perhaps for Mitchell’s article, the Abrahamic descendants practiced the original identity politics. But instead of recognizing the competitive transgressors, Mitchell attributes Adam’s sin to one factional group: Christians. Mitchell wants Christians to receive mercy. Mercy from whom and to which Christian faction? Which covenant theology does Mitchell maintain? Has he considered the covenant with African-American Christianity?[vi] Some proponents deny identity politics, even as they demand agreement that “all men are created” more than conceived.[vii]
Does mercy contribute to peace?
Stepping away from Mitchell’s writing, it seems plausible that in the evolutions of cultures, a common goal is mutual, comprehensive safety and security, hereafter Security. Certainly that could be the individual’s hope, and in particular communities—for example, those with civic citizens--it seems the collective hope. If so, economic feasibility is essential. Anyone who is collaborating for economic feasibility with Security is forgiven, or in Mitchell’s terms an innocent. Dissidents to Security, a parallel to Mitchell’s “transgressors,” need reform before appreciation and appreciation before respect. Reform is the transgressor’s obligation, but confrontation for their harm is the responsibility of a civic people. Contribution to Security establishes reform.
Humankind has vast needs in goods and services. In freedom-from tyranny, an individual’s preferential needs are met by willing suppliers. Innovators anticipate the need and entrepreneurs arrange the supply. The individual may decide whether he or she will actually purchase a good or service depending upon whether someone is willing to supply it at a viable price or not. When few people want an item, the alert supplier stops producing it. Thus, people change employment as the market changes. In freedom-from tyranny, responsible human liberty manages the market. The individual stays informed about the market and either finds a replacement when a customary product is no longer available or changes personal practice. The worker qualifies for new employment when the old is obsolete. This free-market is driven by the-objective-truth or ineluctable evidence.
The human condition involves a hierarchy of responsibilities.[viii] The person who wants to eat without thanking a bureaucrat for unchosen food knows to earn a living. Likewise the person who wants freedom-from oppression so as to have the liberty-to pursue the happiness he or she prefers collaborates for Security rather than submits to the dictates of someone else. In other words, people collaborate on the-objective-truth rather than opinion.
Mercy means “compassionate treatment of those in distress.” When an individual collaborates for Security, requesting mercy seems disingenuous. In other words, mercy is due the individual who cannot contribute to Security rather than to the dissident. As stated above, the dissident needs to reform, contribute, and be appreciated in order to earn respect. Protestants who collaborate for civic integrity are appreciated.
Mitchell indicates his Christianity
Mitchell seems to recommend as collective Christianity scholarly ideas I consider erroneous: Smith’s proprietary economics, Hayek’s individualism without civic integrity, Burke’s assertion that religion trumps the-objective-truth, Aquinas’s assertion that integrity is determined by reason, Calvin’s interpretation that the Bible corrects the ineluctable evidence by which the-objective-truth is discovered, and Lincoln’s claim that the U.S. preamble’s proposition calls for “self-governance” rather than self-discipline. If that list of thinkers represents Mitchell’s “conservative movement,” I do not recommend it for a conservative-identity politician. What I promote is the U.S. preamble’s responsible human liberty under the-objective-truth. Most responsible humans want Security.
One difference between my opinions and those of Mitchell may be that I earned my opinions through my experiences and observations on developing a civic citizens’ life rather than religious devotion. By that I mean never stop developing fidelity to the-objective-truth no matter what agency attempts dissuasion. I trust that Mitchell perceives his opinions in the same way and would be glad to collaborate, communicate, and connect with him. I’d listen hoping that we may discover an achievable better future using the U.S. preamble’s proposition (or better from his civic ideas) under the-objective-truth. But it takes mutual work and time to discover a better future. In other words, Mitchell might be amenable to collaboration after a decade or two contemplating the-objective-truth about the universe rather than Christian opinion about other worlds. I make this suggestion from experience. My hope is that Mitchell will either get started on his reform or write to me to convince me I must accept his God in ways I did not encounter in my 5-decades work to accept Christianity when all the while I trusted-in and was committed to the-objective-truth. In other words, I was not among the elect and did not know it. I wasted a lot of life trying to convince my person to be the Christian and Protestant Mom and Dad hoped for.
It took a quarter century after marriage for me to overcome my certitude as an aspiring Southern Baptist so as to glimpse comprehension of my Louisiana-French Catholic wife’s faith in the mystery of her God. I had never considered the meaning of "the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God." Thank goodness I reformed in time to beg her apology and focus on her happiness during another quarter century. Now, we happily anticipate our third quarter-century as spouses and civic citizens---her with faith in her God (which seems unique to her) and me with faith-in the-objective-truth.
I hope reform, appreciation, and peace is in the near future for the identity groups that now compete for political dominance when they could collaborate, communicate, and connect for responsible human liberty.
Mitchell erroneously invokes slavery
Why address the identity politics of reparations for American slavery when there could be reparations for militant monotheism? Are Native Americans first in line for U.S. reparations? I don’t know the traditions of Africa, where the slave-commodity flourished, but should they fork over reparations funding? And what about the European nations that placed slaves here under the doctrine of discovery? And what about the non-African slaves placed here?
What about white abolitionists? It is arbitrary to generalize animus against “white heterosexual men” and ignore both the abolitionists, the free-state advocates of 1856’s Bleeding Kansas, and the citizens of today who collaborate for responsible human liberty rather than dominance based on skin-color.
On July 31, 2019, when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi addressed parliament in Ghana on the 400th anniversary of the first enslaved Africans arriving in the US (Jamestown, 1719), she did not cite the commodity sellers, the traders, and the British buyers.[ix] She said that a locale that once exported black slaves is “a leader in exporting security beyond its borders.” Really? How does the USA benefit?
By 1763, colonial-British citizens accepted that they were being enslaved as overseers of England’s African slaves for agricultural enterprise. The colonists rebelled and in 1774 called their portions of the land “states” even though Native Americans considered them tribal lands and England considered them their colonies. With France’s strategy and superior military power, the eastern-seaboard states won political independence from England in 1781. The U.S. for whom Pelosi expresses identity politics often citing the lame, “we, the people,” was established on June 21, 1788 under a proposition I doubt Pelosi comprehends: The civic, civil, and legal agreement that is offered each citizen in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. Its proposition is responsible human liberty. Again, Pelosi has no comprehension of responsible human liberty.
But I do not think Pelosi is too naïve to surmise that some African-American Christians think God is black, God’s chosen people are black, and the only way a white woman can save her soul is to help African-Americans win black supremacy. Pelosi reminds me of a Scots-Irish saying from my Farley grandmother: Worse things have happened to better people.
People ignore the
religious lessons of the American Civil War. The 1860 declaration of secession[x] seems subtle: “Sectional interest and animosity will deepen the irritation, and
all hope of remedy is rendered vain, by the fact that public opinion at the
North has invested a great political error with the sanction of more erroneous
religious belief.”
Robert E. Lee was not subtle:
“The painful discipline [the blacks] are undergoing, is . . .
ordered by a wise & merciful Providence. Although the abolitionist must
Know this; Still I fear he will persevere in his evil Course.”[xi]
Lee was erroneously influenced by Christian ministers to hate abolitionists.
Ministers influence people to both refute HIPEA and to ignore
the-objective-truth. Ministers seem the original authors of identity politics.
Mitchell invokes the mystery of “the founding fathers”
Who are the founding fathers to whom Mitchell attributes “constitutional constraints placed on the federal government?” Does Mitchell even care to distinguish those of some 250 in the list to whom he refers? The U.S. preamble’s proposition claims that the nation's purpose is to secure liberty us and to Posterity. The 39 of 55 delegates who signed the U.S. Constitution on September 17, 1787 made it possible for the people’s representatives of 9 of 13 eastern-seaboard states to establish the U.S. Constitution, negating the opinions of perhaps some Mitchell-founders; we don't know who they are.
In 2019, fellow citizens who accept the U.S. preamble’s proposition have the prerogative to maintain the USA. Those who want Marxism, communism, socialism, or any other form of government may vote for representatives who will support their cause. Whereas “political correctness” is an erroneous, evaluation-based phrase, it spawned “identity politics” which prompts citizens to consider their political positions. I advocate the-objective-truth as the standard for human justice and urge Mitchell to consider the ineluctable evidence that is available to everyone.
So far, it seems the majority want to collaborate for freedom-from oppression by providing five public institutions---Union, Justice, Tranquility, defense, and Welfare---so as to secure responsible human liberty to living citizens. However, no one is leading the way to widespread application. I appeal to my U.S. Senators to recommend to the Senate the unison reading of the preamble to start each day. And I appeal to my metro-council woman and my mayor-president to make June 21, 2020 Responsible Human Liberty Day in Baton Rouge, LA, USA.
The lesson of the Civil War is that only superior military power can overthrow the responsible human liberty that was established in the USA on June 21, 1788. In 1861, Abraham Lincoln drew attention to military might, stating “If the Almighty Ruler of Nations, with His eternal truth and justice, be on your side of the North, or on yours of the South, that truth and that justice will surely prevail by the judgment of this great tribunal of the American people.”[xii] Unfortunately anyone who considered themselves of We the People of the United States as defined by U.S. preamble begged ruin by not taking civic action to prevent their state politicians from seceding from the USA.
Young as it is, the U.S. preamble’s civic, civil, and legal power has not yet been accepted by the U.S. Supreme Court. However, its power seems evident in the deliberate and slow actions of the majority. Americans demand responsible human liberty and therefore enforce responsibility, as a civic people did in the Civil War.
Denigrating both men and Christianity
Mitchell claims the Calvinist “heartless father” and “compassionate wife and mother” as well as church attendance have declined in the last half century and blames the welfare state for the effect. He quotes Bible verses containing “the poor will always be with us" while ignoring 94 verses about wives submitting to husbands. He brushes aside the subjugation of women. In his view, welfare payments replaced “charity and mercy” as “justice by heart.”
In my view, men, falsely persuaded they are “boss of the home” under church teaching, often choose to abuse both wife and children. Ministers advocating the heartless father is no better than ministers persuading Robert E. Lee to regard abolitionists of Bleeding Kansas as expendable. Many women, expecting their spouse to discipline children by example are appalled by their husband’s behavior after the wedding ceremony.
Armed with awareness, many women avoid arbitrary subjugation and perhaps erroneously become mothers even though they do not want to parent with any of the men they know or expect to meet. Unfortunately, many single mothers rely on the church as surrogate for father for their children. Powered by the Internet, mothers may now discover the hatred expressed in the Bible[xiii] and turn to the-objective-truth as the standard for justice.
Mitchell speculates that Jesus’s power is limited
Many people write about the mystery of whatever-God-is. Some people equate God to Jesus. That seems the Catholic mystery: Jesus and God are the same. Mitchell describes the innocents group as equivalents to Jesus. I think Jesus offers believers comfort and hope against the unknowns and would not deny them their choice, especially if they publicly behave for Security.
Suggestion for relief from identity politics
Identity politicians, including Christians, who want the public to evaluate whatever-God-is are at a proven disadvantage: Responsible Americans collectively pursue individual happiness with civic integrity regardless of religious beliefs whether internal or external. Perhaps “identity politics” will draw attention to civic integrity whereas “political correctness” could not do so.
Social democracy advocates may join the collaboration for mutual, comprehensive safety and security.
I appreciate readers as well as writers like Mitchell and hope to learn improvements on the U.S. preamble’s proposition under the-objective-truth as tools for an achievable better future in the USA and perhaps beyond.
Copyright©2019 by Phillip R. Beaver. All rights reserved. Permission is hereby granted for the publication of all or portions of this paper as long as this complete copyright notice is included. Revised 9/3/2019 regarding mercy and forgiveness and 9/10/19 to update and add "identity politics" usage.
[i]
Online at https://www.constitution.org/mac/prince11.htm.
[iii]
The-objective-truth is the ineluctable evidence by which truth, reason,
revelation, justice, and other human constructs are judged.
[iv]
Online at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covenant_theology
.
[v]
Online at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binding_of_Isaac
.
[viii]
Consider https://www.simplypsychology.org/maslow.html
as responsibilities to self rather than needs.
[ix]
Online at https://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/73119/
.
[xi]
Online at https://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/Letter_from_Robert_E_Lee_to_Mary_Randolph_Custis_Lee_December_27_1856
.
[xiii]
John 15:18-23 seems especially egregious, and it is not included in online
lists of Bible verses that contain the word “hate.” The online source at https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/Hating-God
does list John 15:23, but that does not have the election expressed in the complete
passage.
No comments:
Post a Comment
I want your opinion and intend to respond.