Or is it getting to be more mainstream within the christian fundamentalist community?
I always considered Christian Reconstructionism
to be pretty much an extremely small splinter group of really, really out there people. Now I’m disturbed to find that it seems to be gaining a foothold (toehold?) in my very own home area, and is being embraced (locally at least) by some Orthodox Presbyterians and other hard-line Calvinists. They are vocally championing the cause of making biblical law into civil and criminal law in this nation. Including making adultery and blasphemy capital crimes.
Reviews of the movement on what appear to be reputable sites on the web seem to confirm that this movement is growing, but noone seems to be able to come up with numbers.
I’d like to hear more information, opinions, etc. about this movement. Is it really becoming more mainstream among the biblical literalists out there? How much so? Are they being repudiated by fundamentalists as well? How much influence do they have? And, since this is GD, how much influence should they have, given that they wish to get rid of the Constitution and replace it with a theocracy? Does the growing influence of the Religious Right mean increased influence for the Reconstructionists? Does a literalist interpretation of the bible require working to achieve a Theocracy?
Sorry that this post seems a fusion of GQ questions and a GD discussion on the topic. But I want to know more about this movement, and I am wondering what to do about them!
As far as I know, they’re still way fringe. I mean, a lot of fundamentalists and evangelicals involved in right-wing politics (“the Religious Right”) do want to see American society and government become less secular and more religious, and they want to see their values reflected in society. However, they don’t want America to become a religious state, and they generally like the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
I mean, even Ralph Reed, who, as you know, was one of the founders and the chairman of the Christian Coalition, said of it:
I consider them to be the threat on the horizon that will destroy this free country if not combatted. Anything more I could say at this time would draw a charge of tinhattery – I’m aware of that, and don’t care. They’re Bad News.
They sound fucking evil, alrighty. I can understand Reed’s position: as a political pro, he knows all about distancing his people from extremists even when your goals are very like theirs. I wonder if Falwell and Robertson and their ilk have as much sense.
If this year has taught me anything, it’s that the American people will swallow any philosophy that appeals to their prejudices, no matter how vile it is in practice.
Well, yeah. Not good opinions, either. The Reconstructionists are certainly scary people; from R.J. Rushdoony (the late founding father of the Reconstructionist movement):
So, not good. Rushdoony at one point even implies that all non-Calvinist Christians are idolaters. (“The god of the Arminians is the god of their imagination, not the God of Scripture. The fact that many of them are ‘good, moral people’ no more alters the fact of their idolatry than does Jeroboam’s obvious ability and character negate his sin.” – “The Idolatry of Testing God,” Law and Society, p. 460.) At this point, between putting all the non-Reconstructionist (or non-“theonomic”) Calvinists, and all the non-Calvinists of whatever stripe (practically everybody else) up against the wall, plus of course all the non-Christians, we’re talking about some pretty serious reduction in the population here.
(One rather disorienting feature of studying the Reconstructionist movement at any length is that it makes practically everyone else seem moderate by comparison. “Well, Pat Robertson is a dickhead, but at least he’s not calling for putting 95% of the population to death for idolatry”. And almost anyone who actually gets elected to high political office in this country seems like a pussycat compared to the likes of R.J. Rushdoony or Gary North.)
Their one saving grace (so to speak) is that the Recons are a little too honest about what they believe. When you go around saying things like “So let us be blunt about it: we must use the doctrine of religious liberty to gain independence for Christian schools until we train up a generation of people who know that there is no religious neutrality, no neutral law, no neutral education, and no neutral civil government. Then they will get busy in constructing a Bible-based social, political, and religious order which finally denies the religious liberty of the enemies of God” (Gary North), it tends to put one’s enemies on guard. I would say that the Reconstructionists are extreme enough, and there are enough ties of influence between them and the mainstream Religious Right, that they bear keeping an eye on. At this point, though, they do seem to be sufficiently far removed from the mainstream of American thought that I don’t think they pose anything like an immediate threat. Too many Americans may be ready to sneer at the “separation of church and state”, but “freedom of religion” is pretty much of a bedrock American value, and I think the great majority of Americans, whether Democrats or Republicans, liberals or conservatives, atheists or believers, have a deep-seated conviction that people ought to be free to peacefully and openly follow the religion or philosophy that their conscience dictates, so long as they don’t infringe on the rights of other people in doing so. Putting people to death–or even putting them in jail, or fining them $25–for worshipping “false” gods is a deeply un-American idea. I also don’t think (despite their avowedly optimistic postmillenial beliefs) that time is on the side of the Reconstructionists. Whatever the results of the last election may be, demographically this country is increasingly post-Protestant and even post-Christian.
If this year has taught me anything, it’s that muslims will swallow any philosophy that appeals to their prejudices, no matter how vile it is in practice.
Scary indeed, however, considering that the vast majority of Christians in the US are Catholic (correct me if I’m wrong!). They’d be up against the Roman Catholic church, the Episcopalians, the Presbyterians, Anglicans, etc. Quite a large group, who wouldn’t sit still for this sort of thing.
I don’t think Reed’s goals are very much like the Reconstructionists, though. He wants to see prayer brought back to schools, abortion restricted or outlawed, and marriage restricted to opposite sex couples. They want to abolish the Constitution, and put to death all non-Christians, as well as all those Christians who don’t agree with them.
Any comparison between the two of them and their goals is like saying that a lit match is like the sun, because they’re both hot and bright.
If this year on the SDMB has thaught me anything, it is that there are a few members who will attack Muslims on any given occasion or any given non-occasion. Because that appeals so much to their prejudice that they even don’t know how vile it is when they put the philosophy they swallowed in practice.
Maybe it would do you personally some good to actually go take a look there.
Salaam. A
Yes, but don’t you think there are still a vast amount of people who have no message at anything “religious” at all?
I think for such groups to ever gain enough influence to be considered a threat, there needs to be a revolution.
Because even if it is true the US is in fact not as secular as it likes to picture itself, there is still a wide gap between that and what this group stands for. I don’t quite see how that gap can ever be closed.
Well, that is not quite how it looks like from the outside.
Hey Alde, given how unimpressed I am with how Iran has treated Canadians, and my anti- Iranian government stance, would it be safe for me to go there?
Btw, your last post suggests to me you’ve got a better handle on this “new threat” to the American way of life than some of the American citizens . I’ll have to re-evaluate my impression of you as a knee jerk Islamist apologist.
My previous post in this thread should not be regarded as anti Islamic. Rather I’m commenting on the selective negative reaction towards one group of people and one religion by people who are on the record for condemning other people and religions for exactly the same offense.
And for the record, I do not exempt myself from this indiscretion. I’m commenting on our human condition.
Yeah, those Christian Reconstructionists are a tiny splinter group of Christians, kinda like Straussian neo-conservatives are a tiny splinter group of conservatives. Doesn’t mean they can’t be extremely dangerous.
Granted, Reed doesn’t want to kill a lot of non Christians and Christians who don’t believe as he does. But I don’t think he’d be all that put out if a lot of us wound up in jail.
What evidence do you have to support that, though? Has Reed ever called for criminalizing heresy? Or are you just willing to believe that of him because you disagree with his stances on the issues?
I honestly don’t think that is a natural human condition. That kind of religious intolerance is taught along the way to some people and tolerance is taught to others. We can release our need to control others – even when they are trying to control us or continue to misunderstand us.
Uhmm, Guinastasia, Episcopalians are Anglicans. It’s just that the term “Anglican” became unpopular around the time of the Revolutionary War, for much the same reason coffee suddenly became a lot more popular than tea. At least that’s what I was told.
As for Christian Reconstructionists, I’m going to turn in early tonight, so I’d prefer not to discuss them. I’m feeling lousy enough without facing the nightmares I’ll get if I think about them too much.
Thanks for the further info all, especially you, MEB! I guess I’m a bit anxious about this group as it seems to have made some inroads locally. Nothing real splashy, just talk I’ve heard from relatives in the area. We’ve a strong Calvinist base here, and the Ortho Presby’s are a powerful influence here, exceeded only by the Christian Reformed (also Calvinist).
But what little I’ve heard has indicated it’s a stealth sort of movement, and not much talked about. However, there’s always been a vocal minority in the area which has freely expressed the opinion that it ought to be illegal to hold certain religious beliefs or act in ways that violate their view of the bible. Of course, they tend to say that after a few drinks, and I think that drinking is one thing the Reconstructionists frown on.
Has their “blatant honesty” about their goals been replaced by a stealth approach? Will I be one of the first up against the wall when their revolution comes in my area? Or do I need to get over it and put away my tinfoil hat?