I keep misreading the OP as: > Christian Reconstructionism: An extreme spinchter group
Now that I know more about them, I realize I’m not that far off the mark.
True. Tom~, you are right, of course, in that a large number of Americans CALL themselves “religious” but are really indifferent, and are the sort of person that steps into a church on christenings, weddings, and funerals, and for whom Christmas is just the Winter Feast of Giftgiving. BUT, Alde and Lilairen do have a point, that the society projects a heavier emphasis on piety than do other western societies (the fact that people even CARE about the religiosity of a candidate is perceived as proof of that). That the religious expressions of the general population ARE more often cultural/traditional rather than devotional? Well, you know that, and I know that, but an external observer hears GW asking for God’s blessing every other paragraph and may wonder what’s up with that.
WE ARE NOT AS BAD AS THEY ARE
so this will be a short post, instead of the dissertation I want to write L
I am a Christian reconstructionist.
I am NOT a Christian Reconstructionist.
There is no Christian Reconstructionist movement, but there are plenty of CR movements. The reason for this is that they splinter among themselves over which Biblical Laws are to be enforced and how. And they are as vulnerable to personal spats as anyone. The late RJ Rushdoony & Gary North’s split is ample testimony to that. James B. Jordan also has plenty to add. They are also relatively powerless politically as they believe that Christians should reconstruct their own personal lives & families & churches according to Biblical Law before God will give them the reigns of political power. I’m still waiting to see these flourishing CR churches. G
I do find CR useful in provoking thought & discussion as to how Biblical Law does apply in this age (and yes, I believe it does). It states the most radical case which provokes a lot of furor & some actual clarity in response. I also found it very useful in making a great case for First Century AD fulfillments of End-Times Prophecy (the Sanhedrin & Roman persecutions of Christians & the 70 AD Roman Destruction of Jerusalem as being the Great Tribulation/Wrath of God.) And I find CR very disturbing when some of its proponents get sounding bloodthirsty. However, let it be known that many CR folk also have anti-statist libertarian, almost anarcho-capitalist tendencies. Gary North is a frequent contributor to that Anti-War, Anti-State, Pro-Liberty site of Lew Rockwell.
You forget: removed by “activist judges” and “out of control executive branch AGs.” As far as his popular appeal in his home state, it was through the roof. He was even considering running for President, and was ultimately dissauded only after one of those special closed door meetings that Bush’s people have with religious leaders after which they usually shut their traps and stop harming the ticket. If he had run against Bush, we’d almost certainly be inaugerating a President Kerry.
So I don’t think it’s quite fair to pretend that Moore is some sort of fringe figure with no power. He appeals to a very sizeable group of people, and arguably held the future of the country in his hands in the last election.
The Reconstructionists only scare me insofar as there are enough of these people to have an open and colorful fringe. There are plenty of far more troublesome and far far more powerful people in the so-called Christian Nation movement which want to do plenty of things that, while not quite so extreme, would seriously undermine both the freedom of religion and freedom from state-promoted religion. People with this ideology have been making noise and pushes for years, and these views are supported by lots and lots of “me too’s” from right-wing pundits like O’Reily and drudge. They are getting pretty close to becoming mainstream.
And that’s not good.
Can you be more specific about what you think about this?
Do you mean to say that you see persecution of Christians in the USA or where do you (or they) refer to with this?
Salaam. A
I was watching ‘Meet the press’ on TV this evening, and there was a discussion between 4 clergymen [2 from each side] about the role of religion in American politics. One of them said [can’t remember the exact words] to one of the others - ‘Did you vote for Kerry? How can you call yourself an ordained minister and vote for Kerry?’ It got even worse when one [I think Sharpton] said that moral values should encompass more about real problems like war and poverty, and less about abortion and sexuality. I’ve read the extreme right wing view before, but somehow listening to Falwell and his friend [can’t remember name] talking about these things gave me very little hope for a really secular USA, where the beliefs of all would be respected, if those two really represent the Christian right.
I seem to be of fairly like mind with FriarTed on this issue. I was first introduced to Gary North via lewrockwell.com, and while I disagree with him on a whole host of issues (not least of which is his hyper-Calvinism), there’s also much that he says that I do agree with. I do strongly believe that there is a place for a government that promotes the good and forbids the evil, and don’t consider so-called “religious neutrality” in government (in actuality, I believe there is no such thing) to be automatically a good thing. In any case, the CR writers are good for something to think about; I may strongly disagree with some of their writings, but at least they’re always interesting.
What the legislative branch will do is conditioned predominantly on what will gratify the constituents of the majority. There is a fairly large group of “conservative Republicans” who will be quite pleased to vote for programs that will suit their religious-conservative constituencies – including, in the last Congress, a bill that would have removed authority for Federal courts to review any recognition of (the Judaeo-Christian) God under the Establishment Clause. The defeat of that bill was fairly narrow; it’s not difficult to see it passing.
Beyond that, John, I might point out that, just as Bill Clinton was not impeached for getting a blowjob in the Oval Office, but for lying about it under oath – or so we’re told by a lot of people who seem to share your general political views – Roy Moore was not removed from office for refusing to remove the Ten Commandments, per se, but for refusing to follow the orders of a superior court on a matter in which they had jurisdiction – and, be it noted, he was removed by his own court system, not by the Federal activist judges.
Being an agnostic myself, and witnessing an election where one candidate’s Catholicism is still considered remarkable, not only do I not feel like we live in a secular society, there appears still to be a strong Calvinist/Amyrauldianist undercurrent.
What was seen as remarkable about Kerry was not that he was a Catholic but that he was a pro-choice Catholic. This put him at odds with the Church hierarchy – but, as far as appealing to pro-life voters is concerned, a pro-choice Protestant candidate would have faced exactly the same obstacles.
No, I rather think some of what made his candicacy remarkable was that he was a Catholic, full stop. There has been only one Catholic President, after all, even though they make much more than 1/40th the population.
http://www.religionwriters.com/public/tips/021804/021804a.shtml#history
OTOH, consider that Kerry was the first major-party presidential nominee in American history with documented Jewish blood (his immigrant grandfather changed his name from Cohen to Kerry), and nobody made an issue of that. Nobody made an issue of it, either, when Leiberman, a practicing Jew (and he didn’t let us forget it, either!), ran for VP in 2000. (Not out loud, anyway.) That’s some progress. Couldn’t have happened 50 or even 40 years ago.
“Soviet power is a new type of state without a bureaucracy, without police, without a regular army” – Lenin
You do realize your cite undermines your entire argument right? It outlines the difficulties that pro-choice Catholic politicians have had in gaining the support of the Church.
Sorry, but nobody made an issue of Kerry being Catholic, only that he was a pro-choice Catholic. And the only people who made a big issue out of that were Catholics themselves - notably a few priests and bishops who said Kerry wouldn’t be allowed Communion or should be excommunicated.
I don’t think it does. Kerry’s beef with Catholics is that he was pro-choice, of course. What about the rest of America? As the article points out: “Kennedy defeated Nixon by just 100,000 votes, thanks to the support of 78 percent of his fellow Catholics, including many of the clergy and hierarchy. But some experts estimate that he lost at least 500,000 votes because of his affiliation with Roman Catholicism. After Kennedy, three Catholics were nominated for vice president in the next three election cycles: Republican William Miller in 1964, Democrat Edmund Muskie in 1968 and Democrat Sargent Shriver in 1972”. None of those folks won, nor did Ferraro or Cuomo. So think about it: Catholics make up about a quarter of the US population, yet they haven’t had an elected official in the executive branch in over forty years. That’s not remarkable? And all of the anti-Catholic bias that made Kennedy’s victory so slim as to be contested in several states (given probably spurious accusations that some of his winnings were ill-gotten, esp. in Illinois).
I think the historical significance of getting another Catholic in office is undeniable, and who hasn’t commented on that? True, it may be that recent Catholic candidates have suffered from Church opposition to their liberal stance on abortion, but is that the only thing sinking them?
Come now, Loopy. Anti-Catholic Protestants like Jack Chick are a distinct rarity nowadays. In politics, most conservative Protestants are eager to make allies of conservative Catholics – and conservative Jews. The religious divide in America today is not between Prots and Papists, it is between those who are deeply and traditionally religious and those who are not.
Well, perhaps you’re right, and I hate to let anecdote serve as my only other supporting piece of evidence; but I have encountered, through my in-laws’ extended relations some Lutherans (anabaptists, granted, rather than Calvinists of any flavor), esp. those who cleave to the MO Synod, who wold vote for an atheist over a Catholic as the lesser of two evils any day of the week and twice on Sunday, and will tell you so in private. (Let’s put it this way: I flat-out lied about myself to these people for the sake of my spouse’s nerves, being a lapsed Catholic and all). These folks may belong to the nutbar fringe that includes the Jack Chicks of this world, but I know for a fact they’re alive and well in the Midwest. Am I just unlucky to have encountered the last enclave of anti-Papists in MN? Maybe. Is the conspicuous absence of any Catholic Executives due only to their pro-choice liberal elitism? Maybe. I seem to remember a Baptist got in twice with the same credentials.
Actually, what am I saying? No way in Hell these folks are anabaptists; I’m mixing up my terms again, and I’ve forgotton what the one I wanted was. Anyway, they’re not Calvinists.
Well, technically, exactly 40 years ago the Republican nominee for President was half-Jewish. Which is more Jewish blood than Kerry had.
http://www.vwoa.org/Goldwater.htm
http://www.jewishaz.com/jewishnews/980605/goldwatr.shtml
http://dizzy.library.arizona.edu/images/swja/v13goldwaters.htm
Now, it is true that Goldwater’s father converted to Episcopaleanism, and Goldwater himself never considered himself Jewish. But it wasn’t a major issue in the campaign.