RECONSTRUCTION THEOLOGY AND HOME EDUCATION [Rushdoony, HSLDA, Gary North]

Houston Unschooling Group ^ | 1999 | Mary McCarthy

[Law]

This article is puke.

It's only after patiently enduring so many puke attacks that someone steps in and calls it like it is.

[ckca]

You're mistaken. This thread was designed to be a hit piece on conservative Christians. That's why from the very beginning the main posters don't discuss the article's contents but rather attack Christians.

It's only after attacks like this that Christians such as ckca return fire.

Thank you. Too bad reason is wasted on these anti-Christian goons.

[Lazamataz]

Everyone's gonna look at me, go "There's a JOOOOOO...." and rush me. :o)

See??? Told ya. ;^)

[Law]

Another reason we know this thread was designed primarily to attack and bait conservative Christians is that the thread was posted not in the religion forum, where the most indepth and vigorous discusions of religious articles take place, but in News/Activism, even though it's not news (the article is from 1999) and there's no action for current Freepers.

If this were an isolated incident, one should judge it as a mistake, but as it's part of pattern of such old articles being posted in the News/Activism thread, we must give credit to the poster for deliberate rather than accidental placement.

[Catspaw]

If you had followed my link rather than just spewing, you'd see that Moore's attorneys, if you compare the article and Moore's lawyers filings prior to his removal as chief justice, appear to be word for word from the Chalcedon article,, at least when it comes to comparing William Pryor and Nazi judges, and Pryor's position on Roe v. Wade.  If I'd like to be able to compare the article from Chalcedon with the complete pleadings of Moore's lawyers, but according to the al.com article, Moore's lawyers are quoted as saying this in the Mobile Register:

 

"He probably does not realize it, but Attorney General Pryor shares the jurisprudence of the German judges put on trial at Nuremberg," the chief justice's attorneys wrote in their brief. "... The judges in Germany swore an oath similar to the one taken by the German military" and "... argued that they were simply following the law of obeying orders of higher officials. This is the position (Pryor) has taken with respect to Roe v. Wade."

The Chalcedon article says this:

He probably does not realize it, but Attorney General Pryor shares the jurisprudence of the German judges put on trial at Nuremberg in the case of U. S. v. Alstoetter, a trial made famous in the Hollywood production Judgment at Nuremberg. The judges in Germany swore an oath similar to the one taken by the German military: “I swear by God this sacred oath, that I will render unconditional obedience to Adolf Hitler, the Fuehrer of the German Reich and people, Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces …” The German judges defended their actions in enforcing unjust “laws” and of convicting and even sentencing men and women to death who were innocent of wrongdoing or guilty of only minor wrongs. The German judges argued that they were simply following the law of obeying orders of higher officials. Their actions, they argued, were therefore justified. This is the position that Attorney General Pryor has taken with respect to Roe v. Wade. He has promised to withhold the protection of law from thousands of innocent unborn children until the “law” changes. He doesn’t seem to see that Roe v. Wade is an act of lawlessness. It is not law. Compare that to the situation that the Alstoetter court noted existed in Germany: “[T]he dagger of the assassin was concealed beneath the robe of the jurist.”

If you have a link to the brief Moore's lawyers filed, I'd appreciate it, but it does appear they used the exact wording and phraseology from the Chalcedon article in their brief.  I'm just curious if they quoted the entire article, took parts of the article verbatim, reworded it as a legal pleading or some other variation or combination.  The quotes I've highlighted in red appear that Moore's lawyers did quote the Chalcedon article.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

All that warmth and Christian charity wafts off this thread. If I weren't a Christian but was looking into it, I'd definitely look with favor on being a reconstructionist after seeing this example.

We're at T+7 on posting the article, and I've not yet seen anyone put up a fact which shows that reconstructionists don't actually believe what their pastors and theologians say they believe.

[sitetest]

Dear OPH,

I thought you were an attorney. Don't they still teach logic in law school?

Do you really want to tie yourself to this piece of crap?

"Individuals from a wide variety of backgrounds and ecclesiastical communions are influenced by and committed to these ideals, from conservative Roman Catholics to Episcopalians to Presbyterians to Pentecostals, Arminian and Calvinist, charismatic and non-charismatic, high Church and low Church traditions are all represented in the broader umbrella of Reconstructionism, (often in the form of the 'Christian America' movement)."

Reconstructionism doesn't work for Catholics. You will not find faithful, devout, orthodox Catholics who are "influenced by AND committed to these ideals..."

Of course, the irony is, the article points out that some of the folks allegedly involved in Reconstructionism are anti-Catholic. Yet the article alleges that conservative Catholics believe in this drek. LOL.

"It is difficult for secular homeschoolers to understand the apparent double standard when Christian homeschoolers are discriminatory against them at the local support group level, while at the same time, courting their efforts when it comes to state or national political causes. Understanding Reconstructionist Theology and Theocracy is important because it reflects understanding on the division in the homeschooling community between secular and religious members, and the theocratic motivations of politically manipulating the community."

This is an even bigger load of crap. An intelligent individual would be embarrassed to have posted this.

As a religious homeschooler, who belongs to a number of homeschooling organizations, including HSLDA, and various religious and secular homeschooling groups, I can tell you that this is just pure bs. I know many secular homeschoolers. They don't seem to exhibit any feeling that we evil awful religious homeschoolers are discriminatory against them.

And of course, understanding Reconstructionism has nothing to do with understanding the overwhelming majority of religious homeschoolers, since the overwhelming majority of us aren't actually Reconstructionists.

"The Home School Legal Defense Association/Foundation has many links to Reconstructionism."

Oh puh-leeze. HSLDA is one of the most important homeschool organizations in the country. Your logical turd comes out like this:

- there are Reconstructionists who have worked for or who currently work for HSLDA;

- thus, HSLDA is a Reconstructionist group;

- and therefore, anyone associated with HSLDA is a Reconstructionist.

Barbra Streisand Barbra Streisand Barbra Streisand.

First, not all the folks named as Reconstructionists are actually Reconstructionists.

Second, many of these folks are also registered Republicans as well. By the (pseudo)logic of this author, then the Republican Party is Reconstructionist.

Third, the purpose of the HSLDA doesn't have anything to do with Reconstructionism. The purpose of the HSLDA is to give legal protection to homeschoolers from rapacious state and local governments.

I'm a proud member of HSLDA and I'm not a Reconstructionist. HSLDA is valuable to us because it keeps us up to date on the changing legal environment in our state, because it goes to bat for us when the state tries to harm us through new and regressive laws, rules, and interpretations thereof, because it gives us a central clearing house and rallying point by which we can take grassroots action when the state tries to harm us, and because HSLDA will represent me personally should the state try to persecute me and my homeschooling family.


Bottom line - this is a poorly done, hysterical hatchet job trying to smear Christian homeschoolers by trying to tie us to a small minority of folks, some of whom actually homeschooling. It is anti-Christian and anti-homeschool.

It shocks me that the owner of the site would allow such a vile, ill-willed, vicious, false piece of anti-Christian, anti-homeschooling piece of propaganda to stand. Or permit the original poster to continue to post here at FR.


sitetest

[ckca]

So the question remains: why is it OK for CP to mock, insult, and abuse conservative Christians here on Free Republic? Why are posts pointing out his own sordid background pulled while his abuse of a large percentage of all FReepers is permitted?

Any DU troll newbie would be banned for his kind of continuous abusive behavior.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

The posting was to news/activism because these folks have been flexing muscles in politics.

Unless you don't think that is important.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

So refute the article, if you can.

[irishtenor]

After casually skimming this article, it appears to be saying that all of these people are trying to bring back Christian ethics and morals in our goverment and in our country. What's wrong with that?

[ckca]

Bottom line - this is a poorly done, hysterical hatchet job trying to smear Christian homeschoolers by trying to tie us to a small minority of folks, some of whom actually homeschooling. It is anti-Christian and anti-homeschool.

It shocks me that the owner of the site would allow such a vile, ill-willed, vicious, false piece of anti-Christian, anti-homeschooling piece of propaganda to stand. Or permit the original poster to continue to post here at FR.

Why no comment, Mr. Robinson?

Why is this one individual FReeper permitted to continue his frequent abuse and insult towards a majority of Free Republic users and donors?

[Jim Robinson]

Hey, leave me out of this. I'm not interested in the least.

[Servant of the 9]

Some may say, "well, this list only shows what churches these men were members of, it doesn't show what they believed." Which is a veiled way of suggesting that these men were liars when they swore to God to adopt the confessions of their churches

Exactly. Most men of quality at the time professed Christianity because they felt it was a good way to control the behavior of the masses that they never dreamed would get the vote. They certainly were too well educated in the Enlightenment to believe it.

They were largely of a mind with Voltaire, a man none would seriously claim was a christian, yet he kept a priest on the payroll at his estates, had him at table, attended mass regularly and was buried in hallowed ground.

It was Noblesse Oblige applied to the Noble of Mind rather than the Noble by Birth.

So9

[Law]

Here's an easy refutation. Tim LaHaye is emphatically not a "Reconstructionist".

To amplify, Tim LaHaye can't be a reconstructionist because his Left Behind book series, which he designed in part as a tool for evangelism, depicts a world at the end of time in which Christians are a marginalized minority. Reconstructionists, by contrast, believe the church will be strong worldwide before the end.

[malakhi]

Reconstructionism doesn't work for Catholics. You will not find faithful, devout, orthodox Catholics who are "influenced by AND committed to these ideals..."

I've seen some Catholics on FR advocate many of the same things. They wouldn't get along with the Reconstructionists because each considers the other to be heretical, but the mindset is the same.

[ckca]

There's nothing to refute. Yes there are some marginal, irrelevant folks on the periphery of any religion, who in no way represent the mainstream or even minority views. So yes, your article is true in that just like all religions there are some marginal, irrelevant folks on the periphery of Christianity that are a bit kooky.

You however are attempting to paint all of Christianity with this marginal, irrelevant nonsense, and I'm not going to tolerate it or allow it to go unanswered.

Knock it off.

Better yet, leave the Forum, for you obviously have absolutely NOTHING in common with the conservatives on this Forum, and your sole intent is to bait, insult, and abuse real Christians.

[ckca]

I don't really care whether you are interested! I didn't ask whether you are interested.

I asked, Why are you permitting this TRASH on your website? Why are you permitting CP to insult and abuse the majority of your donors and users, when you would not tolerate this from anyone else?

[Law]

Nowhere in any "Reconstructionist" literature does anyone advocate anything but complete legal, open-ballot, judicially sustained voting.

This is the key reason all the fear mongering is misplaced and the charges against these people and groups are so dishonorable.

[Jim Robinson]

Haven't read it and don't intend to. Ever thought of just ignoring stuff you're not interested in?