I got to this thread about 2 years too late it would seem, however, first let me assure you that I am not Christian but certainly not anti-christian in any respects. I was raised Catholic and hold several Christians as my closest friends.
What concerns me here is first and foremost the obvious (from the view of an outsider looking in) assumption that just because someone uses the same words to define their faith, they must believe the same thing I have had to endure countless people assuming that I am an amoral sex freak because I am a self confessed Neo-Pagan on the one hand and have been mistaken for a kind Christian due to my charity work and profession on the other. The fact is that I would be surprised if many of the Christians on this board would have more in common with the CR people than they do with me, but I would also be surprised if I found that admitting that I am a Pagan right off the bat inspired confidence in those same people.
The truth of the matter is that firstly, the Christian Reconstructionists are anything but the nice and cuddly Christians who believe in the Christian admonition to love thine neighbor and the ethics espoused by such teaching stories as the story of the good Samaritan. The charges leveled at them by this article are indeed true (for the most part, although perhaps slightly sensationalized) although it may take a bit of digging to see the truth.
First I'll point you to this site which is set up to sell a video of the biggest heroes of the Recon movement, especially interesting to listen to is the video response of George Grant to question nine. In it he espouses the belief (held by every major player in the movement) in the absolute necessity to reestablish Old Testament law. Also see Rushdoony's video response to the same question where he decries Autonomy in favor of theonomy (please note that while neither of these guys answer the question, the subject of the question is what will happen to non-Christians in a Christian ruled society:
Here you can find everything else you could ever hope to find out about the CR, including what to expect as far as the new (or really old) laws they plan to institute when they take over (oh boy, a return to slavery and stoning deaths of non Christians that talk about their beliefs, don't get me started on the marriage of virgin rape victims with their attacker...):
Just a couple more little tidbits for those that still don't think these guys are actually trying to institute a forcible takeover of the government (this is from the above site):
"The long-term goal of Christians in politics should be to gain exclusive control over the franchise. Those who refuse to submit publicly to the eternal sanctions of God by submitting to His Church's public marks of the covenant--baptism and holy communion--must be denied citizenship, just as they were in ancient Israel.
Gary North, Political Polytheism: The Myth of Pluralism (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1989), p. 87."
"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, "The Intellectual Schizophrenia of the New Christian Right" in Christianity and Civilization: The Failure of the American Baptist Culture, No. 1 (Spring, 1982), p. 25."
How is that for a link to home schooling... I'm not saying that all home schoolers are doing this, I do think that these guys are though and that is the point I would like to make.
By looking back at the posts on this thread I was disgusted to see Vonnegut's formula from "Breakfast of Champions" being demonstrated in perfect clarity. The idea is that a person doesn't choose his or her beliefs based upon sound judgement and rational thinking but upon what their friends say and feel. If an enemy brings up a great idea then it is automatically scrutinized and if real reasons to go against it aren't found the case is just closed and the opposite opinion is followed.
These guys are freaks, plain and simple and to defend them is to defend a group that wants to specifically take over the U.S. and replace it with their own literal interpretation of biblical law, with all the good old prohibitions against eating shell fish (an "abomination" if you go by Old Testament law) and the requirements that disobedient children be stoned to death by the family.
On the other hand, I didn't see a single citation of these sites of which I know many of them have been operational for at least 3 years. I know, I found out about these guys back then and found this site within 5 minutes of searching, you guys really didn't even try to show documented evidence of this group's activities in relation to this article and I found it within just a few minutes! No, I'm not patting myself on the back, it wasn't even really a challenge, and that is my point.
If any of us humans want to be taken seriously we have to accept the fact that people (as opposed to an individual) are stupid and we need to have everything layed out before us if we are to look at things seriously. If we really want to have our ideas looked at and taken seriously we have to take the trouble to at least try to communicate why we think we are right. You guys didn't even try.
If we are to try to understand each-other we need to be able to understand that communication is a two way street, one person must try to tell their position in words the listener can understand and the listener must try to understand what the speaker is saying even if the two can't stand each-other. If there is a breakdown on either side then the meaning of the words get lost in transmission.
Please represent humanity better in the future, I don't want the aliens to think that we all act like cattle.
Lots of love and mental hugs,