Posted on 11/22/2004 6:45:53 AM PST by missyme
Christian Reconstructionism sounds a lot like government mandated social conformity. Hello Orwellian tactics, goodbye individual liberties.
Weirdness.
Most of SC are serious people of faith already -- Catholic missions go back 500 years here, there's a synagogue up in Charleston that's like 300 years old, and it's impossible to drive a fraction of a mile without passing an evangelical church.
More likely that these folks will be swallowed up by the thriving religiosity that already exists down here in SC than in spearheading some new movement!
Reconstruction is neither 'Orwellian' nor conformist. Christian Reconstruction opposes the Orwellian-Socialism of culture; exalts Jesus as King and when asked, "By what standard?" answers the Law and Word of God.
Chalcedon
http://www.chalcedon.edu/
American Vision
http://www.americanvision.org/
Whatever. Quoting from the original article...
"..set up a Christian government and possibly, split from the other states."
Orwellian be thy name.
/sarcasm
Note in my post that I did not defend Burnell - I offered only to relieve some ignorance regarding Reconstructionism.
" . . . set up a Christian government and possibly, split from the other states."
That is a quote representing only Burnell.
Most Christian conservatives, or Christians with any historical consciousness at all, will acknowledge that the original founding era of what is now the U.S. was explicitly Christian in intention and practice. An confessionally Christian government has historical precedent.
Secession has been tried and is a failed experiment; Burnell is obviously loopy on that count.
Do you understand what Orwellian means? Your use of that term just doesn't make any sense in relationship to reconstructionist thought and practice.
Facts are often more helpful than uninformed opinion. Here are some articles from a more representative Reconstructionist:
http://www.americanvision.org/articlearchive.asp
The Decentralization of Power and Authority by Gary DeMar
http://www.americanvision.org/articlearchive/10-19-04.asp
"An confessionally Christian government has historical precedent"
I have no problem with someone who is Christian who also serves his constituents in Government. What I don't agree with is that any religion has "precedent" on governance or even the notion that government can dictate religions principals to constituents. If the founding fathers all shared that common opinion, they would have specified it in the constitution. Even in the Federalist Papers, Hamilton and Madison are ambiguous as to religious precedent.
And yes, I understand Orwell quite well thank you. Totalitarian states are ones which political authority is absolute and control is maintained over all aspects of life through centralized power ( be that federal or state). Whether one governs from socialistic pretenses or religious ones, the common denominator is that the government is the vehicle for pushing an agenda that may clash with an individuals protected liberties. This is my true sense of Orwell, and my sense of dread in seeing a religious faction taking over a state government under the pretenses of that their brand of religious authority is the best. It's encouraging that Gary DeMar sees centralized power as negative, but centralization of authority is not only the issue to which Orwell speaks. It is the loss of freedom through government tyranny which resides with me.
Christian Reconstruction provided the intellectual foundation for the conservative resurgence and movement of the 1970's and 1980's. Reconstructionism does not advocate 'theocracy.' It affirms, as a movement, the separate spheres of church and state. The state ought not attempt to meddle in the affairs or work of the church and the church does not attempt to take over the work or purposes of the state.
No one, that is those voices and writers in the mainstream of reconstructionist thought, advocate the state dictating religious principles to citizens. Christian involvement and advocacy of Christian standards in the state are the goals of reconstructionism. The imagined 'neutral secularism' you seem to advocate has brought us the cultural collapse of the 20th Century in America. I personally don't plan on leaving that mess for my children to inherit.
Cal Thomas, Religion and Politics
http://www.chalcedon.edu/articles/0112/011229graves.php
Christian Evangelism Against Statism
http://www.chalcedon.edu/articles/0303/030326terrell.php
Politics for the Conservative Christian: Spectator Sport or Biblical Mandate
http://www.chalcedon.edu/articles/0305/030531lovelace.php
Madison, Denominations and the First Amendment
http://www.chalcedon.edu/articles/0212/021214farinaccio.php
The Cornerstone the Nation Rejected
http://www.chalcedon.edu/articles/0205/020529wolverton.php
Andrew Sandlin is a Reconstructionist. Below is the link to his article posted on the National Reform Assoc. website on, The Idea of Christian Libertarianism. Libertarian freedom and societal reconstruction according to God's Law are compatible notions.
http://www.natreformassn.org/statesman/96/clIdea.html
"The imagined 'neutral secularism' you seem to advocate has brought us the cultural collapse of the 20th Century in America"
I completely disagree with this notion. If any culture collapse happened, it was the collapse of individual work ethic under the creation of a welfare state. People who choose to not conform to other cultural standards in mainstream society should be able to do just that, provided their freedoms do not threaten the freedoms of others. There are lots of things in modern culture I don't agree with ( and somewhat despise ), but I acknowledge that as being good for freedom. I always have the freedom to criticize if I don't like something, which I oftern exercise. In my opinion, being responsible for our own actions (rather than passing the buck over to others/government) is the true destroyer of civilization.
That said, I like what you said about being inclusive. For many secularist libertarians like myself, secular government is not about removing religious expression from government, its about trying to maintain government as a nonpartial entity that serves all the people and respects individual rights and liberties. I could care less if a judge chooses to put the 10 commandments in his courthouse, he just better damn well give me a ruling based on secular laws, not biblical ones.
Did they see the Clemson/USC football game this weekend?
Seems to me I read the libertarians were going to do the same thing to promote their cause but I think they are looking at Rhode Island.
Then the liberals are going to Canada..and a lot of Floridians will probably be trying to get out of there before the next hurricane season.
Also heard Californians are talking about relocating because they can't afford housing.
Might be a good time to look into stock in moving companies. rofl
You are so right. These Exodus guys are defeatests.
They already did.
How does this differ when what the government is pushing on people right now? Why can I not own a vehicle without the government deciding how much I need to pay to do so (property tax) or how often I have to renew permission to do so (drivers license). Why can't I construct a shed on my private property without a permit from the government? Why can't I be married without permission from the government?
There is always some clash between liberty and what the government is pushing. But the Declaration of Independence says that when the when the government no longer serves us, we should be able to establish our own government. It is the very founding principle of this country.
its about trying to maintain government as a nonpartial entity
So as a nonpartial entity, why should this ruling be partial to secular law instead of Biblical law, if we're being nonpartial?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.