Report on a Gathering of Theocrats in Georgia Email Print

The Christian Reconstructionist movement has long been one of the driving forces of the contemporary religious right. I reported on this in a study published in The Public Eye in 1994, and expanded on my reporting and analysis in my 1997 book Eternal Hostility: The Struggle Between Theocracy and Democracy.

Since then the signficance and influence of the overtly theocratic Reconstructionist movement has come to be more widely recognized.

Some of the best reporting in recent years has been done by journalist John Sugg. He has a report out on AlterNet on a major Reconstructionist conference just held in Georgia.

I will feature some highlights on the flip.

But before get to Sugg's report, here is an exerpt from my Public Eye article:

...another largely overlooked reason for the persistent success of the Christian Right is a theological shift since the 1960s. The catalyst for the shift is Christian Reconstructionism--arguably the driving ideology of the Christian Right in the 1990s.

The significance of the Reconstructionist movement is not its numbers, but the power of its ideas and their surprisingly rapid acceptance. Many on the Christian Right are unaware that they hold Reconstructionist ideas. Because as a theology it is controversial, even among evangelicals, many who are consciously influenced by it avoid the label. This furtiveness is not, however, as significant as the potency of the ideology itself. Generally, Reconstructionism seeks to replace democracy with a theocratic elite that would govern by imposing their interpretation of "Biblical Law." Reconstructionism would eliminate not only democracy but many of its manifestations, such as labor unions, civil rights laws, and public schools. Women would be generally relegated to hearth and home. Insufficiently Christian men would be denied citizenship, perhaps executed. So severe is this theocracy that it would extend capital punishment beyond such crimes as kidnapping, rape, and murder to include, among other things, blasphemy, heresy, adultery, and homosexuality.

Reconstructionism has expanded from the works of a small group of scholars to inform a wide swath of conservative Christian thought and action. While many Reconstructionist political positions are commonly held conservative views, what is significant is that Reconstructionists have created a comprehensive program, with Biblical justifications for far right political policies. Many post-World War II conservative, anticommunist activists were also, if secondarily, conservative Christians. However, the Reconstructionist movement calls on conservatives to be Christians first, and to build a church-based political movement from there.

For much of Reconstructionism's short history it has been an ideology in search of a constituency. But its influence has grown far beyond the founders' expectations. As Reconstructionist author Gary North observes, "We once were shepherds without sheep. No longer."

Since then, Reconstructionism has continued to influence American political and religious life. Sugg's article surfaces important parts of it.

Two really devilish guys materialized in Toccoa, Ga., last month to harangue 600 true believers on the gospel of a thoroughly theocratic America. Along with lesser lights of the religious far right who spoke at American Vision's "Worldview Super Conference 2006," Herb Titus and Gary North called for nothing short of the overthrow of the United States of America.

Titus and North aren't household names. But Titus, former dean of TV preacher Pat Robertson's Regent University law school, has led the legal battle to plant the Ten Commandants in county courthouses across the nation. North, an apostle of the creed called Christian Reconstructionism, is one of the most influential elders of American fundamentalism.

"I don't want to capture their (mainstream Americans') system. I want to replace it," fumed North to a cheering audience.

Among North's most quoted writings was this ditty from 1982: "[W]e must use the doctrine of religious liberty to gain independence for Christian schools until we train up a generation...which finally denies the religious liberty of the enemies of God." Titus followed that party line when he proclaimed that the First Amendment is limited to guaranteeing "the right to criticize the government," but "free expression is not in the Constitution." When I asked him if blasphemy -- castigating religion -- was protected, he shook his head.

Like North, Titus sees public education as decidedly satanic. Also, welfare. He contended the Founding Fathers -- and Americans today -- owe their "first duties to God. It's not just worship. It's education... welfare to the poor. Welfare belongs exclusively to God. Why do schools fail? They're trying to do the business of God. Medicaid goes. Education goes. The church gets back to doing what it should do." And what should the church be doing According to these self-appointed arbiters of God's will, running our lives. And stoning those who disagree.

I think it is important to note that not everyone on the Christian right agrees with Titus and North, or Reconstructionism in general. But it is also fair to point out that few go out of their way to disagree with their overt theocratic thought and political action -- and that Titus and North remain among the most influential thinkers and activists on the Christian right.


KEYWORDS: , ,

Sign up for a Complimentary Member Account... Join the community! It's fast. And it'll allow you to take advantage of all this site's great features!

< Welcome to the New, Improved Solar System | Pure Automotive Techno-Lust >
 Display:
But a lot of that is just, hyperventilating.

There is a serious movement afoot out there.

It is long past time to learn more about it.

by Frederick Clarkson on 08/17/2006 01:11:58 AM EST

The irony, to those of us who were raised in a traditional faith but have learned to include scientific (and humanistic) insight as well, is that the terminology used by the so-called Christian Right is anything but Christian.

Jesus Christ is (or was, if you prefer the purely human view) the Prince of Peace; he submitted himself to evil in order to show its lack of true reality.  His saving activity was precisely in his nonresistance.

The Revelation of John is the principal tool used by "Christian soldiers" to promote warlike attitudes toward non-Christians, but it is widely misinterpreted.  The "final battle" is between Good and Evil, not between Good People and Evil People; the battle takes place within each soul, as each soul must, and eventually will, realize that Evil, so called, only has the power that we give it by our belief in it.

The very nature of God, or Good, is NOT to fight a "battle" of Armageddon.  For every such battle that is fought, Good has failed to that extent; even a victory in a just war such as World War Two is a failure of Good to touch enough hearts to prevent the rise of an evil power.  The final "battle" will be the gradual loss of interest in the so-called power of evil, as more and more souls learn that its power is only temporary (moth and rust corrupt, and thieves break in and steal, whatever it gains us).

Rather than saying that the violent end of the Earth is God's plan because it is predicted in the Apocolypse, Christians ought to ask whether these prophesies are a warning about what MAY happen unless Christians, working together with people of good will in every religion, spread the spirit of love and unity to prevent it.  In other words, the Father is not saying we MUST run with scissors and put an eye out, He is saying NOT to run with scissors lest we put an eye out.

Rather than a physical uplifting to the sky, the Rapture might be better understood as the truly Christian souls (in every religion) becoming spiritually uplifted so as not to give power to the evil thoughts being circulated; and rather than being "evacuated" from the suffering (like the Americans evacuated from a war zone leaving the natives to suffer), these souls are the most sensitive to the pain of others.

We who are struggling to follow the Path of Peace are praying for our brothers and sisters in Right Wing churches to open their eyes to Love, but we are also praying to keep our own eyes open.  As a wise minister once told me, "We are all on our way to the Father's House, but Lord, we love our detours."

Violence is the last resort of the incompetent. -- Mayor Salvor Hardin, in "Foundation" by Isaac Asimov

by DaneelO on 08/21/2006 11:34:18 PM EST

[ Parent ]
 Display: