Month: April 2007

Blog Against Theocracy Part V: How A Christian Republic Punishes And Taxes

by tristero

In Part III of this series of excerpts from With Liberty & Justice for All: Christian Politics Made Simple, Morecraft was seen interpreting as “figurative” an unambiguously clear Biblical injunction, one that, in fact, many Jews obey literally. Morecraft also laid out his justifications for and vision of a “Christian Republic” for America, a substitute term, as Morecraft explicitly says, for “theocracy.”

However, Morecraft appears not to advocate a strong, theocratic state. In fact, the state, ie, the civil government, has a very small role in Morecraft’s Christian Republic. Its primary function, as shown in the following excerpts, is swift, ruthless punishment of all who disobey God’s law. According to Morecraft’s interpretation of the Bible, the state has no right to collect taxes for anything beyond these minimal functions, has no business running public schools, or Social Security, or much of anything else beyond punishment.

The theocrats’ seeming advocacy of a minimal state is a notion many wealthy far-right conservatives find extremely congenial. And, of course, it is no accident that christianists would choose to interpret the Bible so as to make its message palatable to the Ahmansons and the Hunts who bankroll them. The shared vision of a minimalist state that collects next to no taxes enables christianists and other conservatives to form large coalitions.

These coalitions are quite unstable, but they are also powerful. From the theocrats’ perspective, the fight to eliminate Social Security is far more than a moral imperative. It is a holy obligation which must be met or else God will continue to plague America with floods, pestilence, economic hardship, and suffering.

***

….in order to administer justice and keep the peace, the state has been given the power of coercion in the suppression of lawlessness. (p.;65)

God has not given the state the power of the sword to convert the world to Christianity. Nor was the sword given for conquest. The purpose of the sword is not to conquer the world for America. That is the Islamic view of Gaddafi, Khomeini, and Hussein, but it is anti-Christian. (p. 66) [NOTE THAT HERE MORECRAFT DIFFERS SUBSTANTIALLY FROM MANY OTHER THEOCRATS BY LIMITING ALL EVANGELICAL INITIATIVES TO THE CHURCH RATHER THAN THE STATE.]

In our culture, it is not the victim that is protected and pitied, it is the criminal. For this reason the Bible instructs the judicial system not to show mercy to the criminal. It does not have the option to pardon him for crimes committed. He must receive the punishment he deserves, if justice is to be done. (p. 68) [NOTE THAT THIS IS FINESSED, AT LEAST RHETORICALLY, BY OTHER THEOCRATS, WHO DECLARE “ABORTION IS MURDER” BUT STOP SHORT OF ADVOCATING THE DEATH PENALTY FOR WOMEN WHO TERMINATE PREGNANCIES.]

The domestic use of the sword includes the legitimacy of capital punishment…Genesis 9, Exodus 13, and Romans 13 may all be used as our scriptural support…

There are three fundamental reasons why capital punishment is essential to public justice: (1) the holy character of God; (2) the holy command of God; (3) the sanctity (holiness) of human life, the family, and God’s moral order. (p.71)

God says that capital crimes pollute the land and the only way of “un-polluting” it is by shedding the blood of the offender who committed the crime. How polluted is America! (p. 73) [NOTE: MORECRAFT IS SAYING THAT A MURDERER MUST BE PUT TO DEATH, NOT OUT OF RETRIBUTION OR DETERRENCE OR EVEN PUNISHMENT (SEE BELOW), A MURDERER MUST BE EXECUTED IN ORDER TO REMOVE THE MORAL “POLLUTION” HE HAS SPREAD OVER THE COUNTRY.]

The concern of capital punishment is not rehabilitation. It is not even, primarily, deterrence. It is pure justice. Therefore, only God can define capital crimes and He has clearly done so in the Bible. (p. 74)

For us today in America, there is a more specific reason why God has placed the sword in the hands of the civil government: the global threat of Marxist-Leninist Communism. (p. 75)[NOTE: MORECRAFT’S BOOK WAS PUBLISHED IN 1995, I.E. *AFTER *THE FALL OF THE SOVIET UNION.]

Lenin said that Marxism is Humanism. It is what humanism looks like when it grabs total political and military power. Humanism is the belief that man is God, that man has the ability to determine good and evil for himself, with no reference to God and the Bible. Marxism is the political application of humanism…which is the use of terrorism to reach one’s goals. (p. 75 – 76) [NOTE: MORECRAFT FOLLOWS THIS WITH AN EXTENSIVE DISCUSSION OF THE DANGERS OF “COMMUNISM” IN AMERICA. ASIDE FROM THE USUAL ACCUSATIONS – “the radical liberal and socialist, Mike Dukakis”- MORECRAFT, LIKE ROBERTSON IS PROFOUNDLY WORRIED ABOUT GEORGE H.W. BUSH AND “NEW WORLD ORDER.” (p.80)]

Some knowledgeable people think World War III is over and we lost. Phase I was the Cold War of the 1960s. We lost it. Phase II was the Détente in the 1970s. We lost it. Phase III, in the 1980s was the encirclement, isolation, terrorization, and strangulation of the U.S.A. Phase IV in the 1990s is the progressive surrender of the U.S.A. and its merger with the Soviet system. (p. 80) [NOTE: BEFORE DISMISSING THIS AS FAR REMOVED FROM MAINSTREAM REPUBLICAN DISCOURSE, PLEASE RECALL GEORGE W. BUSH’S REMARKS ABOUT THE LESSONS OF VIETNAM, THE CONTEMPT OF JOHN BOLTON AND OTHERS FOR THE U.N., THE ARGUMENTS AGAINST SOCIAL SECURITY MADE BY PROMINENT REPUBLICAN CONGRESSMEN, AND MANY MORE STATEMENTS, ALL OF WHICH ARE, AT THE VERY LEAST, CONGRUENT WITH MORECRAFT’S WORLDVIEW. THE POINT IS THAT THE IDEOLOGY OF THE THEOCRATS OFTEN COMPLEMENTS THOSE WHO ARE NOT THEOCRATS, ENABLING THE FORMATION OF POWERFUL COALITIONS. ]

…in the final analysis, we must not put our faith in missiles, or SDI, or conventional military power, or arms treaties. Our ultimate and final security is Almighty God, our ultimate Peace Shield (Psalm 3:3f), if we, as a nation, are being faithful to Him (p. 84)…Without national repentance, all our might will not protect us. (NOTE: THIS WAS ECHOED BY ROBERTSON AND FALWELL AFTER 9/11. D’SOUZA’S RECENT BOOK IS A VARIATION ON THE SAME THEME: AN IMMORAL U.S. BRINGS UPON ITSELF ATTACKS LIKE THOSE ON 9/11. THEY ARE GOD’S PUNISHMENT. AND OUR MISSILES WON’T SAVE US.)

Others object by saying that this view of the power of the sword is contrary to Jesus’ teaching of love. They say, “Should not love and forgiveness dominate life. Did not Jesus say to love our enemies?” But that is not the only thing Jesus said or did. In John 2:13-16, Jesus used violent and potentially deadly foce to clean out the Temple of thieves and frauds…[NOTE HOW MORECRAFT ACKNOWLEDGES, ONLY IN THE MOST INDIRECT MANNER, THAT JESUS PREACHES A DOCTRINE OTHER THAN SWIFT, RUTHLESS, UNCOMPROMISING PUNISHMENT.]

In John 2:15 we read, and He (Jesus) made a scourge of cords… This was not a feather duster. A “scourge of cords” is several leather straps with sharp and heavy pieces of bone and metal in the end of each leather strap. When it struck a person, it would not only rip and tear out flesh, it could very easily kill, blind, maim, or fracture bones.

So, in John 2:14-16 we read,

And He found in the temple [thieves, frauds, and moneychangers.] And he made a scourge of cords, and drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and the oxen; and He poured out the coins of the money-changers…

Imagine the picture. Tables overturned! People probably jumping out of windows and running out of doors to escape Jesus swining His scourge of cords. This was the use of violent force to maintain God’s order. It was not inconsistent with anything else Jesus ever said, since as the Son of God, everything He did was thoroughly righteous and everything He spoke was thoroughly infallible. (p. 88-89)

***

The presupposition of income tax, property tax and inheritance tax is that the state owns your income, your property, your family’s future, and everything about you. [NOTE: THE WORD “PRESUPPOSITION” IS A CODE WORD. IT REFERS TO VAN TIL’S DOCTRINE OF PRESUPPOSITIONALISM. MORECRAFT’S POINT IS THAT ANY PRESUPPOSTION THAT CONTRADICTS THE PRESUPPOSITION THAT THE BIBLE IS THE TRUE WORD OF GOD, AND INERRANT, CAN NEVER BE TRUE. HERE, A HUMANIST STATE THAT COLLECTS INCOME TAXES, ETC HAS A FALSE PRESUPPOSITION THAT DENIES THE TRUTH OF GOD’S WORD]

…no one and no human institution, including the state, has the right to tax anybody beyond what God has commanded. (p.93) [NOTE THE POTENTIAL FOR COALITIONS WITH “SECULAR” LIBERTARIANS, CORPORATE REPUBLICANS, AND OTHERS OPPOSED TO “BIG GOVERNMENT” ON NON-RELIGIOUS GROUNDS. NOTE ALSO THE POTENTIAL FOR IDEOLOGICAL CONFLICT BETWEEN THE THEOCRATS AND OTHER CONSERVATIVES].

Humanistic taxation is idolatrous…It is a denial of the fact that all property and life in America belong to Jehovah. In recognition of this biblical principle, the U.S. Constitution does not allow for the ownership of land by the federal government, except for that which is necessary for military installations and government buildings. (P. 95) [NOTE ONCE AGAIN THAT THIS SEEMINGLY CRACKPOT IDEA IS CONGRUENT WITH THE PRACTICE OF THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION.]

The IRS is a clear indictment against America for her rebellion against God. (p. 95)

[NOTE: MORECRAFT QUOTES THE FOLLOWING FROM TITHING AND DOMINION BY R. J. RUSHDOONY AND EDWARD POWELL]

This destructive principle of ungodly state taxation can be seen in every area of life. Businesses and charitable foundations, etc. are licensed (a pagan form of taxation), which means that they operate at the pleasure of the state, and are, thus, owned by the state.[NOTE: THE OPPOSITION TO THE STATE LICENSING BUSINESSES IS RELATED TO THE CONTEMPT FOR RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE EXPRESSED BY RUSHDOONY AND OTHERS. RUSHDOONY BELIEVES THAT TO SAY A STATE “TOLERATES” A RELIGION IS EQUIVALENT TO SAYING THAT THE STATE LICENSES A PARTICULAR RELIGIOUS PRACTICE WHICH IT CAN PROHIBIT WHENEVER IT WISHES. THEREFORE, RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE, IN THE LIBERAL SENSE, IS A SHAM. FOR THEOCRATS, STATES SIMPLY FOLLOW A GOD, EITHER THE GOD OF HUMANISM OR THE “TRIUNE” GOD. IN REALITY, NO STATE CAN PERMIT ANY OTHER GOD BUT THE ONE IT FOLLOWS. RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE IS DISCUSSED BY MORECRAFT LATER IN THE BOOK.]

Social Security Taxes on the Churches and on individuals are also destructive. Social Security taxes on individuals have increased over 650% since the program began, and it has increased unemployment significantly. …It hs caused 97% of everybody over 65 years of age to be utterly dependent upon a humanistic state for their very existence. It also defrauds and robs young adults who will never see any of their money …(It is already bankrupt, however, nobody will admit it.) (p. 100)

God taxes everything in principle.He does not tax everything specifically. [There are] three basic taxes revealed in the Bible.

First is the Tax of the Sabbath. The Sabbath is a tax on our time and energy. God says we owe Him one day in seven…

Second is the Tax of the Tithe…He commands us to give him 10% of what we earn in ordert to finance the advance of the kingdom of God….

The third is the Head Tax of Exodus 30:11-16. This is the only tax in the Bible which the state may levy on its citizens. It is a flat-rate tax. (p. 102)

…if the state administers any other tax but the one God has required [the Head Tax], the state is saying that God is not sovereign.

…How can we reform our unjust, humanistic tax system in the United States of America? How can we abolish the IRS? (p.103)

FIRST, replace every political leader who votes like he believes that the state has original ownership and sovereignity over our lives…(p. 105) [NOTE: WHILE THIS SOUNDS SIMILAR TO CERTAIN STATEMENTS OF PEOPLE LIKE GROVER NORQUIST, THE REASONING IS VERY DIFFERENT. WHERE NYQUIST CHERRYPICKS AND DISTORTS ECONOMICS BEYOND RECOGNITION TO RATIONALIZE HIS POSITION, MORECRAFT CHERRYPICKS AND DISTORTS THE BIBLE]

***

While Morecraft clearly states that a Christian Republic (a theocracy) has only a small role for the state, he surely knows that in practice the Church will preside over nearly all the functions – education, infrastructure, social security – that a modern democratic government provides but with one crucial difference. The checks and balances of democratic accountability will be entirely eliminated.

This becomes clear if you read carefully what he says. Morecraft interprets the Bible as saying that God endows the church with nearly unlimited power to administer and evangelize God’s law, Indeed, Morecraft has made it clear that the Church’s power extends not only over Christians, but over all non-Christian members of the state as well.

In short, Morecraft’s “minimal state” theocracy has only a superficial appeal to small-government conservatives, Stripped of his self-serving interpretations and distortions of the Bible’s words, Morecraft is calling for the establishment of a totalitarian American state disguised as an American Christian Church with unlimited power. Morecraft’s Church/State will be administered by a group of men with an unrestricted license to coerce, torture, and murder any and all who oppose them.

Provided, of course, that the Bible says they can.

And since those in charge of the Church/State are the only ones whose reading of the Bible can serve as the basis for punishment, it is more than likely they will determine that the Bible tells them they can do whatever they want.

For example, since they are good men –God wouldn’t permit them to lead the Church if they weren’t – who are piously carrying out God’s orders, it is an outrageous assault on Christian faith to question their motives, or otherwise oppose them. And that is precisely how theocrats behave when you do so, as if you have unfairly attacked their faith.

Bottom line: When you read him in depth, it is very clear that what Morecraft is talking about has nothing whatsoever to do with religion. And theocrats who avoid the term “theocracy” but talk in vague generalities about how Christians are oppressed in the US and how they must “re-establish” a Christian American Republic are not devout Christians but fascist thugs who debase Christianity and smear the name of Jesus.

Saturday Night At The Movies

The Walter Reed Memorial Film Festival

By Dennis Hartley

As the Iraq “war” grinds on and we sadly gird our loins to deal with a whole new generation of physically and/or psychologically scarred vets, it’s time to take a look at some of the films that have tackled the difficult subject of “coming home”.

Hands down, one of the most powerful movies ever made about the physical ravages of war is Dalton Trumbo’s 197l anti-war classic “Johnny Got His Gun”, adapted from the director’s own novel. Timothy Bottoms is a horribly wounded WW I vet who lies in a hospital bed for the duration of the film, re-living his war trauma and reviewing his life. His injuries are so grave that, in addition to the loss of all his limbs, he has lost the ability to speak (what is left of his torso and head is wrapped in gauze, mummy style.) Hence, we only “see” Bottoms in black and white flashbacks, with the actor providing voice-over to parlay the racing thoughts going through his mind as he lies helplessly in his hospital bed. (In all seriousness, I would not recommend this film for claustrophobics.)

It is worth noting that director Trumbo was one of the “Hollywood Ten”, blacklisted during the McCarthy witch hunts of the 1950’s. His impressive screenwriting credits include “Papillon”, “Spartacus ”, “Exodus” and “Lonely Are the Brave”. I find it very interesting that this uncompromising, stridently anti-war statement by an American director is only available on PAL format DVD (although, if you ever catch a screening of Metallica’s “One” video, it features excerpts from the film).

Another under-screened entry in the genre is “Rolling Thunder“. Directed by Peckinpah-influenced John Flynn (“The Outfit”, “Best Seller”) and boasting a cynical, tough-as-nails screenplay from Paul Schrader, this pre-“Rambo” action drama offers enough subtext to belie its “Vietnam vet on a murderous rampage” setup.

William DeVane is quite convincing as tightly-wound Vietnam POW Major Charles Rane, who comes home to San Antonio. Despite the perfunctory welcome home gestures from community and family, it becomes obvious that Rane is alienated by his war trauma (just like Travis Bickle, he rarely removes his mirrored sunglasses to allow people “inside”). Adding insult to injury, Rane’s home is invaded by a gang of ultra-violent thieves. Rane is tortured and left for dead (sans a hand) and his wife and son are murdered. After recovery, Rane emerges with a (sharpened!) hook, a devoted “groupie” and a trunk full of weapons, and heads for Mexico to find the bad guys and take ‘em out, in a typically cathartic Schrader “Taxi Driver” style crescendo of violence.

Despite releasing studio AIP’s rep for spewing out low budget exploitation product, this 1977 film was actually one of the first to take a genuine stab at addressing the Vietnam vet zeitgiest; it was released the same year as the higher-profile “Deer Hunter” and a year before “Coming Home” (which likely explains how it got lost in the shuffle). This is another film begging for a DVD release; although it has been showing recently on some of the premium cable channels-so check those listings!

War is unhealthy for vets and other living things: The Best Years of Our Lives, The Razor’s Edge (1946), Coming Home, Born on the Fourth of July, Little Dieter Needs to Fly, Deer Hunter (HD DVD), Rambo:First Blood, Dead Presidents, Who’ll Stop The Rain, The Indian Runner, Jackknife (VHS only),The War at Home (1996)

.

Blog Against Theocracy Part IV: Takeover Of The Texas GOP

by tristero

For those of you following this series, this is a bonus post. One of the biggest misconceptions of American theocracy is that, “intelligent design” creationism aside, the most crackpot forms of christianism, such as those of Joe Morecraft and R.J. Rushdoony, are too marginal ever to worry about. Not so, unless you think Texas Republican politics has had nothing to do with national poltiics for the past seventeen years:

In February 1990 I received an unsolicited video in the mail. The video came from a Dr. Stephen Hotze and was entitled “Restoring America: How You Can Impact Civil Government.” Filmed at a church in my neighborhood, I recognized the actors as the pastor and congregants of an Independent Fundamental Baptist church (the Jerry Falwell kind). The video was a guide on how to 1) take over a Republican Party precinct meeting, 2) elect “Christian” delegates to the GOP District meeting, and 3) put planks supporting the theocratic agenda of Christian Reconstructionism into the party platform…

I knew that a good friend of mine, a retired moderate Baptist preacher (Jack Selcraig, recently deceased), chaired the GOP precinct in my neighborhood. I called him and advised him about the organized attempt to takeover of his precinct. He survived the challenge that year (they ousted him the next election cycle), but nearly all of the other Republican Party precinct leaders in Harris County lost their chairs.

Hotze’s dominion over politics in Houston, Texas (the third largest city in the U.S.) began that year — just in time to prepare for service as host of the 1992 GOP National Convention. His reign lasted for around a decade — until he was arrested for D.W.I. and fell from the good graces of his Fundamentalist followers. The machine he created, however, still rules over the Harris County Republican party and his success inspired and emboldened theocrats to takeover GOP precincts all over the country.

Along with his video tape, Hotze sent a written agenda and instructions for how to conduct a precinct meeting. He also suggested resolutions for the party’s platform. Today, nearly all the planks that Hotze suggested can be found in the current platform of the Texas Republican Party

If you click on the first link, Bruce Prescott has made available the audio track from this video online.

Trash Talkin With The Terrorists

by digby

I’ve always wondered why Chris Matthews has Kathleen Parker on his syndicated week-end show so often. She’s an attractive woman, but she has the personality of a door knob and makes deadly boring television. Today, I realized it’s because they share the same anachronistic 50’s sitcom view of life.

Parker’s WaPo column begins rather humorously, although it’s clear she didn’t intend it to be:

On any given day, one isn’t likely to find common cause with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He’s a dangerous, lying, Holocaust- denying, Jew-hating cutthroat thug — not to put too fine a point on it.

But he was dead-on when he wondered why a once-great power such as Britain sends mothers of toddlers to fight its battles.

Well, isn’t that something? A lying, Jew-hating, cutthroat thug he may be, but he does make a good point when he sophomorically attacks the west with silly, schoolyard taunts unworthy of anyone over 8. It’s “dead-on” that the British navy is a bunch of pansies who have women “fighting their battles” for them. Well, a stopped clock and all that…

Just because we may not “feel” humiliated doesn’t mean we’re not. In the eyes of Iran and other Muslim nations, we’re wimps. While the West puts mothers in boats with rough men, Muslim men “rescue” women and drape them in floral hijabs.

We can debate whether they’re right until all our boys wear aprons, but it won’t change the way we’re perceived. The propaganda value Iran gained from its lone female hostage, the mother of a 3-year-old, was incalculable.

Ok wait a minute. Who are the rough men and who are the ones with floral scarves and aprons again? It’s so hard to keep your moral clarity straight when the rightwing of the Republican party keeps endorsing the view that we should capitulate to the islamofascists one minute and resist them to the death the next. But whatever. Parker says with stalwart assurance that the propaganda value of this woman being “rescued” by the Iranians is “incalculable.”

I agree that it’s entirely possible that the Iranians and al-Qaeda and all sorts of unsavory types around the world have become emboldened by American (and British) military policy, but I doubt that it has much to do with women in combat. The problem is that our president, in his ignorance and hubris, has just proved to the entire world that the United States has no earthly clue what it is doing. The administration even insists to everyone who will listen that the US intelligence services couldn’t find water if they fell off a boat.

Any administration that really cared about national security would not have lied about something so obvious as Saddam’s mythic weapons cache with such assuredness and then blamed the entire US intelligence service when they were not found. If you want to make a country look weak and inept, that’s one excellent way to do it.

And then there is the fact that the Iraq occupation itself is in total chaos. The North Koreans went right ahead a built a bomb while John Bolton was swinging his ineffectual little stick around. Guanatanamo is an immoral embarrassment that nobody on earth sees as anything more than an unsophisticated propaganda ploy that blew up in our faces. And after almost seven years we have no idea where Osama bin Laden is.

Let’s just say that those, among many more, might be the bigger propaganda victories with “incalculable” value to the enemy than some British sailor in a headscarf.

Parker is parroting the Dick Cheney fifth grade schoolyard school of foreign policy. The entire world rests on whether the United States out trash-talks the enemies of our nation, who are lurking everywhere, throwing rhetorical zingers about our national manhood. Failure on the ground is meaningless in any substantial sense. What matters is if we keep swaggering around like we know what we are doing even when its patently obvious that we don’t.

The problem, you see, is that up until now they haven’t taken us seriously. Only by repeatedly making threats, giving bellicose speeches and invading countries willy nilly will they realize that we can’t be defeated. To the Schoolyad School, Ahmadinejad is, therefore, a very serious foe even though he’s actually a sort of circus clown who doesn’t wield any real power. He is a first class insult artist. Indeed, Parker’s instinct to capitulate to his taunts by banning women from the military is testament to how formidable he is to these people. One off-hand comment about British manhood and she starts shrieking like a ninny that he’s right.

Cheney knows that the way to win his GWOT has nothing to do with better intelligence, competent leadership, sophisticated diplomacy or even superior military might. What we must do is psych the terrorists out with our patented Hollywood macho style (and that doesn’t include wimminfolk on the boat.) As Parker says in her column, it’s all about how we are perceived.

Pay no attention to all the actual dead people lying around. They’re just extras in our rhetorical battle of wills.

.

They Work For You

by digby

Let’s help push MYDD over the top today.

I don’t know how many of you know how hard Stoller and Bowers work, but lets just say it’s a good thing they are young. Between blogging, activism, advocacy and a myriad of institution building projects, these guys are progressive machines. They are smart, dedicated and filled with passion. And they are making a difference.

The party has long needed to get in touch with its inner RFK (h/t Ezra) and this is where you will find it — these guys have a fierce and relentless commitment to making this country a better place. They work for all of us and we should support their work.

.

Blog Against Theocracy Part III: God’s Law, Never Man’s

by tristero

Excerpts from Joseph Morecraft’s book, With Liberty & Justice for All: Christian Politics Made Simple. In these passages, Morecraft explicitly argues for theocracy. He claims that all governments are inherently religious. The only question is whether the state religion will be “humanism” or Christianity. Civil authority must practice God’s law which are laid out in the Bible, and the state has no right to add to or deviate from it. He claims that the primary function of a civil government is extremely limited. Its primary purpose is to punish and “terrorize” those who fail to follow the laws of God. He blames the miseries of a state – both manmade and natural- on the absence of theocracy.

****

All forms of human governments draw their authority, power, and jurisdiction from God, not from the will of the people nor the consent of the governed, because governments do not originate with the people, but with God. The voice of the people is NOT the voice of God. (p. 15ff) [NOTE: THIS DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE. THE ARGUMENT IS SIMILAR TO THE REASONING OF SCALIA. NOTE ALSO THE LESS PROVOCATIVE ECHO ES OF THIS IDEA IN THE FREQUENT CHRISTIANIST ATTACKS ON “HUMANISM,” “SECULAR HUMANISM,” “TOLERANCE” AND “MATERIALISM.”]…

The U.S. Constitution reflects this basic premise in its establishment of a republic under God rather than a democracy. The two are not synonymous. A democracy is a nation governed by the majority; and a republic is a nation governed by law….(p. 16)

People living in a Christian Republic experience true freedom while those under the “mob rule” of democracies become slaves because democracies soon degenerate into socialist states and dictatorships…(p.17-18)

The citizen, Christian and non-Christian, must be in subjection to the civil government and must respect it, remembering that he is submitting to it for the sake of Christ and that his loyalty to Christ supercedes his loyalty to the state…(p.19 ff)

He who resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God…Since political powers are established by God, we must gladly submit to their authority…Notice what happens if we do not submit to the political ordinance of God: They who resist authority…will receive condemnation upon themselves…(p. 21)

The individual’s duty is clear: he must submit to the powers that be. The state’s duty is equally clear: it must submit to Almighty God. (p. 23)

We may never break the law of God in order to obey the law of the state (p. 27)

…we have a clear statement in the New Testament [Romans 13:3-4] of the God-appointed function of the civil government: to terrorize evildoers. (p. 30)

…let us consider what functions God did not assign to civil government. Notice there is no mention in [Romans 13:3-4] about the responsibility for health, education, or welfare…

The same is true of education [except for, according to the Old Testament] the specific demands, prohibitions and sanctions of civil law (II Chronicles 17:9)….

And the same is true of welfare. (p. 30 -31)

The Constitution of the United States reflects this biblical political order. (p. 31)

God has not given the state the responsibility to plan, regulate, and control people, property, contracts, schools, Churches , businesses and industry. The very idea that the state has this power …implies that if there is no such planning by the state, there is no plan and no order at all in society. The state must become the predestining state, because there is no predestination, no order outside the state. This view of politics is an atheistic one.(p. 32)

Imagine how small the budget of the civil government would be if it carried out this one and only biblical function! Imagine how small our tax bill would be! Imagine how safe we would be! (p. 33)

If a state does not terrorize evil-doers by the enforcement of God’s law, the state and society will be terrorized by evil-doers, as we have today. (p. 34) (NOTE THE ECHO IN FALWELL’S AND ROBERTSON’S REMARKS IMMEDIATELY POST 9/11. NOTE ALSO THE PARALLEL TO DINESH D’SOUZA. HOWEVER, D’SOUZA ARGUES IN A SUBSTANTIALLY MORE SECULAR MANNER. )

Vengeance belongs to God, but to a godly state God has given the authority to administer His vengeance. [p. 37]

…the state is the “servant” and “minister” of God, representing Him and His moral order.

The obvious implication of this is that a civil government cannot be religiously neutral…

A state is an idolatrous state under divine judgment if it favors any other god than the triune God of the Bible, and any other religion than biblical Christianity.

We cannot escape our religion. Everyone has one. The question is, which religion does one hold – Christianity or Humanism, i.e. anti-Christianity? (pp. 38- 39)

The purpose of the First Amendment to the Constitution is not to secularize or de-Christianize the government of the United States…That was never the intent of the authors of that Amendment. This secular view is superimposed on the Constitution by those whose agenda is the de-Christianization of America’s civil and sociala institutions. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story (1811-1845) refuted this secular approach to the First Amendment when he wrote:

…The real object of the amendment was not to countenance, much less to advance, Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sectsx, and to prevent any ecclesiastical establishment which should give to a hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government. (pp 40-41.)

Humanism leads to the death of mankind…In a humanistic nation, millions of people die of disease, drought, abortions, euthanasia, infanticide, unjust wars, terrorism, murder and suicide in fulfillment of Deuteronomy 28 and Leviticus 26. (p. 41)

Work toward that great objective: the Christianization of every facet of American society and culture and the evangelization of every American citizen and family.

When that day comes, you and I will be able to spend all our days working hard in our callings, worshipping God with our families in our churches, earning what we deserve, keeping what we make, spending like we want, being able to tithe, doing on our property what we desire and what is pleasing to God, and educating our children in the way we think they should be educated. We would have a strong, secure, prosperous, free, just, and godly nation blessed by Almighty God. (p. 43)

[The state’s authority] is ministerial not legislative. God has not given it the right to create laws, legislation, and policies by fiat ex nihilio. It may not invent regulations based on the latest opinion poll or the most recent expert advice. The sate may administer and apply to our modern situation the laws it finds written in the Bible governing the civil sphere…

To say that we need additional, extra-biblical, or contra-biblical laws, to satisfy the needs of our modern age is to deny the Bible’s all-sufficient, eternal authority for all of life in all ages (Deuteronomy 4:1f; 8:12-32; 29:29). ..the Bible is not the word of man, nor the word of the state, it is the eternal Word of God written. (p. 48-49)

…it is the responsibility of the state to legislate biblical morality. We must not flinch at this point. For a nation to remain free and just, its civil government must enforce biblical law….[NOTE: SINCE “LEGISLATING MORALITY “ IS A COMMON ACCUSATION THROWN AT LIBERALS ,MORECRAFT IMMEDIATELY QUALIFIES THIS] If legislating morality refers to the effort to make people good by passing laws, then, of course, as Christians, we must take issue with that view….Only [Christ] can make people good.

Humanists, on the other hand, do believe that the state can make people good by passing laws. (p. 51).

…if God’s law does not remain at the foundation of a nation’s life, that nation will not last long…

If the federal government were to annul all of the laws legislated in the past one hundred years and pass into law the few hundred moral laws of the Bible, this country would have more freedom, strength, security, prosperity, justice, righteousness, love and happiness than it has ever had in its history. Of course, this won’t happen until the hearts of Americans are converted to Jesus Christ.

A Christian Republic has far fewer laws, far fewer government employees, and is far less expensive than any humanistic democracy, i.e., socialistic state (II Chronicles 12:8). (p. 53)

Tyranny is a political order wherein the final source of law, the final standard of right and wrong, is man or the political order itself. (p. 57)

Theocracy is a very proper description of a godly political order, when that word is defined correctly…A theocracy, in the biblical sense of the word, is a nation where God’s revealed law is supreme over all human laws, and is the source of all laws.

A label describing such an order that could be substituted for theocracy is Christian Republic. (p. 57)

Has the federal government of the United States become the enemy of its godly citizens? It has become a “terrorist state” against its citizens by threatening our liberty, prosperity, security, and our very lives; because it has clearly turned its back on its accountability to the supremacy of Almighty God. (p. 60)

In Deuteronomy God tells his people, in figurative terms, to put His law on their foreheads, hands, doorposts, mouths, and hearts (Deuteronomy 6:8f) (P. 61)

****

Some brief comments. Anyone who knows the first thing about American history and the founding documents knows that Morecraft’s arguments against the consent of the governed are a contradiction of core American civic values. This highlights Rushdooony’s point in the first sentence of his introduction, that since the founding of the United States, the theology of politics has been neglected. There are many ways to look at this. American democrats – you and I – see this as a good thing but both Rushdoony and Morecraft don’t. It’s not that they are arguing for a return of George III, let alone the Holy Roman Empire. Rather, the point here is that these founding documents, and their intent, have been systematically misunderstood from 1776 onwards, and as a result the US has mutated from the Christian Republic the Founders intended into a cauldron of humanistic perversion.

Obviously, Morecraft’s argument is, to be kind, bizarre and wrong. The point of reproducing it here is not so much to encourage arguing with it – it doesn’t rise to the level of serious debate – but rather to give you an opportunity to examine how Morecraft structures his argument to justify theocracy. You will find, albeit much watered-down, the exact same argument advanced by nearly everyone on the religious right arguing for a larger role for religion in government.

What Morecraft’s blunt advocacy of theocracy makes clear is that the call for a Christian Republic is in no sense a religious argument, but solely a political one. It is about claiming the right to utterly dominate the United States. No matter how mild the rhetoric might be -“the federal office of faith-based initiatives can really do a world of good” – this is the intent.

The last excerpt, on page 61 is, I think, very telling. It clearly is Morecraft’s interpretation that the wearing of God’s law is “figurative.” The purpose of his interpretation is to exempt “Christians” from obeying what many jews believe is a very literal commandment. This is a clear-cut example of an interpretation which contradicts the “literal” meaning of the words in the Bible. A closer examination of Morecraft’s claims – that the Bible clearly mandates a theocratic state – will uncover an elaborate web of idiosyncratic readings – interpretation – of biblical passages, all calculated to make the Bible read like a political manifesto.

Walking On Broken Glass Houses

by digby

They don’t call him “bold” for nothing.

The White House on Friday denounced Iran’s treatment of 15 British sailors after the former captives said they were threatened with prison if they did not admit to straying into Iranian waters.

The British sailors told a news conference in Britain on Friday that they were blindfolded, bound, kept in isolation and warned that they faced up to seven years in prison.

White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe told reporters near President George W. Bush’s Texas ranch the Iranians did not seem to engage in appropriate behavior in dealing with the sailors who were seized in the Gulf two weeks ago.

“It’s unfortunate that the Iranians ever detained the sailors to begin with, considering they were operating under a UN mandate in Iraqi waters. So what the sailors said this morning – it’s unfortunate and extremely disappointing they were treated inappropriately in any way,” Johndroe said.

I find it a bit quaint actually.

.

GOP Voting Integrity

by digby

…a contradiction in terms.

With the news from Steve Benen coming out of Wisconsin and from Christy about Minnesota, regarding a couple more of those “Good Bushies” in the Justice Department, I thought it might be a good time to bring up a little something I found the other day on the blog Wot Is It Good 4. A commenter there pointed to this very interesting paper (pdf) presented to the Center For Voting Rights just before the 2004 election on the issue of voter suppression.

I was surprised to see that the Republican National Lawyers Association (where Rove delivered his speech last spring in which, among other things, he mentioned as “problems” those states from which the targeted US Attorneys hail) was pretty much formed for the express and exclusive purpose of training and deploying lawyers on matters of purported voter fraud (aka minority vote suppression.) Neither did I know before that they played a pivotal role in the Florida Recount.

The report gives the history of minority voter suppression in America (a very ugly story) and brings it right up to the 1980’s, particularly the huge voter registration effort in the black community by the Jesse Jackson campaign which apparently scared the bejeezuz out of the Republicans:

Democratic activist Donna Brazile, a Jackson worker and Albert Gore’s campaign manager in 2000, said “There were all sorts of groups out there doing voter registration. Some time after the ’86 election, massive purging started taking place. It was a wicked practice that took place all over the country, especially in the deep South. Democrats retook the Senate in 1986, and [Republican] groups went on a rampage on the premise they were cleaning up the rolls. The campaign then was targeted toward African-Americans.” As in the past, Republicans justified the purges in the name of preventing the unregistered from voting. But Democrats charged vote suppression.

[…]

The Republicans’ perceived problems arising from too heavy a reliance on volunteers began to be addressed with a different strategy in the mid-1980s. From Operation Eagle Eye onward, the major Republican ballot security programs had borne the imprimatur of the party high command, overseen by the RNC and implemented at the grassroots by local organizations and commercial political operatives. In the mid-1980s, the situation began to change. GOP ballot-security skulduggery in the city of Newark and environs had led to a consent decree in 1982 presided over by a federal judge in New Jersey, according to which the RNC promised to forego minority vote suppression.19 In 1985, several months before the RNC was hauled back before the same judge as a result of illegal purging efforts in a 1986 Louisiana senatorial campaign and agreed to submit all future ballot security programs it oversaw to the court for its inspection, a new organization was created—the Republican National Lawyers Association (RNLA).

A group of lawyers who had worked on the Reagan-Bush campaign in 1984 were behind its founding, and it was designed “to be a sort of Rotary Club for GOP stalwarts,” according to a contemporary article in Legal Times magazine. The RNC helped the association get off the ground with a $5,000 loan, although today the RNC claims no official connection with it. By 1987 the RNLA had active chapters in several states and the District of Columbia, and planned to hold its first annual convention early the following year. A lure for attendees, the planners hoped, would be continuing legal education credits and a possible appearance by Attorney General Edwin Meese III and President Reagan.20

The RNLA turned out to be much more than a Rotary Club for GOP lawyers, however; it became the predominant Republican organization coordinating ballot security. By its own account, in early 2004 it had grown to “a 1,900-member organization of lawyers and law students in all 50 states.”21 Its officers were experienced lawyers who knew their way around Washington as a result of having served in Republican administrations at the national and state levels and in major K Street firms. Michael Thielen, its current executive director, who earlier worked for the RNC, describes the organization as follows: Since 1985 the RNLA has nurtured and advanced lawyer involvement in public affairs generally and the Republican Party in particular. It is accurately described as a combination of a professional bar association, politically involved law firm and educational institute. . . . With members now in government, party general counsel positions, law firm management and on law school faculties, the RNLA has for many years been the principal national organization through which lawyers serve the Republican Party and its candidates.22

Its prestige in Republican party circles undoubtedly got a boost from its involvement in the Florida ballot recount battles of November-December 2000, when, according to one of its members, Eric Buermann, the RNLA was “extremely helpful . . . by sending lawyers to Florida to work on the recount, providing expertise as needed, and coordinating volunteer lawyer response.” It was this helpfulness which apparently led Buermann, the state’s Republican Party general counsel, to coordinate a collaboration between the RNLA and Florida legal response teams in 2002, so that, in the words of anRNLA newsletter that year, “there will be a permanent structure in place to keep the lawyers active and organized during off-election years.”23

Actually, the collaboration was even broader, involving the National Republican Campaign Committee and the RNC as well.24 The Democrats, on the other hand, also were developing a large network of lawyers that year—10,000, by one estimate—to counter vote suppression efforts. The nationwide deployment of thousands of lawyers in both parties led one journalist to predict “a new era in US politics after the Florida debacle two years ago—the age of the lawyers.”25

Executive Director Thielen gives this account of the organization’s involvement in the 2000 recount: “After election day, RNLA members were dispatched by party organizations and campaigns to multiple locations within several states. When it became clear that the final result in Florida would determine the outcome of the presidential election, members were concentrated there.” Thielen adds, “had it not been for the preeminent litigators retained by the campaign entities and the volunteer attorneys who spent weeks defending the intent of voters before canvassing boards, the will of thenation’s voters would surely have been thwarted.”26

What an odd thing to say. The “nation’s” voters clearly preferred Al Gore. It was only through that regrettable anachronism of the electoral college (and cheating in Florida) that had Bush within stealing distance.

Underlining the organization’s enhanced status among Republicans, White House counsel Albert Gonzales told the group, “You know, I must confess I groaned when I was first asked whether I would be willing to address another group of lawyers. However, when I found out this group included many lawyers that helped secure the election for George W. Bush, I quickly reconsidered.”27

The RNLA’s pride in its Florida efforts is expressed by trophies it presents to honorees at special receptions, consisting of lucite blocks that, as described on the organization’s Web site, “contain a commemorative message in honor of the Florida recount team, and contain actual ‘Chads’ from Florida dispersed throughout the Lucite. They [sic] were only a few hundred created and are not for sale but rather only presented to distinguished members and guests of the RNLA.” Not surprisingly, an RNLA lawyer, Hayden Dempsey, formerly a lawyer for Governor Jeb Bush, is heading Lawyers for Bush, the president’s legal defense team in Florida in 2004.

[…]

With the rise to prominence of the RNLA, the Republican Party’s nationally directed ballot security programs appear to have been transformed. While Operation Eagle Eye was directed from the command posts of the RNC by professionals, the people on the ground—poll-watchers and challengers—were often amateurs, which is to say Election Day volunteers who may have had only cursory training. The RNLA, born in the Reagan era, has gradually assumed the role of the party’s overarching anti-fraud enforcement agency. In the process, the organization has professionalized ballot security (its spokespersons seem to prefer the term “ballot integrity”) with a cadre of highly trained, aggressive, and mobile lawyers who can go anywhere in the nation on short notice. Indeed, they don’t even need to be mobile, in many cases. As one of the organization’s newsletters put it: “Ironically, when the Democratic National Committee bragged of sending in a thousand lawyers each to Missouri, Florida, and Texas for election day operations, the [RNLA] Field Operations Committee already had chapters organized in those states and did not need to send out of state lawyers to assist with the elections.”

You’ll all find this symmetry a beautiful thing, I’m sure: perhaps you remember that the original voter suppression effort of the modern GOP was called Operation Eagle Eye and its most famous member was none other than William Rhenquist, former Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court. In a fitting tribute, his successor John Roberts is a member of the RNLA and participated in the Florida recount under its auspices. Those Republicans do love their traditions.

The good news is that while they may have been plotting purges and voter suppression efforts all over the country, they have been doing a bang up job at protecting minority voting rights. The white minority, that is. (Well, ok, they might not actually be in the minority, but many of them feel that that they are, which is what counts. It seems like Negroes and Mexicans are just all over the place these days.)

From TPM’s Paul Kiel:

The U.S. attorney firings scandal has laid bare the administration’s — and particularly Karl Rove’s — preoccupation with prosecuting voter fraud. But there’s a flip side to this coin. The Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division has virtually abandoned its traditional role, undertaken since the 1965 Voting Rights Act, of actively protecting African American voters from discrimination. There’s no greater demonstration of that fact than this simple fact: During the first five years of the Bush administration, the Justice Department’s voting section only filed a single case alleging voting discrimination on behalf of African American voters. That’s despite the fact that the section, part of the Civil Rights Division, was created mainly to protect African American voters from discrimination. But during that same time period, the section managed to file the first ever “reverse” discrimination case under the Voting Rights Act. That case, United States v. Ike Brown and Noxubee County, alleges that Brown, the chairman of Noxubee County’s Democratic Executive Committee in Mississippi, has been trying to limit whites’ participation in local elections. The case, filed in 2005, is currently being tried, and is likely to reach its conclusion later this month. Joseph Rich, the chief of the voting section until he resigned in 2005, signed the complaint against Brown and told me that he thought that the case did have merit. But he said that it was “really a question of priority” for a section with limited resources. The political appointees in the section aggressively promoted the case, he said: “clearly they were very interested in this particular matter when it came up.” Rich, who worked for the department enforcing civil rights laws for more than 35 years, has very publicly criticized the section he left.

From from sea to shining sea and Diebold to voter purges, the Republicans have been building a massive, centralized election stealing machine. But that’s exactly what you’d expect when you put halfwits, psychopaths and criminals in charge of the US government. People in power tend to follow their bliss.

.

Blog Against Theocracy Part II: A Taste Of Rushdoony

by tristero

In this post, I begin our direct encounter with theocracy with some excerpts from Joseph Morecraft’s book, With Liberty & Justice for All: Christian Politics Made Simple. We’ll start with the introduction entitled “The Theology of Politics,” which was written not by Morecraft but rather the founder of “Christian Reconstruction,” the late Rousas John Rushdoony. You can find plenty of information about Rushdoony on the Web, but here are a few things to help you approach this material. The ideas touched upon by Rushdoony here will be developed in detail by Joe Morecraft in the main body of his book.

First of all, Christian Reconstruction is sometimes classified as the far right edge of the Religious Right, fairly close to the violent madness of Eric Rudolph and Christian Identity. I’m no scholar but I think that may be mistaken. With some very important differences duly noted, I think that Christian Reconstruction – with some important exceptions – is closer to the goals of theocrats like Dobson, Robertson, et al. Christian Reconstructionist texts, however, employ a very blunt, pull no punches, language, even in comparison to the crude style of men like Robertson and Falwell.

To put it differently, so it’s clear. Christian Reconstruction should not be thought the “religion” of men like, say, Dobson. However, when their use of language and their obsessions are examined closely, the commonality of objective is apparent: the establishment of an American theocracy. The rhetoric that Rushdoony uses gets echoed by the more “acceptable” theocrats, toned down, cleaned up (the word “theocracy” is replaced with “Christian Republic,” eg), and then injected into the mainstream discourse on church and state (in a manner common to other extreme rightwing activism, as exposed and described in detail by David Neiwert on his blog,).

However – and this is critical – men like Dobson, Scalia, Santorum, Falwell, and Robertson are not, repeat NOT, followers of Rushdoony, and in some places strongly disagree with him. . (And to make matters more complicated, there are – happily, I should add – numerous schisms within the Christian Reconstruction movement and similar groups.) All of that said, you will notice similarities of language and concerns between the so-called extremist Rushdoony, his follower Morecraft, and the more “moderate” christianists we have all become far too familiar with.

One other point. You may think Rushdoony’s ideas as to be beneath serious notice. Therefore, please note that a major funder of Rushdoony’s Christian Reconstrucion, billionaire Howard Ahmanson, funded the “intelligent design” creationism initiative at the Discovery Institute (Ahmanson sits on the board). That’s correct: Major funding for “Intelligent design” creationism is linked directly to the ideas you will encounter here.Ahmanson also funds the Claremont Foundation, a rightwing cultural thinktank, and funded the recall initiative of California’s governor Gray Davis. These are only a few of the initiatives Ahmanson has taken to advance the rightwing, and often specifically Republican, agenda.

That should give you some notion of how far at least one political operative directly involved in Christian Reconstruction has advanced into mainstream American politics. And how much influence he has had. The enormous amount of time American scientists have wasted in the fight against “intelligent design” creationism is just one of many examples of the major damage theocrats directly cause.

Excerpts from “The Theology of Politics” by Rousas John Rushdoony.

Printed as the introduction to the book, Amazon.com: With Liberty & Justice for All: Christian Politics Made Simple by Joe Morecraft III.

NOTE: All punctuation and emphases are in the original. Page numbers refer to the 1995 paperback edition of Morecraft’s book. My comments are in brackets and in upper case. I did not check all of Morecraft’s biblical references. Please inform me of any inaccuracies.

****

An area of study much neglected in the past two centuries or more, is the theology of politics. [NOTE: RUSHDOONY IS SAYING “THE THEOLOGY OF POLITICS” HAS BEEN NEGLECTED EVER SINCE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE UNITED STATES.] Political thinking has become secularized and humanistic to the point that to speak about the relationship of God to politics is for many to introduce an alien factor into the discussion. (p. 6.)

The starting point of biblical thought is the fact of creation. In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth (Genesis 1:1) This creating God is not some vaguely non-partisan deity who belongs equally to a variety of religions and philosophies. He is the triune God; He is the father of Jesus Christ [NOTE: ONE OF RUSHDOONY’S POINTS IS TO CLAIM A BIBLICAL JUSTIFICATION FOR RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE. MORECRAFT WILL MAKE THIS MORE EXPLICIT LATER.] …John begins his gospel by making this identification

1. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2. The same was in the beginning with God.
3. All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made (John 1:1-3)

Thus politics cannot be a neutral realm…All things are under God and His government.

Moreover, we are plainly told that He who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords (II Timothy 6:15) is our Lord Jesus Christ. This means that, first, there can be no religiously neutral political system. All are either under Christ or against Him…

Second, this means that we must have a theology of politics, one based on the whole word of God. Such a theology must apply Scripture to every facet of political life.

Third, because social order is a moral fact, and morality is a branch of theology, a lack of faith among the people, and an indifference to theological order by the state, soon means a moral decay and social collapse.

Fourth, a civil government is not a church and is thus not involved in church matters nor in ecclesiastical doctrines, but it must affirm a biblical faith if it is to avoid social collapse. [NOTE: THIS IS HOW RUSHDOONY AND OTHER CHRISTIANISTS UNDERSTAND THE MEANING OF “SEPARATION OF CHURCH OF STATE.” AGAIN, MORECRAFT WILL EXPAND UPON THIS]…This does not mean a creedal stand by the state….A sound theology of politics must begin in the lives of the people and manifest itself in the churches. If it is not in the people nor in the Church, it will not be in the state.

Fifth, in terms of Scripture, Church and state are both ministries under God. The church is a ministry of grace, and the state is a ministry of justice. Note that in neither case should we limit the ministries…we dare not forget that God’s grace reaches men through a variety of channels. The same is true of civil governments; the world would be a bleak and fearful place if justice existed only within the machinery of the state. Our parents routinely administered justice to us, as do churches, employers, and a variety of groups and persons…We must see the ministerial nature of civil government without limiting justice to the state. (pp. 6-8) [NOTE: RUSHDOONY INSISTS UPON A HIGHLY CIRCUMSCRIBED CIVIL GOVERNMENT WHICH SHARES SECULAR POWER WITH THE CHURCH, PARENTS, EMPLOYERS, AND, IMPORTANTLY, UNNAMED OTHERS TO ADMINISTER JUSTICE.

MORECRAFT WILL EXPAND THIS INTO A THEORY OF GOVERNMENT LIMITED ONLY TO A HIGHLY PUNITIVE JUDICIARY AND PENAL SYSTEM WITH VIRTUALLY NO OTHER FUNCTION OR POWER. THE GOVERNMENT WILL COLLECT ONLY A SMALL “FLAT TAX.]

Theology By Other Means

The major point that Rushdoony makes is that, to paraphrase Clausewitz, politics is theology by other means. That said, do not be misled into thinking that Rushdoony explicitly advocates a state that legislates Christian morality. As Morecraft, makes clear, that is never the state’s role.

What goes unstated by both theocrats, however, is that while the state is forbidden to interfere in church affairs, the church is not so constrained. Furthermore, the church has the right to administer justice as well as the state. AND the church has the obligation, from God, to judge the morality of all citizens of the state, including non-Christians. Moral behavior entails strict obedience to God’s laws as set forth in the Bible. And, as you will see, strict punishment for disobedience to God.

Blog Against Theocracy Part I: Meet The Theocrats

by tristero

This Easter weekend, there is a blogswarm going on called Blog Against Theocracy. My contribution is a bit idiocsyncratic, namely a series of posts consisting of numerous excerpts from a book that explicitly advocates theocracy entitled With Liberty & Justice for All: Christian Politics Made Simple by Joe Morecraft III. There will be a lot of material but if you are worried about the “religious right” – what I call christianism – I hope that you will take the time to read it all.

Important note to new readers: As many longtime followers of my work know, my respect for all forms of genuine religious expression is a matter of long public record. Theocracy, however, is not religious, but political expression. Privately, and within his church and congregation, Joe Morecraft is entitled to worship (or not) as he sees fit.

However, Morecraft is not entitled to immunity from criticism, let alone tolerance, when – as will become quite clear – he heaps contempt on American democracy, distorts American history, and openly advocates the overthrow of the US government and its replacement with a sadistically violent totalitarian state. When he does so by appropriating biblical iconography and texts – which he arbitrarily and perversely interprets as providing him and his pals with a monopoly on the truth of God’s will – it is Joe Morecraft, not I, who deeply insults all Christians.

Why I Am Doing This

For the most part, I will try to limit my comment on these excerpts to brief explanations that attempt to clarify the text. I will also point to echoes of this text in other theocratic writings. For the most part, while my bias is clear, I will not try to refute anything said. Why? Well, for one thing, I have spent some four years doing exactly that, on this blog and on my own, Tristero, and in numerous comments, public talks, lectures, and papers. Detailed refutations of specific theocratic arguments – say, that the US was founded as an explicitly Christian nation – are very easy to find, by me and others. There’s little point in saying all that again. For another, I think it’s important to encounter theocratic texts for yourselves and develop your own objections.

I’ve noticed that, aside from commenting on one or more obnoxious soundbites, few of us liberals bother to attend to the full spectrum of what theocrats say and do. And it’s no wonder; it’s genuinely unpleasant reading. But the problem is that those provocative, isolated soundbites provide a terribly distorted picture of what theocrats are up to. If you encounter short excerpts of Rushdoony or North, they sound crazy. But when you read a lot of their thoughts, you gain a much more detailed and accurate impression of a fascistic, demented and frightening mentality. More importantly, if you encounter only one or two theocratic arguments you may be left with the impression that modern American theocracy is a religious idea or a religious movement. That is a serious mistake. I think if you take the trouble to read all the excerpts I post here, chances are likely that you’ll conclude, as I have, that christianism is a highly influential and extremely dangerous political movement that is more mainstream than you might imagine.

In order to understand what American theocracy is – and why those of us who are worried about it are worried sick over it – you need to encounter it in context and that means reading beyond deliberately tendentious soundbites like, “9/11 is God’s vengeance on a corrupt United States.” You need to see how the various pieces of their arguments are developed and interconnect. You also need to see how the theocrats deliberately manufacture opportunities to create coalitions with non-religious extremists. And you need to see how theocratic ideas have become not only more acceptable, but actually become mainstream topics of political discourse.

In short, if you want to understand how to confront theocracy – and with a lot of effort on our part on a lot of different fronts, I think it can be re-consigned to the ugly margins of American public discourse – you need to find out not only what they think, but how they think. And that will take examining what theocrats say in context.

Morecraft’s book is useful because it is stylistically consistent and short. Also, Morecraft is unusually blunt and direct both in his language and his intentions. That said, it is not, repeat NOT, “the Christianist Manifesto.” It’s not even close. There probably is no such thing. The theocrats, for many reasons, simply don’t work like that. For one thing, there is so much they intuitively agree about, there’s no reason to bother. For another, they are way ahead of us. They know what they want; their focus now is on implementation, not theorizing.

But the excerpts from Morecraft’s book will give you an excellent introduction to their genuinely bizarre mindset. It’s my hope that these excerpts dispel a lot of liberal misconceptions about the theocrats. For example, what theocrats like Dobson and Donohue mean by “religious freedom” and “tolerance” is very different than our understanding of the terms. By getting a clearer view of their rationales, deceptions, distortions, and obsessions, I think we will be better able to craft more effective ways to fight them.

God knows we need all the help we can get.

Later today, I will post excerpts from the introduction to With Liberty & Justice for All which was written by R.J. Rushdoony, the founder of Christian Reconstruction. Over the weekend, I will post excerpts from the book proper.