Comment: I think the article is uncharitble and slanted.

(See in situ)

I think the article is uncharitble and slanted.

I'm not all that familiar with christian reconstructionism, so I may be mistaken, but after looking at the article, I think it is being uncharitable in it's assessment and is slanted.

When they quote the guy as saying: "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."

He may have meant that religious liberty should be used to gain independence 'for Christian schools' until independence for Christian schools can be without having to appeal to some principle of exception(an exception based on religious liberty), because a change in thinking in society might lead people to realize that there is no neutrality in worldviews, and that a secular public school is just as religious, in it's worldview dogmas as any other religious worldview. It's the idea that they want an equal playing field instead of assuming that the secular view is neutral. Assuming neutrality of the secular might be thought of as giving opportunity to gagging religious thoughts and practices even in religious schools, thus the reliance on religious liberty to prevent that in schools. And if that is a plausible interpretation of the text, a charitable reading would opt for viewing it that way instead of viewing it as referring to removing liberties from people outside of Christian schools, at least in that quote anyways.

Also. When people bring up the use of mosaic law and capital punishment for homosexuals, I think there is a gross misunderstanding. Many Calvinists view the mosaic law as having 3 parts (moral, Hebrew civil, and ceremonial), while only the moral aspect of the law is viewed as valid today. So when they mention supporting the mosaic law, I think they only refer to the moral law aspect of it, which they view as found within the ten commandments, but are not the ten commandments explicitly. So these mentions of capital punishments of gay people (civil laws) are just misunderstanding and misrepresenting what is meant by mosaic law by those sorts of people. A real world example of what might be in mind by similar people who want to affect society outside of schools might be seen in places where sabbatarianism is still practiced. For example, some towns voluntarily closed all of their stores on Sundays, because the underlying moral principle behind the 4th commandment is viewed as showing love to God by setting aside a day for God, which the early church celebrated on Sunday because of the resurrection of Jesus. Wikipedia says of Lynden WA for example: "Due to the town's large population of those who attend or are members of Lynden's many churches, the town has had a long tradition of most businesses closing on Sunday. This was voluntary, never by ordinance however."

I found this quote of Gary North saying almost the exact opposite of what the article says about him wanting to set up some kind of religious state control(or messianic state) with death penalties for everything:
" It is my goal in life to do what I can to persuade people to shrink the state. The messianic State is a crude imitation of a religion of redemption. It makes the State the healer and, ultimately, the savior of all mankind. This messianic religion is what the early church battled theologically and risked martyrdom to oppose. Christians refused to toss a pinch of incense onto the altar symbolizing the genius of the emperor. For that seemingly minor resistance to State power, they were thrown to the lions. Both sides knew the stakes of that contest. Christianity was a dagger pointed at the heart of the messianic State. It still is."