They believe that Christian polity is decentralized. That is nearly the precise opposite of fascism.

Therefore, I believe Hedges somehow has either equated or conflated the term, "fascism" with the term, "imperialism." Clearly, Chrisianity is imperialistic and clearly, the group quoted above are ardent believers in God's call for universal evangelism -- the ultimate expression of Christian imperialism. But these guys are the opposite of state-ists. They want politics at the Old Testement level -- somewhere between Beduin pastoralists and barbaric kingships. No way that is fascism.

Bot

It depends I suppose on the exact meaning of the word "Facism". I disagree with your analysis. I think they clearly intend to take over the state and their tactics dont just include going after the national leadership but also starting from the bottom in the form of local government, school boards, municpalities etc.

- Peter.

Yes, they call themselves libertarian. However, this is only because only an extremely small part of their utopian society is political. Their society is governed by biblical law similar to Calvin's attempt to rule Geneva. They explicity say that the State is a religious institution. So it is a religious fascism and not identical with the fascism of Hitler and Mussolini.
They are not simply evangelicals. They might be if they did not think that universal evangelism was unrelated to the State.

A state without central control is simply not fascistic. It is possibly feudal-kingship, except that Christianity implies rejection of even that form of rule -- it is through faith alone that man enters the kingdom of God.

Perhaps the closest political framework in history is (coincidentally?), the monastic system, in which the the local commune of monks were semiautonomous. But of course, they had externally appointed leadership. Recalling for a moment that before Hildebrand (I believe) was elevated to pope, religious orders were not specifically prevented from marrying.

I dunno, it just seems a stretch to call it fascistic. Communistic might be more accurate, since it is by it's own definition, community-based. Lots (failed) Christian communists. I think some failed from internal problems but have no doubt that many failed because of stressors from outside.

B

Salvation is a matter of faith for them, but the state and its legal system is not. Their State is not justified by constitution, social contract or democractically enacted laws. Their State is an expression of God's will.
The only difference I see between their view of the State and classical Muslim view of the State is the the Muslim finds salvation by obeying the laws of the State, faith being not an issue. The reconstructions are allowing that even in their Christian State, there can be unbelievers who lack faith.
There is no concept of non-Christians/humanists/pagans/agnostics/having equal voice in the creation of the legal system.

Yes. Rushdoony had a degree in education and was one of the first to advocate home schooling for Christians in the late 1950's or early 1960's. He didn't think there was any 'neutral' education. All of education had to be Christian. He's the original proponent of the ideas taught in my wacky brother-in-law's Christian/home school which explicitly claims that in their geometry classes they will teach geometry as if Euclid was a Christian. The long term effect of this propaganda system on children is powerful.

Indeed. I have one of these as a colleague sitting in the cube next to me at work. At times it's all I can do to remain civil.

- Peter.

when i read that section i thought they were talking about the government structure becomming completely local. i don't think they intend the religeous structure to be just local.

local control of schools is what the civil rights movement was all about. the law of our land said that separate but equal was OK. in the deep south they had a school for black folks and one for whites. there were desks in each, the ones in the black schools were of course cast offs from the white schools. there were books in each, the white schools had new books the black schools had the cast offs. there were teachers etc etc. there was a kind of perverted equivalancy but in truth there was no way there was any equality.

actually that was true here in lafayette too, but when integration was required indiana simply did it without a struggle. and while on the subject of indiana there was a black man lynched in marion indiana in 1933 or so. and the grand wizard of the ku klus klan used to live in southport, a suburb of indy.

so the supreme court ruled that basically schools separated by racial groupings will never be equal. and demanded integration.

the result, forty years later, is that in the hard core places, all the whites that can afford to have moved away from the inner city schools to outlying sccools or are home schooling or have their kids in private schools.

my younger siblings went to school in kalamazoo where white flight resulted in the city schools being more than half black. all of my younger siblings were beaten up by blacks while in school. that can adjust your attitude.

so when it comes to race the best intentioned laws cannot govern people's hearts.

i wonder what these "christians" have in store for black folks and other minorities? what am i saying? what do they have in store for me since i am referred to as a 'professed christian' who practces tolerance?

good topic.

tom w

Dude, you've got radical leftists phobia on the brain.

You've interviewed radical leftists on the subject? Speaking as a card-carrying radical leftist, I have a fondness for religion, most of them, if you pare away the fanatical baggage attached by, well, fanatics, and examine the original teachings and the original inspiration.

I'm not fond of the Falwell/Robertson type characters as they try to co-opt religion and define it for themselves. That alone wouldn't be so bad if they didn't then use it as a battering ram to try to force compliance with their beliefs.

I keep thinking of Jesus when he said, "and many shall come to me, saying 'master, master, we've done great works in your name, cast out demons, (etc.)' and I shall say to them, 'go hence from me, I have never known you, doers of iniquity.'"

Rough quote. That's the King cmac translation.

Perhaps this paragraph is giving problems:

We do believe that the state one day will be Christian, but this no way implies that the role of the state is to Christianize its citizens. The Christian state is highly decentralized (localized). Our objective, therefore, in supporting Christian political involvement is to scale down the massive state in Western democracies, reducing it to its Biblical limits.

--------------

The way I read it, the author is specifically rejecting centralized government in favor of highly localized control. To me, decentralization is the antithesis of fascism. Further, in the book of Acts in the Christian Bible (I think it is Acts, could be Hebrews), the authors plainly advocate a form of communism. If the advocates of this particular utopia are truly Christian, then they are also communists of a sort. Communism, in it's purest form, is the exact antithesis of fascism.

Bot

I'm afraid Bot, you give too much credit to the intellectual level of these folks. Their religion is not true christianity in it's generally understood form. And for them to get their minds around any references to communistic forms of existance in the bible is unlikely. They may well favour a reduction in state interference in citizens lives but only under the auspices of a christianised government with a christian nationalist religion where there is no need for direct state intervention in "their" lives as they already completely sync with the state in every regard. Others however, anybody who does not share their 12th century peasant view of the world would, I think, have a very much more unpleasant experience with the state than they would.

- Peter.

You maybe right, I don't know. All I can reasonably evaluate is the words and references that they use. I have no personal experience.

The problem with extreme religious idealogues,{I,E,Zealots}is one cannot by any means convince them there is NO ideal,theirs is the ONLY true faith and all other paths lead,if not to perdition,to a less perfect "society".Believe me,I know this kind.

I would line them up against the wall and shoot them as a warning to other stupid morons who would enforce their putrid,dictatorial doctrines upon us.

Man, I don't know where I am on this topic.
Theologically, I probably agree on most points. But as a result of believing that man was created in the image of God, I see each person as having value and worth--not dependent on their theology, but simply as image-bearers of God. It is the duty of each Christian to explain, as well as they can, to the people with whom they interact, the truths and implications of Christianity. But it up to the individual to choose, to believe, or not.

I would agree that the basic tennants to Law as given in the Bible are good guidance for all civil law. Obviously, Old Testament, ceremonial laws are not universal; but Do Not Murder, Do Not Lie, Do not Steal, etc and " Love your neighbor as yourself" are a pretty good starting point for any society. How can anyone object to them? Keeping the Sabath is, in my view, outside the purvue of civil government.
I don't see how education can be neutral. Either everything flows from a universe created by an orderly God, or we are the product of random chance. I do not see much middle ground. If you want to teach ethics in a moral vacuum, you must end up with moral relativism. The problem I have with the way I see Creationism taught is that it is often used simply as a tool for Christian evangelism. ( Not that I think that in itself is bad--but I object to the deception.) I think there is a way of presenting Creationism and Dawinism in an objective manner--I just haven't seen anyone do it.

A key issue in understanding fascism in my view is whether the State exists to serve the individual or the individual exists to serve the State. Since the State and Religion are one according to the Reconstructionists/Dominionists and we are created to serve God (as opposed to God being created to serve us), the individual must serve the State.
There is no theoretical space within their point of view for free individuals to make free choices to organize themselves using principles that seem reasonable to them. They are radical Augustinians who believe in original sin which requires that human reason be rejected in favor of divine authority since human reason is sinful.