That does not differ from pure communism.

I agree.

You are right there too.

[QUOTE]If you want to teach ethics in a moral vacuum, you must end up with moral relativism.

The problem with fundamentalists of any religion is their bone headed contention that absent their religion you have only a moral vacume. This is nonsense. There have been plenty of other religions thruout history, and are currently a number of different ones still that impart morality not much different than the basic laws you enumerated in your post. The problem with godnuts of any religion is the complete inability to co-exist with any other philosopy and the resultant strife that ensues.

Therewith I disagree. Creationism is just religion, Darwinism, or rather the theory of evolution is science and never the twain shall meet, despite the best attempts of the godnuts to pretend they are equivalent.

- Peter.

Indeed. When you come down to it there is very little difference between pure facism and pure communism for the average shmuck stuck at the bottom of the dungheap.

- Peter.

I think Rushdoony is mistaken on some issues but correct on others. For instance, much of education, while not neutral on questions of truth and falsity has very little implication for religion or theology. Math is a good example. It is just stupid to have to call Euclid a Christian in order to account for the truth and usefuleness of geometry.
However, Rushdoony is correct that education in a democracy is a direct threat to his philosophy and theology. For instance, in a democractic discussion of ethical questions such as abortion, the death penalty, homosexuality etc, the humanist and secularist must be given equal voice with the Reconstructionist. Since democracy values the wills and minds of everyone, there is no justification for excluding sinners from the discussion, nor from lawmaking.

One might think that Rushdoony would be happy with this open discussion because the truth and rationality of his own religious views would prevail in an open discussion. But he doesn't think this. There is no rational evidence, choice, or proof of the existence of God, or the superiority of Rushdoony's religion. Knowledge of these things is only found by submission of one's will to God, and not by an act of unaided reason. Submission to divine authority precedes knowledge of divine truth. To put it another way, his political fascism is based on an intellectual fascism. (He follows a strange and deviant form of Christian Apologetics rooted in the philosopher, Cornelius Van Till, (and the dutchman, Herman Doeyweerd sp?) called Presuppositionalism)
The system is built from top to bottom on submission to divine authority. There is no access to intellectual or political goods except thru the expressed will of God as found in the Bible to which we must all submit. People who have not done so, have no standing in the system.

It depends on whose communism is being discussed. Marx himself claimed the State would wither away so it would become impossible for the individual to serve the State if it disappeared. Stalinism on the other hand may have held that view. Insofar as it did, it's indistinguishable from fascism.

Previously:

Originally Posted by kerry edwards
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.

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

It seems to me that a pure commune-ism is faced with exactly that same duality. In the ultimate form, the question is meaningless.

L'etat ce'st moi.

Bot

As an aside from the general political implications, I have known people who believed this religious ideology. They gave up their freedom to make major life choices such as whom to marry, whether to move to a new city, whether to take a new job, should I have children, should I home school etc, to their religious superior, typically their pastor. Since their own minds were sinful and God's authority was passed down thru the religious hierarchy, their minister made all of life's important decisions for them.
Hard to believe I know. But when this ideology moved from conservative Presbyterianism into Pentecostalism it morphed into the multi-headed beast that Hedges sees.

I have never been able to understand how people could subsume their personal interest to group interest, based solely on faith. I guess that's the power of faith, but it just seems to be embracing irrationality.

I don't get it.

B

After reading the interview and then this thread I feel depressed.

But I take solice in the fact that at least Jesus was not a christian.

The system is built from top to bottom on submission to divine authority. There is no access to intellectual or political goods except thru the expressed will of God as found in the Bible to which we must all submit. People who have not done so, have no standing in the system.

I think this is where I part company..... People, created in the image of God, have value. The " image of God" is not in any sense a physical image--God being a Spirit would make that silly-- the image is rather, IMO, to be understood as man being a "person". The image is that which defines "person-hood". IOW, intellect, sensibilities ( feelings ) and will, or voilition. Those aspects of the image of God were not destroyed in the Fall; they were perverted, but not destroyed. The reasoning, IMO, for this is that it was after the Fall that God gave Moses the warrant for capital punishment. The reason, according to the Genesis account is that man was made in the image of God. This was after the flood, which was certainly after the Fall.
To follow this through, if man is still an image-bearer of the Creator, then man must have value, and, at least some of his ideas, must also be valuable.
Furthermore, the command in the New Testament is for Christians to love their neightbors. The commandment is not, " Love your neighbor IF_____ ( If they are Christian, or If they agree with you, or any other "IF"); but simply " Love your neighbor"

I have never been able to understand how people could subsume their personal interest to group interest, based solely on faith. I guess that's the power of faith, but it just seems to be embracing irrationality.

Bot,
I have known people who operated on this level. One young bride was convinced to sell all her China and silver and give the $ to the church. Several years later she felt she had been severely manipulated.The command is to "lay up treasures in heaven", and there certainly is merit in that. But evil pastors in churches are able to use that to manipulate some of their flock. I hope the future judgment on such "pastors" is severe.

:beerchug:

I'm reading the book and have decided he's making an error at one point. He's suggesting that one cause of the growth in religious fascism is the despair and alienation rooted in economic problems and lack of community in suburbia which makes people turn to religion. He bases this on the 'testimonies' of the religious converts who describe their previous sinful and alienated lives prior to salvation. He writes as if these testimonies are facts, instead of 'stories' created in the social context to prove the power of God. He does not consider the fact that even if the believer were a multimillionare with a plethora of friends in a commune, prior to conversion, and their family, friends and wealth were all lost after converting, the testimony would still glorify their post-conversion life and portray their pre-conversion life as empty debauchery. It's just a nature of the 'testimony' game as it is carried out in that context.
He needs much more objective evidence about the cause of religious fascism.

Yes. I saw him go on about that to some extent on the C-Span program. I also thought his economic explanation was a bit simplistic.

- Peter.