Time to refresh ourselves on R.J. Rushdoony and Christian Reconstructrionism.

[artemisia1]

Time to refresh ourselves on R.J. Rushdoony and Christian Reconstructrionism. It is not so much that either President Trump or many of his closest advisors believe in that stuff, rather it is that they see it as a tool to maintain and consolidate power. I grew up with this type of virulent fundamentalism in the age of the "Moral Majority". These people have far more power now. Yes, there are actually fewer of them now than 45 years ago, but they have used those decades to acquire political power. Now they have it.

BTW, despite their profession of making the teachings of Jesus central, this is not what they actually do. They are Old Testament folks, and the worst of it. They have no compassion, judgement or wisdom.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._J._Rushdoony
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_reconstructionism

[valleyrogue]

1. Christian reconstructionism, NAR, Seven Mountains, Christian nationalism.

All the same thing, with all roads leading to the crackpot Rousas J. Rushdoony, a fascist who wrapped his fascism around the Bible and peddled using the Old Testament as "civil law." Even Francis Schaeffer thought he was a crackpot, and that was long before Rushdoony's poisonous influence made itself known in church circles, let alone public circles.

[artemisia1]

2. Yes, and until recently, his son-in-law Gary North (1942-2022) kept Rushdoony's legacy going. It has been taken over by

so many different groups as you mention. They are frightening sorts. "The Handmaid's Tale" was prescient and is more applicable today then when it was written.

[valleyrogue]

3. Mike Johnson is a true believer in this insanity.

These idiots twisted the Bible and Christianity inside out by claiming if they can make the whole world a theocracy, Jesus will return.

This has nothing to do with Christianity but instead is an insane desire for fascistic power.

[artemisia1]

4. Exactly. Also, they want a disaster to herald in the New Kingdom. Gary North promoted Y2K hysteria."

Critics said the motivation for North's predictions was linked to his Christian reconstructionist aims, which require widespread societal collapse to set the stage for a new theocratic order. North made the connection explicit in communications with fellow reconstructionists: "The Y2K crisis is systemic. It cannot possibly be fixed. I think it will wipe out every national government in the West. Not just modify them—destroy them...That is what I have wanted all my adult life. In my view, Y2K is our deliverance."[44

[valleyrogue]

5. It's a complete and total and probably deliberate misreading of the Bible.

From the limited knowledge I have of Christianity, it appears the so-called amillennial interpretation is the only correct reading of the Bible. It is the traditional reading of it. Everything that is said to have happened in the Book of Revelation already happened way back some 2,000 years ago except for the return of Christ. How this got bastardized by these whackos I will never understand. Their complete misreading of the Bible is of recent origin. So, recognizing this, I believe these lunatics are trying to bring about something that will never, ever happen because it already happened. They are willing to destroy the world over a deliberate misreading.

[artemisia1]

6. This guy, C. I. Scofield, was the key figure in this. The "Scofield Reference Bible" was ubiquitous when I was young.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._I._Scofield

[Norrrm]

7. Religion and politics use each other to gain power and wealth.

[JHB]

10. God, the state of things when Barry "In you guts you know he's nuts" Goldwarter is a "sensible" Republican...

... and while the photo is from the 60s, the quote is from the 90s. It's only gotten worse since then.

[Igel]

8. When I want a refresher on Rushdoony, I don't go to Wiki.

I go to my bookshelf and pull down the three volumes of Rushdoony's "Institutes."

Also up on North's writings as of the late '80s.

Wiki is prechewed mush, and when it's something polemical or controversial, it's the loudest mouths that provide the appropriately chewed mush. All that's required is that a non-Wiki source provide the matter.

[artemisia1]

9. Chill. Not everyone either has his books or knows who he was. Wiki gives a good summary and launching point for research

and further exploration. Let's drop the judgment, 'k?