The far right patriarchal movement doesn’t quite understand the world around them. They are abjectly ignorant about the Bible, history, literature, and when they do know something, they slant it in the most intellectually dishonest ways imaginable. We’re dealing with men and women who no longer know what they believe. What they are now spewing is pure heresy. Try these examples:
“...Wow, that is scary to think about. Satan has really used the idea of limiting children and “planning” our family size to do us in. Like you said, it isn’t just a “personal, idividual” choice, it affects our way of life, our culture. Our children need to be prepared for living in a culture hostile to christianity…”
Why do those in the far right want to invite persecution? Why are they teaching their children that they will be persecuted and should be prepared to enjoy it? Satan has nothing at all to do with family planning and limiting the size of families. No where in the Bible is anything like that said. Anyone who believes this and spreads the heresy is lying, to prove a false point. Why? Our culture is not hostile to Christianity. People are hostile to to cults where where misinformation is spread and good people are brainwashed.
“…We fail to understand that many principles of Scripture are not individualized; they are given to “a people” and the obedience or disobedience affects “a people”. God’s ways are not always meant to be interpreted as a tool to improve or hinder our personal lives, though He is deeply concerned with us on a personal level. But “His ways are higher than our ways” and we would do well to just trust that. What I’m trying to say is, often God is wanting to do something much bigger than the scope of our own lives with our obedience to Him. And even in His sovereignty, He allows us to reap blessings or curses based on that obedience….” re: Deuteronomy 28:43
The second quote is ignoring history and context. Yes, the Lord did use long-term abstract concepts for dealing with the Children of Israel as an tribe, a people and a nation. The passage in Deuteronomy is about the fate of the Children of Israel, a prophesy of the destruction of the nation by the Babylonians and the Romans. The worst part of this is that the blogger implies that we are not to have a personal relationship with the Lord. God, our Heavenly Father is a remarkable, awesome God. The Creator of the Universe, He also requires us to have an intensely personal relationship with him. Anyone who implies otherwise is an ignorant wretch.
What I do find rather fascinating is that they have a tendency to specialize in promoting certain scriptures like the above, while ignoring such classics as Ezekiel 16.
“…Gothard teaches that the new parents of an adopted child must research the sins of the “biological parents,” confessing them and casting the consequences off the child. He says: “Causes of Conflicts — Adopted children are affected by the sins of their natural parents, and these sins are usually very severe. … Steps to Resolve Conflicts — If the child is too young to understand, pray for the child. Confess your sins and acknowledge the sins of the natural parents. Ask God to rebuke Satan and free the child from any unbelief or rebellion from the lives of the parents. Pray in the name and through the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ” (“Ten Reasons Why Adopted Children Tend to Have More Conflicts,” IBYC, 1982, pp. 1-2)….”
There are some who say we must confess the sins of our ancestors. One minister even states that 1John1:5-10 is about ancestral confession: 5 This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light and in him there is no darkness at all. 6If we say that we have fellowship with him while we are walking in darkness, we lie and do not do what is true; 7but if we walk in the light as he himself is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. 8If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9If we confess our sins, he who is faithful and just will forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us. There is nothing in this passage about ancestral sin. There is nothing in the New Testament about generational curses and confessing generational sin. What Bill Gothard is ordering, above is not in the Bible – well, not in the New Testament.
In fact, all of this is a violation of Jeremiah 31: 31-34 The days are surely coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. 32It will not be like the covenant that I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt—a covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, says the Lord. 33But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34No longer shall they teach one another, or say to each other, ‘Know the Lord’, for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, says the Lord; for I will forgive their iniquity, and remember their sin no more. We aren’t required to atone for the sins of our ancestors.
In fact this is absolutely wrong. It is picking and choosing, and ignoring the historical and theological progression of the Bible.
“….In accordance with (Lev. 26) I do now confess the sins of my ancestors, and ask forgiveness for these sins: Idolatry, witchcraft, occultism, lust, adultery, divorce, perversion, rebellion, stubbornness and wicked heart of unbelief, all sins known and unknown. I claim forgiveness because of the provisions in I John 1:9, break the curse and lift the curses, whoredoms and iniquities from me and my descendants. I command all spirits associated with these to leave me and my family and go wherever Jesus wants to send them, in Jesus Christ Name! ….”
Under the new covenant we only need to worry about our own sins. Have you noticed that the new version of Christianity had a tendency to ignore John 3:16.
“...I found an article from 2002: “In Gothard’s world view, husbands are dominant over wives (another of Regier’s stated beliefs), and wives are forbidden to work outside the home. Marriages must be arranged by fathers, and divorce is not allowed. Rock beats and, oddly enough, chords in minor keys are considered a subversion of God’s harmony. Television and other forms of popular culture are largely shunned as evil. Gothard even dictates how people should dress and when married couples can and cannot have sex. And, like Regier, Gothard is a big believer in corporal punishment, preaching that the “wrath” of parents leads children to God.”…”
Let’s be honest here, why would anyone even bother with the teachings of a pervert like Bill Gothard? By the year 2000 his perversions and the Rushdoony heresy beginning to infect the Southern Baptist Convention. I joined the SBC around 1970, when my sister and I left the local Presbyterian church and went – where the boys were. If the church had been ruled by today’s standards, I never would have joined. I found an article written by Russell Dilday, who was the minister at the Second Ponce de Leon Baptist Church, when my sister and I were members. Because I know what his theology was, I can go by what he wrote, in the Baptist Standard, April 30, 2001: An Analysis of the Baptist Faith and Message 2000.
“…III. Troubling Factors in the 2000 Revision
Negative concerns about BFM2000 seem to cluster around twelve issues:
1. The deletion of the Christocentric criterion for interpretation of
2. The diminishing of the doctrines of soul competency and the
priesthood of the believer.
3. The trend toward creedalism.
4. The diminishing of the doctrine of autonomy and freedom of the
local church under the leadership of the Holy Spirit.
5. The trend toward Calvinism and mistrust of personal Christian
6. The trend shifting Baptist identity from its Anabaptist, free church
tradition to a reformed evangelical identity.
7. The narrow interpretation of the role of women in marriage.
8. The narrow interpretation of the role of women in the church.
9. The “Pandora’s box” concern – a fear of repeated future revisions
to include favorite opinions.
10. The trend toward including a catalogue of specific sins.
11. The false accusation of neo-orthodoxy.
He also expressed exactly what I’ve noted here. It also exposes the problems we see with the petty individuals who don’t comprehend what Christianity is.
“...This seems to many to be a serious rejection of a very important hermeneutical principle. Baptists (and most evangelicals) have valued what is called the theological principal of Biblical interpretation. This principle teaches that the Bible is a book of faith, not just history or philosophy. Therefore, the Bible cannot be fully understood from the outside by grammar, logic, rhetoric, and history alone. It must be understood from its center – Jesus Christ. This Biblical center yields itself best to those who have a personal relationship with God through Jesus Christ and who are indwelt by the Spirit of God. Because of this personal relationship with Jesus, the believer knows personally the author of Scripture and has the promise of illumination from the indwelling Christ…”
In other words, as I have repeatedly noted, they have basically removed Christ from the center of their faith. It is no longer about a personal relationship with Christ, but something else. He then goes on to shred Albert Mohler, who is now the leading voice of this strange new Baptist faith.
“…“Soul competency” is the view that individual Christians may go directly to God through Christ without any other mediator. “The priesthood of the believer” is the view that through Christ each believer is a priest – both clergy and laity – responsible to God for interpreting and following the Bible and for interceding on behalf others. Both E.Y. Mullins and Herschel Hobbs called soul competency Baptists’ most distinctive doctrine.
But seminary President Al Mohler, a major voice, if not the primary composer, on the revision committee, has recently raised concerns about the historic Baptist convictions called “soul competency” and “priesthood of the believer” – especially as they were espoused by previous president of Southern Seminary, E.Y. Mullins.
In his Founder’s Day address at the seminary, March 30, 2000, Mohler said that Mullin’s emphasis on soul competency has “infected” the SBC with an “autonomous individualism” that undermines Biblical authority to this day. He blames Mullins for steering the SBC off course by making personal Christian experience more important than Biblical authority. He warned that soul competency “serves as an acid dissolving religious authority, congregationalism, confessionalism, and mutual theological accountability” (Southern Seminary Magazine, June, 2000)….”
Dr. Dilday was right on in seeing the disaster Molher has created, not only for the SBC, but for Christianity has a whole. He also completely debunks Mohler’s Calvinism. In other words, like I’ve said, a little Calvinism is okay, but hard-core Calvinism denies the whole salvation experience. This is also the thread that is throughout Christian Reconstructionism. It is Calvinism. In their world, John 3:16 has no place.
The SBC I knew was all about the personal relationship one had with Christ. As I noted above, today’s follower of this brave new heresy basically doesn’t have a personal relationship with Christ. There is nothing about the individual relationship with Christ, but some esoteric corporate entity where their God is distant, preordained, and ignores personal conversion. If one is not of the elect, then no matter how much they believe, they’re not going to spend eternity with Christ. Yet, if they are of the elect, even if they are a Hitler or a Charles Mansion, they’re saved. Sorry, this isn’t what I believe. In 1998, the SBC limited the role of women, making them submissive to their husbands. This was not a part of the SBC way, until then.
In 2006, David Flick wrote an article about the people who have truly screwed up the SBC. Strangely enough, this is basically a who’s who of so-called Christians who have basically corrupted faith in this country. What is fascinating:
“...1998 Baptist Faith and Message Revision Committee – The committee, chaired by Anthony Jordan of Oklahoma, gave Article XVIII (the Submissive Women Article) to Southern Baptists. The article declares that women are to be totally submitted to their husbands in family and church life. Men are to be superior to women in both the church and home. The article declares that men hold the superior position in family life and women hold the inferior position. It puts women in a second-class role in both family and church life. This revision was the major step toward a more radical revision, one that came in June of 2000. Committee members were: Chairman Anthony Jordan, Bill Elliff; Richard Land; Mary Mohler, Dorothy Patterson, Damon Shook, John Sullivan,…”
Well… when you start digging you start finding manure. Bill Elliff, who helped promote the submission of women was involved in another little nasty incident.
“…Pastor Bill Elliff of the Arkansas-based The Summit Church and the Religious Right group OneCry appeared on AFA Today with host Buster Wilson this week where he explained that the September 11 attacks and the elementary shooting in Newtown, Connecticut were “gracious” acts of divine punishment. He said that God allowed the two tragedies to occur because of “our humanistic pride” and secular government in order to “bring us to our senses and bring us back to him.” -…”
Richard Land is, as far as I’m concerned, a horror, anti-gay, anti-woman, who has a version of Christianity that is more in keeping with R. J. Rushdoony than mine. He thinks that single selfish moms should always put their children up for adoption. For this alone, I’d like to be a little violent and paste him in the nose. As far as I’m concerned, this is pure evil.
“…Keeping the baby is almost never preferable to allowing a baby to be adopted into a solid, faithful Christian home. A single mother who keeps her baby is quite often denying that baby the father that God wants for that baby, and every baby, to have. Furthermore, in most circumstances, keeping the baby circumscribes and forecloses both the mother’s and the baby’s economic futures in tragic and unfortunate ways.
If the mother is doing what is best for her baby (one of the defining marks of maternal love), she will part with her baby so that it will have the future God intended for him or her to have. The Old Testament story of the two harlots who both had babies and one died in the night comes to mind (1Kings 3). Both women claimed the surviving baby was their child and wanted the king to give the baby to them. King Solomon decided to have the baby divided in two and each be given half. Immediately, the real mother told the king to give the baby to the other woman in order to save the child’s life. In other words, she was thinking of the child’s best interest, not her own….”
I know of three little girls who have been born to single mothers. They have very good mothers, excellent grandparents, and are in church on a regular basis. Not having those three little girls, having put them up for adoption would leave gaping holes in not only one family, but two. To call the mothers of these little girls – whores – is pure evil, pure dripping evil and pure ignorance. Land is tight with the Family Research Council, Ted Cruz, the tea parties, and that sort of thing.
Mary Mohler is modest. She believes in Biblical Womanhood. She says that Christian women have an obligation to dress modestly. She’s also submissive, and godly.
“…Yes, the gender issue matters. Yes, it goes beyond being a peripheral issue because it is anchored to the primary issue of Biblical authority. How heartening it is that as evangelicals, we can join ranks in this pivotal debate and let the chips fall where they may! The more our families are seen as happy and holy places where submission and sacrificial love actually work; the more our churches reflect the amazing phenomenon of men and women joyfully working together based on God’s design; the more the world will wonder. However, we realize that the beautiful picture of Christ and His church in our homes and our churches will draw men and women to Himself….”
Dorothy Patterson is a professor of theology in women’s studies at the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. She considers herself the First Lady of the seminary. She concentrates on the role of women in the Bible, and women’s studies, hospitality ministries and being a godly wife. Have you noticed that these women can’t bother writing about things other than women’s issues. She’s a member of the Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. She’s listed first as a homemaker, then a profession. The few women on the ‘council’ are listed as homemakers first and professionals second. That should say it all – their real worth is in the home. John Piper, who has no problem advocating the abuse of women, and children, who thinks that a woman who is immodestly dressed is asking for rape is also a part of the group.
“…One of the most disturbing aspects of Reconstructionism is its stated goal to reinstate the penal sanctions of the Mosaic law. Under the Mosaic system, the list of civil crimes which carried a death sentence went beyond murder to include homosexuality (Leviticus 20:13), adultery (Leviticus 20:10; Deuteronomy 22:22), incest (Leviticus 20:11, 14), lying about one’s virginity (Deuteronomy 22:20-21), bestiality (Leviticus 20:15-16), witchcraft (Exodus 22:18; Leviticus 20:27), idolatry or apostasy (Leviticus 20:2; Deuteronomy 13:6-17), public blasphemy (Leviticus 24:10-16), false prophesying (Deuteronomy 13:5), kidnapping (Exodus 21:16), rape (Deuteronomy 22:25), and bearing false witness in a capital case (Deuteronomy 19:16-19). In each of these cases, the civil magistrate of the commonwealth was given the very same prohibition (either expressly or implicitly): “Thine eye shall not pity him” (Deuteronomy 19:13, 21)….”
It’s all part of Christian Reconstruction, invented by R. J. Rushdoony, perpetuated by Gary North, and embraced by such liberty loving luminaries as Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, the Wall Builders, Tony Perkins, Jerry Boykin, James Dobson, Tom Delay, Mike Huckabee, Hobby Lobby, Alan Keyes, Gary Bauer, Sen. John Cornyn, Phyllis Schlafly, Sen. Sam Brownback, Richard Viguerie, Doug Phillips, Howard Phillips, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Paul Weyrich, Tim LaHay, Beverly LaHay, Concerned Women for America, Family Research Council, Constitution Party, Council for National Policy, American Coalition for Traditional Values, Liberty Council, Home School Legal Defense Fund, Chalcedon Foundation, John Ashcroft, Howard Ahmanson, Discovery Institute Ted Haggard, Nelson Bunker Hunt Trint Lott, Oliver North, Richard Mellon Scaiffe, Kenneth Starr, Larry Pratt, John Whitehead, Patrick Henry College, Randall Terry, Eagle Forum, Don Wildmon, Amerian Family Association, James Kennedy, Coral Ridge Ministry, Gary DeMar, Plymouth Rock Foundation, American Vision, Rick Santorum, Judge Roy Moore, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, The Federalist Society, Ted Olson, Promise Keepers, Rick Warren, Mark Driscoll, Mars Hill Church, Pat Buchanan, Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann, Francis Schaeffer, Franklyn Graham,New Apostolic Reformation, NAR, C. Peter Wagner, Cindy Jacobs, Alliance Defense Fund, Kenneth Copeland, Mark Rushdony, Bob Barr, Dick Armey, Paul Pressler, Steven Hotze, Ray Sutton, Paul Hill, Christian Exodus, Jay Grimstead, Whiley Drake, John Hagee, Cornerstone Church, Michael Pearl, Debi Pearl, Nancy Campbell, Jerome Corsi, Geoffrey Botkin, Douglas Wilson, Kurt Cameron, Kevin Swanson, R. C. Sproul Jr, Richard Bacon, John martin, Philip Vollman, Greg Bahnsen, Andrew Sandlin, Rick Joyner, Dutch Sheets, Lou Engle, International House of Prayer,
“...Even without being corrupted by power, Rushdoony’s political intentions looked to be far more extreme that those of Adolf Hitler, Stalin. Chairman Mao or Pol Pot. He appears to have had no respect whatsoever for democracy – “The church today has fallen prey to the heresy of democracy.” (The Institutes of Biblical Law page 747.)
Like all would-be dictators, Rushdoony had no respect for the law (that is, any law that stands in his way) –”The only true order is founded on Biblical Law. All law is religious in nature, and every non-Biblical law-order represents an anti-Christian religion.” (Institutes of Biblical Law, page113) He also made it clear that he expects that force will be necessary to impose such order, “Every law-order is in a state of war against the enemies of that order, and all law is a form of warfare.” (Institutes of Biblical Law, page 93).
This looks to be a call for violence against democratically elected governments and those that support them. Indeed, it looks to be a call for war against all governments and their supporters that are in the way of Rushdoony’s murderous ambitions.
It should not be surprising to learn that Rushdoony had an intense dislike for toleration of other peoples’ opinions. Indeed, a central belief in his fantasy world was of segregation and/or separation according to religion and morality. The use of the term segregation also implies an underlying racism which we will see more of in this report.
Rushdoony believed that every attempt to destroy the principle of toleration (except toleration of himself and his murderous views) is an effort to reduce society to its lowest common denominator. Toleration is the excuse under which this levelling is undertaken, but the concept of toleration conceals a radical intolerance. “In the name of toleration, the believer is asked to associate on a common level of total acceptance with the atheist, the pervert, the criminal, and the adherents of other religions as though no differences existed.” (The Institutes of Biblical Law page 294.)
To put it simply, those that disagree with Rushdoony are the same as perverts and criminals….”
It’s about politics, to the point where religious conservatives like David Barton, Glenn Beck, Michael Farris (the rapists’ best friend), ALEC, the John Birch Society, are calling for major changes to the Constitution. There’s a reason for this. Rushdoony created his movement to bring about God’s rule on Earth. Like what just happened in the state of Alabama, good ‘Christian’ politicians are literally lying and cheating to get their way. They don’t care. There is no morality. There is no decency.
There are two kinds of Dominionists:
“...Soft Dominionists are Christian nationalists. They believe that Biblically-defined immorality and sin breed chaos and anarchy. They fear that America’s greatness as God’s chosen land has been undermined by liberal secular humanists, feminists, and homosexuals. Purists want litmus tests for issues of abortion, tolerance of gays and lesbians, and prayer in schools. Their vision has elements of theocracy, but they stop short of calling for supplanting the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Hard Dominionists believe all of this, but they want the United States to be a Christian theocracy. For them the Constitution and Bill of Rights are merely addendums to Old Testament Biblical law. They claim that Christian men with specific theological beliefs are ordained by God to run society. Christians and others who do not accept their theological beliefs would be second-class citizens. This sector includes Christian Reconstructionists, but it has a growing number of adherents in the leadership of the Christian Right….”
There are 15 crimes punishable by death for Christian Reconstructionists.
- “…Abortion: Rushdoony’s position on this is convoluted to say the least: Rushdoony states in regard to Exodus 21:22-25: “If the penalty for even an accidental case [of abortion] is so severe, it is obvious that a deliberately induced abortion is very strongly forbidden. It is not necessary to ban deliberate abortion, since it is already eliminated by this law. Second, if a man who, in the course of a fight, unintentionally bumps a pregnant woman and causes her to abort, must suffer the death penalty, how much more so any person who intentionally induces an abortion?” (The Institutes of Biblical Law pages 263-264.)Except, as far as the author is aware, the Bible does not call for the death penalty for deliberately induced abortion.
- Apostasy: – abandonment of faith (same comments as on Idolatry). Clarkson claims that Rushdoony suggested the death penalty be used to punish those guilty of “apostasy, heresy and blasphemy (blasphemy references are below), witchcraft, astrology, adultery, ‘sodomy or homosexuality,’ incest, striking a parent, incorrigible juvenile delinquency, and in the case of women, ‘unchastity before marriage.'”
- Astrology: Clarkson claims that Rushdoony suggested the death penalty be used to punish those guilty of astrology. Rodney Clapp quoted Rushdoony in his 1987 essay in Christianity Today – Democracy as Heresy (Feb 20th issue): “[Christian fundamentalists must] take dominion over the US…[abolish democracy] which is actually heresy…[establish a theocratic republic] under biblical law…True to the letter of Old Testament law, homosexuals, adulterers, blasphemers, astrologers, [and for such offences as] abortion, heresy, apostasy…will be executed.”
- Bestiality: (see The Institutes of Biblical Law, pages 255-256.) – “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination. Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to liedown thereto: it is confusion (Lev.18:22, 23).”
- Blasphemy: (The Institutes of Biblical Law pages 18, 27 and 106). Rodney Clapp quoted Rushdoony in his 1987 essay in Christianity Today – Democracy as Heresy (Feb 20th issue): “[Christian fundamentalists must] take dominion over the US…[abolish democracy] which is actually heresy…[establish a theocratic republic] under biblical law…True to the letter of Old Testament law, homosexuals, adulterers, blasphemers, astrologers, [and for such offences as] abortion, heresy, apostasy…will be executed.”
- Heresy: (see above) Rushdoony believes that democracy and freedom are heresy. He has claimed heresy as punishable by death (see above). However, in the broader sense, Rushdoony believed that any belief in any religion/denomination other than his own justified killing the person who held those views – see below on idolatry. Rodney Clapp quoted Rushdoony in his 1987 essay in Christianity Today – Democracy as Heresy (Feb 20th issue): “[Christian fundamentalists must] take dominion over the US…[abolish democracy] which is actually heresy…[establish a theocratic republic] under biblical law…True to the letter of Old Testament law, homosexuals, adulterers, blasphemers, astrologers, [and for such offences as] abortion, heresy, apostasy…will be executed.”
- Homosexuality: (male only) See Institutes of Biblical Law, pages 187, 430, 482, 594 and comments below)
- Idolatry: (this appears to be a belief in any religion or denomination that Rushdoony did not approve of. Rushdoony believes it requires “death without mercy” (The Institutes of Biblical Law pages. 28-39 and 66). Idolatry is thus not only punishable by law as socially detrimental, it is in fact a capital offence. (R.J. Rushdoony, Law and Society: Volume II of the Institutes of Biblical Law 1982, pages 468 and 316). “It constitutes treason to the King or Sovereign, to Almighty God.” (Institutes of Biblical Law, page 66)
- Incorrigibility and delinquency: This is widely reported as one of Rushdoony’s reasons for killing people. Rather than repeat what he said, we refer to an article in the Chalcedon report published whilst Rushdoony was alive and still advocating mass murder: In the January 1999 issue of the Chalcedon Report, the Rev William Einwechter called for the stoning to death of disobedient children. In the article, Einwechter cites Deuteronomy 21:18-21, which advises parents to take “a stubborn and rebellious son” before city elders to be stoned to death if he will not change his ways.Einwechter claimed that the death penalty should be applied to “a grown son (and by extension to a daughter as well) who, for whatever reason, has rebelled against the authority of his parents and will not profit from any of their discipline nor obey their voice in any thing.”He stated that “[T]he execution of the rebel in view is just, merciful, and preventive. Just, in that the transgressor deserves to die; merciful, in that his quick death prevents the destruction of the family, society, and others; preventive, in that it strikes fear in the heart of other would-be rebels and restrains them from taking a similar ruinous course.”Einwechter is VP of an organisation called the National Reform Association (NRA). It was formed in the 19th Century but was taken over by reconstructionalists some time back. Basically despite being at the absolute lunatic end of the religious spectrum, the NRA has got political. Einwechter’s writings frequently appear on the group’s website (www.natreformassn.org. He edits its publication, The Christian Statesman.See also Institutes of Biblical Law, pages 185/7, 396/397, 430, 481/2 and 594.
- Incest: According to Clarkson, Rushdoony suggested the death penalty be used to punish those guilty of incest.
- Rape: (but not, it appears of children) See The Institutes of Biblical Law pages 396-397. Note that Pedophilia is okay.
- Sabbath Breaking: (see Gary North, “The Economics of Sabbath Keeping,” in Rushdoony, Institutes, p. 824.) In the words of Mark Rushdoony, son of R.J. Rushdoony, “The divorce problem will be solved in a society under God’s law because any spouse guilty of capital crimes (adultery, homosexuality, Sabbath desecration, etc.) would be swiftly executed, thus freeing the other part to remarry…. Parents would be required to bring their incorrigible children before the judge and, if convicted, have them stoned to death.” Mark Rushdoony, The Chalcedon Report #252 (1986).
- Sex before marriage: (women only) According to Clarkson, Rushdoony suggested the death penalty be used to punish those guilty of unchastity before marriage but this only applied to women.
- Striking a Parent: According to Clarkson, Rushdoony suggested the death penalty be used to punish those guilty of striking a parent.
- Witchcraft: (sorcery)/Fortune Telling – Clarkson claims that Rushdoony suggested the death penalty be used to punish those guilty of witchcraft…”
Rushdoony also was something of a racist. He believed in slavery. You can acquire slaves to pay off debt, as punishment for theft, capture in war, or by purchase. Rushdoony also thought the American Negro was better off being a slave. Only white Christians should be citizens and allowed to vote. Married woman may vote, if their husbands allow it. Jews will not be recognized by God. American Indians cannot vote. The wealthy are important, the poor are to be used and manipulated. His movement is embraced by Neo-Confederates. They are libertarian. Ron Paul is their god on earth. Somewhere in here, you will also find the Koch Brothers. Who do you think is funding the revolution?