Killing Them Softly

Share

Screen Shot 2014-01-11 at 4.55.53 PMImagine a mother killing her two teenage children because they were ‘mouthy’, and getting away with it, if she were to apply to the community and have them stoned to death?  It could happen, even in this country.  We are closer to this form of evil via Christian Reconstruction.  Fortunately, we’re still not there – yet.  So, in Florida, Julie Schenecker is now on trial for murdering her 16 year old daughter Cathy and 13 year old son, Beau.  They are going for an insanity defense.

On Monday, I ended up in the same small shop as a very gay male.  He had on short shorts, his legs were waxed (better than mine), he wore turquoise sandals, with about three inches of ankle bracelets on each ankle.  He had on about three inches of bracelets on each arm, dangle earrings, and some excellent sterling and turquoise rings.  There was just a touch of make-up.  In the world of Christian Reconstruction, he would be put to death.

“…“The Christian goal for the world,” Recon theologian David Chilton has explained, is “the universal development of Biblical theocratic republics.” Scripturally based law would be enforced by the state with a stern rod in these republics. And not just any scriptural law, either, but a hardline-originalist version of Old Testament law–the point at which even most fundamentalists agree things start to get “scary.” American evangelicals have tended to hold that the bloodthirsty pre-Talmudic Mosaic code, with its quick resort to capital punishment, its flogging and stoning and countenancing of slavery, was mostly if not entirely superseded by the milder precepts of the New Testament (the “dispensationalist” view, as it’s called). Not so, say the Reconstructionists. They reckon only a relative few dietary and ritualistic observances were overthrown….”

Do you know a young woman who has had a child outside of marriage? In the world of Christian Reconstruction she would be put to death.

If you are a woman who has engaged in premarital sex, you can be put to death for not remaining a virgin.  The same does not apply to a man. It will not apply to a pedophile.  Rapists will be held accountable and may be put to death, if they rape a virgin.  If they rape a woman who is not a virgin, it’s her fault.

Your opposition to slavery is not Biblical, we are told.  Slavery, is/was a just institution that helped the families of those who were not white.  Under Christian Reconstruction we will see a re-establishment of this so-called just institution.  It will be expanded to include those who are in debt, and the socially undesirable.

Democracy is heresy.  It is a tool of the devil, to be eliminated.  It is to be replaced with theonomy – God’s kingdom on earth, where anointed patriarchs have been told by God, how to rule, etc.  Anyone who disagrees with them, is to be executed as a heretic, including any elected official United States official who does not agree to go along with their requirements.

And so forth and so long…..

“…For connoisseurs of surrealism on the American right, it’s hard to beat an exchange that appeared about a decade ago in the Heritage Foundation magazine Policy Review. It started when two associates of the Rev. Jerry Falwell wrote an article which criticized Christian Reconstructionism, the influential movement led by theologian Rousas John (R.J.) Rushdoony, for advocating positions that even they as committed fundamentalists found “scary.” Among Reconstructionism’s highlights, the article cited support for laws “mandating the death penalty for homosexuals and drunkards.” The Rev. Rushdoony fired off a letter to the editor complaining that the article had got his followers’ views all wrong: They didn’t intend to put drunkards to death.

Ah, yes, accuracy does count….”

What started me down this nasty little path was the story about Julie Schenecker’s murder of her two mouthy teen children.  What would have happened, had she have claimed that, as a follower of R. J. Rushdoony, and Christian Reconstruction that she had a Biblical right to put her disobedient teens to death?  It is based on Deut 21:18-21:

 If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey his father and mother, who does not heed them when they discipline him, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his town at the gate of that place. They shall say to the elders of his town, ‘This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.’ Then all the men of the town shall stone him to death. So you shall purge the evil from your midst; and all Israel will hear, and be afraid.

Well…. When we get into the first five books of the Old Testament, I have a really bad habit of turning to Torah for an explanation.  Why not?  According to Rabbi Joyce Newmark:

New Jersey Jewish News
New Jersey Jewish News

Also according to the Stone Edition of the Chumash, p. 1047 never once, was a young man executed in this way.  According to the Sages, there never was nor never will be a young man executed in this way.   According to Dr. Mark Weisstuch:

“...In like manner, the Rabbis scrutinize the text. When it says the son “does not heed his father and mother,” Rabbi Yehudah affirms (Sanhedrin 41a) that an insubordinate son may not be killed unless his parents speak with the same voice, look the same and are the same height! Failing that absolute congruence, no such punishment can be administered. Further limiting the applicability of the law, the Rabbis stipulate the specific quantity of wine and food that must be consumed. They also define the time period during which the law is applicable to the three-month period after a boy’s bar mitzvah! As a result, no stoning ever could occur. It is virtually impossible for such a punishment ever to be realized. The Talmud concludes: “There never has been a ‘stubborn and rebellious son’ and never will be.” The Rabbis have deployed literalism to defeat the literal requirements of the commandment….”

William Einwechter, wrote, in the January 1999 issue of Rushdoony’s Chalcedon Report that even a rebellious daughter could be stoned to death.  Compare it to Torah tradition.

Cloe Encounters With The Religious Right
Cloe Encounters With The Religious Right

“…The kind of rebellion against parental authority described in this case law is called “evil” (v. 21). It is evil because it holds both God and his law (i.e., the command to honor parents) in derision. It is evil because it threatens the very existence of the family, and therefore, of society itself. It is evil because it signals the rejection of all God-ordained authority and leads to civil and ecclesiastical disorder. God considers it such a dangerous evil that it must be extinguished by death at the hands of the civil magistrate.4

Those who consider death as a horrible punishment here must realize that in such a case as described in Deuteronomy 21:18-21, “death” is inescapable. Contempt of parental authority, if left unchecked, is the death of the family, law, and order. The question then is: Who or what should die? The rebel, or family and society? Furthermore, the life of a rebel inevitably leads to the grave (sheol; cf. Pr. 30:17); he will die an early death, and probably take others with him. Finally, God himself declares that even if such a rebel against parental authority escapes the judgment of man, his curse is upon that man and he shall be cut off (DT 27:16; Pr. 30:17). Therefore, the 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.

Theonomists must not be embarrassed by the law of Deuteronomy 21:18-21, nor should they be chagrined when others try to use it to discredit the case laws of the Old Testament. Properly understood, it displays the wisdom and mercy of God in restraining wickedness so that the righteous might flourish in peace. It is those who reject this case law that should be embarrassed, for they have cast reproach on God and his law, cast aside the testimony of Christ,5 and have substituted their own imaginations (Jer. 7:24) for the blessed word of God.”…”

Talk 2 Action
Talk 2 Action

Maybe Julie Schenecke should use the Christian Reconstruction defense.  She was just following orders.  The terrifying part of all of this is the fact that we’re looking at Republican politicians who want to implement this Rushdoony’s version of “Gods” law.  God Help Us All!

Share