Rushdoony theocracy explained + Kirk Cameron

[Brian Jordan]

Kirk Cameron’s Monumental Reveals Subtle Influence of Christian Reconstructionism

http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/atheologies/5845/kirk_cameron%22s_monumental_marks_subtle_shift_to_christian_reconstructionism
I can't claim to have read all of this, but the part I did is scary! Still, Roger did warn us, ages ago.

[cathy]

For Reconstructionists only two, mutually exclusive, starting points are possible: the true sovereignty and authority of the god of the Bible or the false claim of the supremacy of human reason. This point has found a voice in the ubiquitous critique of “secular humanism” and the argument that religious neutrality is impossible.

That very viewpoint has come thru loud and clear from many of the British creationists, certainly all the main names!?

On the 4thought threads both David Tyler and Garner have gone on about neutrality being impossible and said 'neutrality' in education are tacit attempts to kill off the notion of God!!! They also argued that a secular state was really an atheist state which I argued with quite fiercely.

Their arguments didn't hold any water, they couldn't point to any legislation denying their rights to worship, not could they point to anywhere where the state promoted atheist vews either - beyond not teaching creationist garbatge as science. Nor could they deny the existence of RE as a subject in all schools.

Nor could they explain how teaching things like the date of WWII or the reactivity series of metals was anything other than religiously neutral. I did not understand where the hell such ideas had come from. I thought them very wierd. But Tyler in particular was very insistent that religious neutrality was really creeping atheism. None of which made any sense at all. And none of which seemed to be representative of a single Christian that I know. Nor of any relatively recent history.

Arthur Jones's christian curriculum could have the paranoid delusional 'religious neutrality is impossible' as it's mission statement!! The whole of the CST seems to based around that rather pathetic and dishonest idea. Even 2+2 is not neutral according to AJ. And Sylv is pretty much of the same opinion. It seems to have filtered down to Marc et al as well - with his claim that state education and media promote 'atheistic science'.

I thought it was bonkers when I first read what they were saying and its even scarier if it came from Rushdooney. That whole mindset is bordering on deranged.

The timing would fit. If Rushdooney was writing it 50 years ago and Sylv started promoting it 47 years ago and opening schools slightly later!

[Roger Stanyard]

That very viewpoint has come thru loud and clear from many of the British creationists, certainly all the main names!?

On the 4thought threads both David Tyler and Garner have gone on about neutrality being impossible and said 'neutrality' in education are tacit attempts to kill off the notion of God!!! They also argued that a secular state was really an atheist state which I argued with quite fiercely.

Their arguments didn't hold any water, they couldn't point to any legislation denying their rights to worship, not could they point to anywhere where the state promoted atheist vews either - beyond not teaching creationist garbatge as science. Nor could they deny the existence of RE as a subject in all schools.

Nor could they explain how teaching things like the date of WWII or the reactivity series of metals was anything other than religiously neutral. I did not understand where the hell such ideas had come from. I thought them very wierd. But Tyler in particular was very insistent that religious neutrality was really creeping atheism. None of which made any sense at all. And none of which seemed to be representative of a single Christian that I know. Nor of any relatively recent history.

Arthur Jones's christian curriculum could have the paranoid delusional 'religious neutrality is impossible' as it's mission statement!! The whole of the CST seems to based around that rather pathetic and dishonest idea. Even 2+2 is not neutral according to AJ. And Sylv is pretty much of the same opinion. It seems to have filtered down to Marc et al as well - with his claim that state education and media promote 'atheistic science'.

I thought it was bonkers when I first read what they were saying and its even scarier if it came from Rushdooney. That whole mindset is bordering on deranged.

The timing would fit. If Rushdooney was writing it 50 years ago and Sylv started promoting it 47 years ago and opening schools slightly later!

The real objectives of the fundamentalists is theocracy, with them in charge. As you are well aware Rushdoony (a fundamentalist martinet if ever there was one) was financed for 25 years by Howie Ahmanson who also finances the Discovery Institute and Intelligent Design. I assume that it is Ahmanson who is funding C4ID and paying Noble's salary.

[cathy]

The real objectives of the fundamentalists is theocracy,

Now I only became aware of creationism in early 2009 via a creationist church and youth club. I would guess that was partly the result of TiS starting to try and push it in 2006? But it did appear in Britain far earlier, in the 1960s? And BCS was formed in 1976 and sobbing Sylv was starting up her CST schools about that time. And reading between the lines of her thesis, the religious neutrality lie was a big factor in that.

Given I was a christian for a good few years and attended both RC and CofE churches I didn't come across it in any form at all until relatively recently - So how much of a factor is Sylv in bringing it in and how close is she to Rushdooney? Why did it suddenly start to come to prominence and why was TiS formed?

One of his books about Christian education is on the recommended reading for parents list on the CST website and if she was peddling creationism in 1965, than she seems to be the only one old enough to have brought it into the country? Old enough to have had a hand in setting up BCS? And perhaps Arthur Jones would be too?

Clearly it wasn't totally dormant cos Marc and Garner and Lloyd and others were exposed to and taken in by it, but it certainly wasn't an issue or problem for any other than them. I'm just trying to get my head around it all. The USA seems very well documented and the fact its spread. But why?

At least three churches that I was aware of in 2009/10 were pushing it very hard back then - sermons, youth club talks and invites to creationist speakers Two have backed down dramatically, tho the leaders are creationists, and they're either selectively ignoring it or categorically stating it doesn't matter how you believe the creation happened (evolution or Genesis) as long as you believe God had a hand (according to creationist acquaintance mum and my christian friend who attends or has links to those churches). So something was clearly motivating them to suddenly start promoting it, clearly they hadn't before or the congregations wouldn't have reacted so oddly to it and caused them to back off.

I don't understand what exactly caused all this to set off. If you check Sylvia Baker on you tube, more people have watched my daughters boyfriends band singing in the living room than have watched any of her talks.