Not all of the details are final but I should be fully moved to Patheos by sometime next week. The new address is here: http://104.131.70.39/
Some details remain. All of the comments are not yet showing up there; this will be accomplished soon. Some of the ancient embedded videos may not show up since they have been removed from their sources.
The comment system there is the Disqus system so to continue commenting you will need a free account with that service. You will get that information when you first begin to comment. Go ahead and try a comment there and see how it goes.
All of the links will still work and redirect the reader to the new location. All of the content will be there.
I want to say thanks to the dedicated folks at Patheos and elsewhere who have been working with me to make this happen.
I am looking forward to joining their group of diverse writers. Patheos offers a wealth of interesting content; I hope you will check out some of the other writers there. And by all means, keep pointing your browser my way
Month: October 2013
Institute on the Constitution, God and Government, and Christian Reconstructionism
Yesterday, the Institute on the Constitution dropped a press release about their God and Government program. From the Christian Newswire release:
The “Institute on the Constitution” has launched “The God And Government Project” the purpose of which is to remind elected officials, and those who seek civil government offices, that government is from God and their first duty must be to obey God and His Word (Romans 13.)
The folks at IOTC want citizens to use open mic time before city council meetings to tell officials that they need to use the Bible as the basis for civil law. IOTC encourages followers to use IOTC-prepared scripts. See an earlier post on the subject and this article for more on what IOTC encourages their followers to do.
The GaG (appropriate) program is consistent with IOTC’s Christian reconstructionist worldview. During his course on the Constitution, Peroutka twists history to make it appear that the founders deliberately created a biblical form of government in line with IOTC views. In a current commentary on his IOTC website, Michael Peroutka makes a case that civil government officials are obligated to govern in accord with his view of the Bible.
Since civil government is ordained by God in order to protect God-given rights, then the function of civil government is to obey God and to enforce God’s law – PERIOD.
It is not the role of civil government to house, feed, clothe, educate or give heath care to…ANYBODY! (Or to operate a Panda-cam at the National Zoo.)
According to Peroutka, government can only do what he thinks God says government can do.
The IOTC website enshrines Rousas Rushdoony, the father of Christian reconstructionism. IOTC’s Director of Communications, John Lofton, calls Rushdoony his “theological mentor” on more than one occasion. Rushdoony’s articles on theocracy and dominionism, politics, taxation, and religion in law are available along with many others. Mark Rushdoony’s (son of Rousas) speech on Christian reconstructionism is cited approvingly as well.
According to Mark Rushdoony, Christian reconstructionism sees the church as Israel.
In 1987 Ross House Books (which is now part of Chalcedon) published a book on covenant theology by Charles D. Provan called The Church Is Israel Now.That title sums up the heart of covenant theology, that the Christian church is heir of the promises to and the responsibility of the Hebrew nation of old.
Thus the proper society is ruled by an Old Testament style regime where the Christian reconstructionist’s understanding of the Bible is the basis for civil law. This is exactly what IOTC’s God and Government program promotes as the message followers should tell elected officials.
Even after his death, Rushdoony’s views are controversial. IOTC does not back away from this. On the IOTC website, readers are directed to an interview given to Bill Moyers in 1988 by Rousas Rushdoony. In this interview, Rushdoony affirms that civil government should be based on the Bible, including injuctions that would lead to the death penalty for 15 crimes, including adulterers, homosexuals, and truly incorrigible sons. Roll the tape:
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paL2s4HJScg[/youtube]
Listen to the entire segment to get the context. The section on the death penalty is as follows:
Moyers: You’ve written that the Bible calls for the death penalty, and I’m just running down a variety of things as you can see. You’ve written that the Bible calls for the death penalty of some 15 crimes: rape, sodomy, adultery.
Rushdoony: Adultery because in the Bible the basic institution is the family. There’s no law of treason against the state. The Bible doesn’t even imagine anything remotely like that. But the basic institution is the family. And so, several of the death penalties are associated with the family and its life.
Moyers: So adultery was considered a theft of the family.
Rushdoony: It was, yes, it was treason to the family.
Moyers: Homosexuality.
Rushdoony: Yes, it was treason to the family.
Moyers: Worthy of the death sentence?
Rushdoony: What?
Moyers: Worthy of the death sentence?
Rushdoony: Yes.
Moyers: Deserving of the death sentence?
Rushdoony: Yes, that’s what Paul says.
…
Moyers: But you would re-instate the death penalty for some of these or all of these Biblical crimes?
Rushdoony: I wouldn’t—
Moyers: But the reconstructive society–
Rushdoony: I’m saying that this is what God requires. I’m not saying that everything in the Bible, I like. Some of it rubs me the wrong way. But I’m simply saying, this is what God requires. This is what God says is justice. Therefore, I don’t feel I have a choice.
Moyers: And the agents of God would carry out the laws.
Rushdoony: The civil government would, on these things.
Moyers: So you would have a civil government, based upon–
Rushdoony: Oh yes. I’m not an anarchist. I’m close to being a libertarian. But–
Moyers: But the civil law would be based on the biblical law. And so you’d have a civil government carrying out a religious mandate.
Rushdoony: Oh yes.
Given their reverence for Rushdoony and the link to this interview, I think it is a fair assumption that IOTC is in sympathy with these views. Since they won’t answer my requests for information, I will ask here publicly – IOTC leaders (Peroutka, Lofton), do you agree with Rushdoony here? Would you, in the government you are calling for, put people to death for adultery, homosexuality and the other crimes delineated by Rushdoony?
One thing I don’t need to ask about is the IOTC view of public schools. In the citation above, Peroutka says civil government has no role in education. Historically, reconstructionists have been strong supporters of Christian schools as alternatives to public education. One of the leading reconstructionists, and Rushdoony’s son-in-law Gary North, said this about the relationship between Christian schools and religious liberty (for a longer quote and commentary, see this article).
The major churches of any society are all maneuvering for power, so that their idea of lawful legislation will become predominant. They are all perfectly willing to use the ideal of religious liberty as a device to gain power, until the day comes that abortion is legalized (denying the right of life to infants) or prohibited (denying the “right of control over her own body,” after conception, to each woman). Everyone talks about religious liberty, but no one believes it.
So let us be blunt about it: we must use the doctrine of religious liberty to gain independence for Christian schools until we train up a generation of people who know that there is no religious neutrality, no neutral law, no neutral education, and no neutral civil government. Then they will get busy in constructing a Bible-based social, political, and religious order which finally denies the religious liberty of the enemies of God. Murder, abortion, and pornography will be illegal. God’s law will be enforced. It will take time. A minority religion cannot do this. Theocracy must flow from the hearts of a majority of citizens, just as compulsory education came only after most people had their children in schools of some sort. But religious anarchy, like “democratic freedom” in ancient Greece, is a temporary phenomenon; it lasts only as long as no single group gets sufficient power and accepted authority to abandon the principle. Religious anarchy, as a long-term legal framework for organizing a society, is as mythical as neutrality is. Both views assume that the institutions of civil government can create and enforce neutral law. They are cousins, and people believe in them only temporarily, until they make up their minds concerning which God they will serve.
While I doubt this will ever happen, it seems clear that the IOTC and like-minded reconstructionists will keep on trying to make it a reality. For IOTC supporters who love the First Amendment, you have a rude awakening coming. As Peroutka and Lofton proclaim, civil law should obey and enforce God’s law, and by that they mean their interpretation of the Bible, both Old and New Testaments. Someone’s religion must be obeyed according to Rushdoony, and the folks at IOTC want to make sure it is their religion. For now, they will use freedom of speech and religion at city council meetings to get their voices heard but if ever they get their way, one cannot count on these rights remaining. If you really believe in freedom of conscience and religious liberty, then you cannot fully embrace IOTC’s GaG program. While the folks at IOTC want freedom of religion to speak at public meetings, they very openly proclaim that they want civil government to obey their religious views to the exclusion of all others.
In contrast, I want the reconstructionists to be able to speak their mind, but I don’t want civil officials to use one religion as the basis for their governing. In contrast to Peroutka’s odd construction, using one religion as the basis for civil law is prohibited by the First Amendment. Gary North says no one really believes in religious liberty. He is wrong; the framers most certainly did.
League Of The South Fears Average Southern Whites Might Be Offended By Neo-Nazi Ties
In a post on the League of the South Facebook group (also on their public page), it was disclosed that recent League of the South award winner Matthew Heimbach has been banned from the upcoming League protest of “demographic displacement” in Murfreesboro, TN. Heimbach’s offense is that he consorts with neo-Nazis and plans to speak at a National Socialist meeting.
Explaining the action, League president Michael Hill said
Three observations come to mind.
One, I can’t tell if this a pragmatic move for public relations, or if Hill really believes national socialism is incompatible with Southern nationalism. In any case, it seems clear that Hill sees problems with continued association with Heimbach. The League normally decries charges that involve guilt by association. Influential League member and organizer of the TN protest Brad Griffin (aka Hunter Wallace) chided those who get caught in the “associations game.” Now the League has found a reason to do the same thing.
Two, I wonder if Michael Hill will now stop appearing on neo-Nazi radio shows. Twice recently, once in August and then again in September, Hill appeared on the American Nationalist Network radio show. When you click through the American Nationalist Network link on blogtalk radio, you come to unashamed white supremacist, Hitler worship. For instance, check out this disgusting little gem of wisdom from der Fuhrer on the Facebook page of the organization Michael Hill dignified with an interview.
The ANN tweeted about Hill’s appearance back in August. No seig heiling but Hill was fine with being associated with the ANN.
World View Conversations-Guest: Dr. Michael Hill, President League of the South http://t.co/ORISec95nC
— WVFOUNDATIONS (@WVFOUNDATIONS) August 4, 2013
Seems like Hill shouldn’t go to the TN rally either. Probably they should just cancel it.
My third observation involves Michael Hill’s statement that the League of the South seeks to rally average Southern whites. Can it be any clearer that skin color and region are the main issues of interest for the League? The target audience is marked by the color of their skin and not the content of their character. If League of the South board member Michael Peroutka is serious with his recent video invoking Martin Luther King, then shouldn’t he publicly condemn his own League of the South for targeting people based on skin color?
More Martin Luther King Confusion From The Institute On The Constitution
Michael Peroutka has a new video out which appears to be an indirect response from the Institute on the Constitution to the recent initiative of the Cincinnati Area Pastors. CAP recently called on the National Religious Broadcasters to cut ties with the Institute due to Peroutka’s leadership in the white nationalist group League of the South. Peroutka is a board member of the League and has pledged the work of the IOTC to the League’s efforts.
In the new video, Peroutka again tries to make the case that Martin Luther King did not call for civil rights. Peroutka first made this claim on the Steve Deace Show, where he falsely claimed that King did not call for civil rights in his I Have A Dream speech.
After watching the clip, I am as confused as I was after his appearance on the Deace broadcast. First of all, he presents a truncated view of what King advocated and then he ignores contradictory messages on his own website and from the League of the South, a group which he has pledged the IOTC to advance.
First, I will revisit some material from an earlier post on the subject, and then embed the video.
On the Steve Deace Show, League of the South board member Michael Peroutka said that Martin Luther King did not call for civil rights in the 1963 “I Have A Dream” speech. During hour one at 28:46, Peroutka said about King:
He was claiming rights for people that were promised in the Declaration of Independence but never in that speech did he actually call for civil rights.He was a champion, I believe, of God-given rights, what has been perverted and now called civil rights, he didn’t call them civil rights, I believe he was a champion of God-given rights. He said in that address, he made it clear that he wasn’t saying the rights he was demanding originated in human government, but he said that a right to equality before the law is ordained by God, and therefore it is a right the civil government has a duty to protect and defend.
Anyone who has read any of King’s speeches would know that he constantly called for civil rights, including in the 1963 speech given at the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom. Here is the segment of the speech where King referred to civil rights:
As we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall always march ahead. We cannot turn back. There are those who are asking the devotees of civil rights, “When will you be satisfied?” We can never be satisfied as long as the Negro is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality. We can never be satisfied, as long as our bodies, heavy with the fatigue of travel, cannot gain lodging in the motels of the highways and the hotels of the cities. We cannot be satisfied as long as the Negro’s basic mobility is from a smaller ghetto to a larger one. We can never be satisfied as long as our children are stripped of their selfhood and robbed of their dignity by signs stating “For Whites Only”.
King was clearly including himself as a devotee of civil rights. King also spoke of the indignity of discrimination based on skin color (“For Whites Only”). However, an article on Michael Peroutka’s IOTC website titled “Discrimination” and written by Frederick Nymeyer asserts, “We see no reason why men should not discriminate on grounds of religion, race, or nationality, if they wish.” On Peroutka’s League of the South website, League president Michael Hill defended those discriminatory Jim Crow laws:
Whereas whites and blacks in the antebellum South had lived and worked together in close proximity, once the situation changed at the end of the war (especially with the passage of the Reconstruction amendments) some new arrangement became necessary if whites were to preserve their society. Few Southerners of the late nineteenth century believed that whites and blacks could live together in a state of equality without serious social consequences for both races. Therefore, postbellum Southern blacks were disenfranchised and “Jim Crow” laws resulted in a segregated South (today “Jim Crow” has been replaced by what might be called “Jim Snow” policies that discriminate against whites). Through these measures white Southerners were able to exert some control over a still primitive black population.
In his acceptance speech for the Nobel Peace Prize, King repeatedly called for civil rights, especially noting the importance of the Civil Rights Act. King began his speech:
It is impossible to begin this lecture without again expressing my deep appreciation to the Nobel Committee of the Norwegian Parliament for bestowing upon me and the civil rights movement in the United States such a great honor.
It is jarring to hear a board member of the League of the South invoke Martin Luther King in a positive manner. As I have documented previously, those associated with both the League and Peroutka’s Institute on the Constitution revile King on their websites. On Peroutka’s IOTC website, Director of Communications John Lofton proclaims: “Don’t Need Federal Holidays And Certainly Not One ‘Honoring’ The Dishonorable Martin Luther King, Jr. Who Fails His Own Character Test.”
League president Michael Hill denigrated King’s civil rights movement in an essay on the League’s website titled: “What Would It Take To Get You To Fight?”
Sadly, our true interests were compromised and sold for a mess of pottage by our so-called leaders a long time ago. For instance, if the South had had real leaders of the people there would have been no second reconstruction known as the civil rights movement.
In another essay, Hill wrote:
The corruption we see today on the Potomac and Wall Street began right away with the Grant administration. Subsequently, we got an empire (the Yanks were just practicing on Dixie), a Federal Reserve system, an Income Tax, the 17th Amendment (which practically destroyed the 10th and States Rights), two World Wars, taken off the gold standard, a Great Depression, another invasion of the South through the civil rights movement (what we Southerners rightly call the Second Reconstruction), the moral rot of the 1960s, sunk up to the neck in the Middle East, three clueless Baby Boomer Presidents (Bill, George, and Barry), the USA Patriot Act and the Department of Homeland Security, a police/surveillance State, and now bankrupted by the Banksters and their political whores in Congress. And I’m supposed to cheer all this on by singing the National Anthem, saluting the Stars and Stripes, and saying the Pledge of Allegiance? No thanks, I’ll pass.
I wonder if Mr. Peroutka agrees with his fellow board member that the civil rights movement was a negative development and a second reconstruction. This is the same civil rights movement that Peroutka is now relabeling and extolling. Perhaps, Mr. Peroutka’s education efforts need to start with his League president.
I doubt such education would help; here is a League of the South press release on King:
Only a sick and reprobate society would elevate Martin Luther King, Jr., and demonize Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson. The former sought to manipulate white guilt and use the power of national government for the ends of black racial advancement; the latter risked their lives on the field of battle to preserve the true principles of Constitutional government and the integrity of their homeland. To King and his ilk (both then and now), the U.S. Constitution and the Bible are nothing more than words to be twisted in service of the liberal vision of the good life. To Lee and Jackson, and those who honor them, they are the wellsprings of Christian liberty and prosperity.
There can be no compromise between the worldviews of those who follow MLK and those who salute Lee and Jackson. Moreover, there is no way that a man can, in good conscience, pay homage to both sides at the same time.
Does Peroutka disagree here with Hill and the League? Did Peroutka not know Hill’s views when he pledged the resources of his family and the IOTC to the work of the League of the South? According to the League press release, King twists the words of the Constitution and Bible to serve a liberal vision. Has Peroutka left the League of the South’s talking points, or is he doing some twisting of his own?
Mr. Peroutka said that it is shameful to elevate or denigrate someone on the basis of skin color. I agree and recommend that he read the articles I cited above on the website of the organization he leads and the following articles on his own website.
R.L. Dabney on Civil Government (for commentary, read here)
Discrimination (for commentary, read here)
To be taken seriously, Peroutka and his supporters should confront the rest of what the IOTC and League say about Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement. Perhaps Mr. Peroutka is reconsidering his support for the League of the South vision of an ethno-nationalist (white dominated) Southern nation. If so, it would be helpful if he came out and said so.
Roll the tape:
League of the South members who read here; what do you think of the new video?
Rick Joyner Doubles Down On Prediction That America Is Headed For Martial Law
In a “prophetic bulletin” out today, Oak Initiative president Rick Joyner again declares that martial law is coming to America. During a September 30 broadcast on his website, Joyner declared that “our only hope is a military takeover, martial law and that the crucial, most crucial element of that is who the marshal is going to be.” Referring to that prediction, Joyner writes today:
What I did say, and am saying, is that democracy in America is failing, and we are headed for martial law.
I make no apologies for this statement, and I will stand by it. (emphasis in original)
There is nothing in this bulletin about a military takeover but his words from Monday have generated significant reaction within and outside the church. Charisma seemed supportive in their reporting, while Chris Rodda warned that like-minded military members and officers might be inclined to heed Joyner’s words about a military takeover.
See also:
Rick Joyner: The Only Hope For America Is A Military Takeover