Talk:Christian reconstructionism/Archive 1

neofascism?

What's the problem with this paragraph???--Cberlet 22:29, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Some critics categorize the Christian Reconstructionist movement as a form of Totalitarianism or potentially a form of theocratic Fascism, based on a comparison of a number of shared features. Karen Armstrong, for example, sees a potential for fascism in Christian Reconstructionism because the system of dominion envisaged by Christian Reconstructionist theologians R. J. Rushdoony and Gary North "is totalitarian. There is no room for any other view or policy, no democratic tolerance for rival parties, no individual freedom," (Armstrong, Battle for God, pp. 361-362).

I think we could really do with some details of these "shared features" here; that would, e.g., make it clearer whether the alleged defences offered in an earlier version of the article actually address the criticism or not. - Gareth McCaughan

I added Armstrong, but the other main cite is co-written by me.  :-) It is in a published book. Objections? -Chip Berlet

You're talking about "Eyes Right"? Seems reasonable to me. (Not that I've read it, but I don't see any reason to think it was written by loonies...) But note that I'm no fan of Reconstructionism; objections are more likely to come from others. Oh, and obviously nothing's wrong with that paragraph except that advocates of Reconstructionism understandably don't like being told they're fascists :-). It would be improved by greater specificity about, e.g., why fascist specifically is an appropriate term; after all, it's a lot more specific than "totalitarian". More specific accusations are easier to refute if false and harder to brush off if true; both of these are good things. But I'm stating the obvious, so I'll shut up. Gareth McCaughan 22:51, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)

If you don't open your eyes you will never see. They are Christians and as such accept NT UDoN't!wAn* 23:59, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sincere religious belief does not trump research and citation.--Cberlet 01:21, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Citations from the primary sources on Christian Reconstruction are rejected by Chip Berlet. It seems that nothing is allowed to trump HIS beliefs. See his rejection of published Reconstructionist sources below in "POV? anti-democratic". Reconguy 01:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

<------- In "House Divided", by Greg Bahnsen and Ken Gentry write (page 79):

Furthermore, Reconstructionist ethics does not propose “the elimination” of political pluralism, does not seek to “abolish” pluralism for some “monolithic form of government,” and does not believe “democratic societies are considered contrary to the enforcement of biblical law.” Reconstructionists have been badly misrepresented here. They enthusiastically champion democratic procedures within the state (e.g., open debate, competing parties, free elections). And they would not abolish pluralism as such, but simply seek the redefinition of its limits. Everyone places some limit upon the plurality of politically acceptable opinions. Even House and Ice would not say child molestation must be tolerated when practiced in subservience to a satanic religion. Theonomists wish to define those limits according to Scriptural teaching, while others use other ethical standards to set those limits. The question here, as always, is what should be the source of our ethical authority and direction, in politics and every other area.

Contrast this with the charges in quotes from Armstrong and Berlet.

Also, the use of "shared features" to make associations is logically flawed. It allows a critic to associate ANY view that can be presented unfavorably with the view to be criticized. This slanderous and insulting method is discussed in "House Divided," page 54-55, 57:

Perhaps by means of a few more "counter-examples" we can drive home the extremetiy of the inappropriateness and insult involved in the kind of criticism ("potential dangers") House and Ice have taken up against Reconstructionism. ....

Notice, first, the general form of this reasoning, taking the abbreviation MUD for any monstrous unbiblical doctrine or practice you choose. "(a) Our theological opponents say nothing in their writings which indicts them of MUD, are not actually guilty of MUD, do not endorse MUD, work to avoid MUD in themselves, and actually take a public stand aganist MUD in others. (b) However, their theological system does not render it absolutely, personally impossible for some holding it to be later persuaded to depart from the position and be 'tempted' into the MUD. (c) Indeed, a few of the characteristics or beliefs of those who promote MUD can also be found in our opponents, despite their opposition to MUD. (d) It is them 'possible' that our opponents are not really, completely clean of MUD. (e) Moreover, there must be a 'tendency' or 'potential danger' that the position of our opponents 'could possibly' be 'in effect' the same as MUD. (f) Therefore, readers should reject the position of our opponents, watching out for its MUD." We can designate this line of reasoning the mud-slinging fallacy.

Let us apply the form of this fallacious thinking to the authors of Dominion Theology. ....

None of us gets treated fairly with the mud-slinging fallacy.

Note that Armstrong uses not even one single quote or footnote from a Christian Reconstructionist.

All of her citations are from secondary sources who are opponents, and some of her sources are third-hand hearsay sources, based on the mud-slinging fallacy.

Christian Reconstructionists have published book-length responses to their critics, written by several men with earned doctorates in the areas discussed. Many of these books are available for free online. Dismissing these sources is inexcusable. Reconguy 01:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

<----Please pay attention: I am not suggesting that cites to published material should not be considered for inclusion. I am pointing out that the standard Wikipedia policy for issues that are in dispute is to include reputable postions from all sides. You cannot delete the material cited to Armstrong simply because Greg Bahnsen and Ken Gentry write that they disagree with what she has written. If you cannot understand this simple concept, you should seriously consider not trying to edit here on Wikipedia. Your POV tirades here are a waste of time. --Cberlet 03:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Fascism

Here are some of the cites where I argue that there is a proto-fascist tendency in Christian Reconstructionism:

"According to Griffin, at the core of fascism is ‘a revolutionary form of nationalism, one that sets out to be a political, social and ethical revolution, welding the ‘people’ into a dynamic national community under new elites infused with heroic values. The core myth that inspires this project is that only a populist, trans–class movement of purifying, cathartic national rebirth (palingenesis) can stem the tide of decadence’. One way to unpack the concept of palingenesis is to see it as a version of apocalyptic belief common in all millenarian movements."

"In the contemporary United States there are a number of fascistic groups and movements interwoven with religion. They have been described as clerical fascism, theocratic fascism, or ‘fascistized clericalism.’ Lyons and I put Christian Identity into the category of clerical fascism, and we also included a militant theocratic Protestant movement called Christian Reconstructionism. Around the world there are other religious ethnonationalist movements where a case can be made for categorisation as some form or hybrid of fascism, including the Taliban in Afghanistan, the Qaeda network, and the Hindu nationalist (Hindutva) Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in India (which grew out of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) Hindu religious movement). Various other religious nationalist movements, such as those in Iran and Israel, contain bits and pieces of fascist ideology merged with theology. Even more diffuse are general religious nationalist movements such as the Lebanese Christians and the colonialist Afrikaner Broederbond of South Africa. Sorting out the classification of these movements is unfinished business."

Chip Berlet. (2004) "Christian Identity: The Apocalyptic Style, Political Religion, Palingenesis and Neo-Fascism." Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions, Vol. 5, No. 3, (Winter), special issue on Fascism as a Totalitarian Movement.

Also:

Chip Berlet. (2003). “Terminology: Use with Caution.” Fascism. Vol. 5, Critical Concepts in Political Science, Roger Griffin and Matthew Feldman, eds. New York, NY: Routledge.

Chip Berlet and Matthew N. Lyons. (2000). Right–Wing Populism in America: Too Close for Comfort. New York: Guilford Press, (note 25), pp. 248–250.

Hope these seem substantial. --Cberlet 01:21, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

These citations only show the opinions of critics and ignore features of OT law in general and Christian Reconstruction in particular. OT law separated the roles of priest and king, yet allowed aliens to participate in most aspects of the national life in ancient Israel without converting to Judaism.

Equating OT law with fascism shows ignorance of the OT law in application. An example of a common misunderstanding of OT law is the charge that "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth" would leave a society of blind people with missing teeth. In a society where people killed for putting out an eye or knocking out a tooth, limiting damage to only an eye or a tooth is a major improvement. Negotiating for monetary or barter restitution to avoid losing an eye makes the offending party have to deal with the damage they caused, and provide the injured person resources to make up for lost income and quality of life. However, the injured party cannot ask for too much, or else losing an eye or a tooth could be a better choice for the person responsible for the injury. This is a framework for justice in an imperfect world. It also requires complex legal reasoning that tends (and is intended) to frustrate fascists.

The reference to "Kinism" as an offshoot of Christian Reconstruction is simply false, and should be removed or attributed to critics (instead of being cited as a fact.) Kinism and Christian Identity adopted various ideas from Christian Reconstruction for their own reasons, but were never part of any group within the movement. Christian Identity and other racists found some features, such a postmillennialism appealing, because postmilennialism offers a Christian eschatology without a future Jewish kingdom ruling the Earth. However, Christian Reconstructionists reject racism in their discussion groups, writings, and members of various races are Christian Reconstructionists (e.g., the actor who played "Mr. T" in the A-Team TV series.) A reconstructionist newsletter by Gary North, probably available at www.freebooks.com, lampoons racists and argues for inter-marriage of whites with Asians to improve the gene pool and makes other arguments intended to annoy racists and encourage them to go away.

Postmillennialism leads Christian Reconstructionists to expect all races, nations and culture groups to become Christian through the success of the gospel and without coercion or other "fascist tendencies". A longer time perspective (unlike premillennial views) makes it unnecessary to hurry things along with military means.

I hope that helps. --Reconguy , 12 Sep 2006

Christian Reconstructionism replaces Communism??

Opinion: Christian Reconstruction in many instances, calls for the removal of local viewpoints in favior of Biblical View Points. Lets not forget that they are also trying to take over the world like the Communist of long ago did. Except this time its the United States thats the Leading Nation for the movement. The Soviet Union was the leading nation for Communism and in that I see no difference in the rolls that each play toward the viewpoint. The United States is to Christian Reconstructionism as the Soviet Union is to Communism. They also see no problem with removing Native American viewpoints and inserting Christian Reconstructionist Viewpoints --Magnum Serpentine 8-=26-06

Totalitarian

I think it's pretty clear that Reconstructionism is totalitarian: that is, the sort of state envisaged by Reconstructionists would seek to control far more of each person's life than typical modern democratic states do. The points at which I think it might cogently be argued that Reconstructionism isn't fascist are:

• Fascism tends to be explicitly nationalist or racist. Is this true of Reconstructionism?
• Fascism tends to exalt violence and war. I'm fairly sure Reconstructionism doesn't do this, though a Reconstructionist state might in fact be violent or warlike.

It's also alleged in the 'pedia article on fascism that corporatism is an essential part of fascism. I'm not sure either how much consensus there is on this, or whether it applies to Reconstructionism. Another disputable point: is it a distinctive characteristic of fascism to want a state with a single hero-like leader (a "Duce" or "Führer")? I don't think Reconstruction has any particular interest in that.

Reconstructionists like to reply to allegations of fascism by saying that they don't propose to bring about the system they wany by violent coercion, but by gradual persuasion. Leaving aside the question of exactly how sincere that is, I'm unsure whether this actually distinguishes Reconstructionism from fascism. Gareth McCaughan 09:08, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)

In Italy and Germany fascism came to power without any major violence against the state. Most definitions of fascism do not make a distinction between fascism in state power (militarism, corporatism, etc.) and fascism as a social movement. We need to compare fascist social movements with Christian Reconstructionism as a theologically-based sociopolitical movement. Most of the older definitions of fascism are now being reconsidered based on the work of Eatwell, Griffin, Lacquer, and Gentile, among others. In any case, Karen Armstrong is a well-known scholar of religion and how it intersects with politics. She can't just be dismissed and edited out just because Reconstructionists don't like what she has written.--Cberlet 13:48, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm no expert on any of this stuff (and haven't read Eatwell, Griffin, Lacquer or Gentile), so please forgive the naïvété of my questions: how is fascism-as-a-social-movement defined, and why is it called "fascism" specifically? I'd (naïvely) have expected that a "fascist" social movement would be one that seeks to bring about a fascist state, or at least that hopes one will arise. But it sounds like that's not what you're describing.

(I hope what you say about Karen Armstrong isn't directed at me; I haven't dismissed her or edited her out, and have no intention of doing so, and I'm certainly not a Reconstructionist.) Gareth McCaughan 23:22, 2005 Apr 24 (UTC)

Fascist social movements often make claims about how their ideal state will function that are not the reality when they take state power. Fascism-as-a-social-movement is defined by Griffin above on this page.--Cberlet 02:28, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I hadn't realized that the Griffin quotation was intended as a definition of f-a-a-s-m; sorry about that. Is it possible to explain briefly why the word "fascism" is thought appropriate for so broadly defined a phenomenon? Especially as the definition omits what (to uneducated oiks like me) are some of the most salient characteristics of fascism as originally constituted, namely militarism and totalitarianism.

In any case, I'm not sure that Griffin's definition actually applies to Reconstructionism, though this may be my ignorance at work as what I know of the movement is mostly at third hand. In particular, I don't see how Reconstructionism can be considered a form of nationalism. So far as I can tell, it's possible to be a Reconstructionist without any belief that one's own country is any better or more important than others. Gareth McCaughan 22:18, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)

The Griffin quote is an attempt to describe the eseential core of fascist ideology. Fascism indeed strives for totalitarian rule, and in state power it is militarist. There is a lot of new writing on fascism and neo-fascism, and some of it is quite complex. It is a bit unfair for you to not read up on this stuff and then suggest that I defend views that are in print but which you admit you have not read. I think for purposes of this page, it is enough to quote Armstrong and then allow others to suggest she is wrong. I admit two of the print articles I wrote are a bit hard to find, but the key section from one of them that mentions Christian Reconstructionism is posted above. Also, the one on terminology is online: terminology--Cberlet 22:52, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Unfair" seems a bit, well, unfair. I'm just asking for some enlightenment if you're readily able to offer it; not demanding anything. I'm sorry if that seems unreasonable. I remark that most readers of the article will be no more familiar with the literature on fascism than I am.

Anyway, I've done a bit of googling and turned up various bits of Griffin on fascism. He consistently seems to emphasize the nationalistic element of fascism -- he likes the term "ultra-nationalism" -- which (as I've remarked above) doesn't seem to me to be a major theme in Reconstructionism; and the populist element, which seems even less so. The notion of national rebirth is there, perhaps, but that would have been equally true of, say, the Russian or French revolutions, neither of which is generally described as fascist.

The article on terminology is interesting; thanks for the pointer. I think the distinction between "there's a potential for fascism here" and "this is proto-fascist" is important; the former (which is what you quote Armstrong as saying) seems a much more plausible characterization of Reconstructionism than the latter. It's not hard to imagine a Reconstructionist group allying itself with (say) the Christian Identity movement and turning to fascism, but I don't think it's reasonable to blame the existing Reconstructionist movement for its possible future sins. (There's enough to blame it for already.) Gareth McCaughan 00:13, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)

An issue for me is the lack of availability online of much of the recent scholarship on neofascism, and the current debate over the boundaries of clerical fascism, theocratic fascism, and what Griffin calls "fascitized clericalism. What is unfair is asking me to explain my 16,000 word article with 160 footnotes here on a Wiki discussion page while also stating blandly that you really have not done much reading on the subject, and most of that in the last few days on the web. You also happily state that in regards to Christian Reconstructionism, "what I know of the movement is mostly at third hand." So imagine how frustrating it is for me.

All I am proposing is rewriting the current:

Some critics categorize the Christian Reconstructionist movement as a form of Totalitarianism or potentially a form of theocratic neofascism, based on a comparison of a number of shared features. Karen Armstrong, for example, sees a potential for fascism in Christian Reconstructionism because the system of dominion envisaged by Christian Reconstructionist theologians R. J. Rushdoony and Gary North "is totalitarian. There is no room for any other view or policy, no democratic tolerance for rival parties, no individual freedom," (Armstrong, Battle for God, pp. 361-362).

To the following:

Some critics categorize the Christian Reconstructionist movement as a form of totalitarianism or a form of theocratic neofascism. Karen Armstrong, for example, sees a potential for fascism in Christian Reconstructionism, and notes that the system of dominion envisaged by Christian Reconstructionist theologians R. J. Rushdoony and Gary North "is totalitarian. There is no room for any other view or policy, no democratic tolerance for rival parties, no individual freedom," (Armstrong, Battle for God, pp. 361-362). Berlet and Lyons have witten the movement is a "new form of clerical fascist politics,"(Right-Wing Populism in America, p. 249). Christian Reconstructionists deny their movement is either totalitarian or neofascist.

Our book is often available in college libraries.--Cberlet 02:20, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think your frustration arises from a misunderstanding; the only thing in that change I have any qualms about is the removal of the word "potentially", but since in fact you're a critic and you do (I take it) categorize Reconstructionism as a form of theocratic neofascism, I guess I can hardly object :-). (I don't think Reconstructionism meets the definition in your "terminology" article, for what it's worth.) All I said, and all I'm saying, is that an extreme-sounding opinion like "Reconstructionism is a form of neofascism" will be more persuasive, less likely to be deleted by loonies, and more informative, if it is accompanied by an explanation of what those shared features are that justify calling it that. The only shared feature mentioned in the paragraph is the one in the Armstrong quotation, and she only takes it as indicating a potential for fascism. But I'm not saying you have to explain what the features are and why they justify the label of "fascism"; I'm not saying you have to explain it to me here or to the world in the article; I'm just saying I think it would be better if you did. If you find that frustrating, then I'm not sure what I can do to ease your frustration. Gareth McCaughan 07:41, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)

That makes the matter much clearer. Thanks. Look, this is a page on Christian Reconstructionism, not a page on the current debates in academia over neofascism, clerical fascism, and theocracy. Perhaps I should spend some time expanding the discussion on those pages. But for this page, the cites, as alarming as they may sound, are backed up in part by other text on the page. Here is what I read: The nation needs to be reconstructed along with Protestantism to conform to the ultra-Calvinist beliefs of a specific totalitarian theological elite whose core tenents would require abandoning Constitutional principles as currently understood by the judiciary. People in other religions and secularists have to put up or shut up, and become second-class citizens. If gay people have sex they can be executed.

So Christian Reconstructionism is a movement that is totalitarian and authoritarian, that wants to overturn the current form of government and rebuild society to be "moral" and "serve God." Now look at Griffin's definition of the core tneents of fascism as a social movement (before it takes state power):

"a revolutionary form of nationalism, one that sets out to be a political, social and ethical revolution, welding the ‘people’ into a dynamic national community under new elites infused with heroic values. The core myth that inspires this project is that only a populist, trans–class movement of purifying, cathartic national rebirth (palingenesis) can stem the tide of decadence."

Sounds more like there are shared aspects? --Cberlet 13:08, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Let's be fair please...

If we're going to use NPOV language in the description of the movement (such as "Christian Reconstructionists argue" and "Christian Reconstructionists claim"), then we need to do the same in the section on criticisms (such as "a popular interpretation of the principle of separation of church and state" -- there is not only one interpretation of that principle, so if it sounds as if there were, that will probably mislead a reader about the actual beliefs of Christian Reconstructionists).

If we're going to have a section for criticisms of the movement, let's at least allow for some of the responses from the adherents to be heard as well. This article is supposed to be informational, after all. It shouldn't be used as a medium to sway a person one way or the other, such as using NPOV language in one section and concrete statements in another. Thanks.

Let's be fair and stop answering the critics in that section, when supporters have their own section. The following is totally redundant to an existing paragraph in the supporters section: "Supporters of Christian Reconstructionism thus claim that they draw a distinction between the legislation of beliefs and of actions, and that they do no promote the use of privation of life, liberty or health for the advance of their movement."--Cberlet 12:55, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Trying a different Table of Contents

Because of the lenghty introductory material, the default Table of contents is moved down quite a way into the article. I'm trying TOCleft just to see how it works. It is not always a good choice; but in this case it looks like situating the table differently could improve the appearance and navigability of the article. Let me know if you don't agree. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:18, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Also, __TOC__ (with two underscores on each side) will force the placement of a TOC. -Willmcw 21:11, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Distracting blank spaces

Formatting that encases the framed table of contents in text, in just the way a framed map or image is enclosed within the text, is now available: {{TOCleft}} in the HTML does the job.

Blank space opposite the ToC, besides being unsightly and distracting, suggests that there is a major break in the continuity of the text, which may not be the case. Blanks in page layout are voids and they have meanings to the experienced reader. The space betweeen paragraphs marks a brief pause between separate blocks of thought. A deeper space, in a well-printed text, signifies a more complete shift in thought: note the spaces that separate sub-headings in Wikipedia articles.

A handful of thoughtless and aggressive Wikipedians revert the "TOCleft" format at will. A particularly aggressive de-formatter is User:Ed g2s

The reader may want to compare versions at the Page history. --Wetman 20:01, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Dubious?

Will the person who thinks the text is dubious explain why and provide cites here please?--Cberlet 15:01, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think that the issues marked as dubious are even controversial. If the reasons for doubting these statements aren't explained in the talk, the dispute notices and "dubious" markers should be removed. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 15:54, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I've looked over the dubious markers which are supposed to be placed after the text that is disputed:

"aims are anti-democratic"

Is this something explicitly on the reconstructionist agenda? what is meant by it, it is not a very precise word, for instance is someone who supports the US constitution anti-democratic because they believe in the rule of law, and in super-majority protections? I guess I can see why the statement is disputed.

"Christian Reconstructionists make no pretense of subscribing to the pluralistic ideals of religious tolerance."

Subsequent sentences seem to contradict this very statement, for even though "They envision a future in which opposition to Jesus Christ will eventually surrender the public square to his rule." They don't seem to have any intent, political or institutional to end or oppose religious tolerance, and I don't see how this later statement follows at all, although it uses the word "therefore": "Therefore, they do not take the Constitution of the United States as their ultimate pattern and guide for envisioning the future."

"However, they reject what they refer to as the "Austrian economic principles" held by Reconstructionists"

I'm not quite clear what is disputed here, but it is a strange statement to make. Has this group explicitly rejected the Austrian school? Or is this someones conclusion based on their own analysis?

Of course we shouldn't have to guess what this person means, and I am sure such disputes could be raised with most statements in the article, I guess I now support these disputes based on my analysis.--Silverback 11:40, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Silverback: I really think it would be useful if you see the following pages as a package where claims documented and cited on one page can be referred to on another, otherwise we will end up with much redundancy and endless disputes:

Christian Right, Francis Schaeffer, Dominionism, Dominion Theology, Rousas John Rushdoony, Christian Reconstructionism, Neo-fascism and Religion.

A group of us with very different political and religious viewpoints have been editing this set for months, with lively debates and much research and citation added to various pages. That's why at least two of us do not think many of the claims in this article are, in fact, dubious. Several of the leading studies on Christian Reconstructionism support much of the content of this article. The idea that the Bible supersedes the Constitution, the idea that pluralism is in istself objectionable, the embrace of "Austrian economic principles" by several of the most prominent leaders--all of this is well-documented.--Cberlet 13:08, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I just checked each of pages for support for the anti-democratic statement, only the neo-fascism one had anything. But it seemed to contradict the general theme here, for instance it calls reconstructionism totalitarian with no individual freedom, and this article states that reconstructionists are advocates of the austrian school of economics. You can't get much more free than that. I am extremely suspicious when people start throwing around terms like fascism, most have no idea its hegelian basis, these are the elements of the Encyclopedia of Philosphy definition: " a mixture of extreme socialist or syndicalist notions with a Hegelian or idealistic theory of the state. ... Fascism opposed laissez-fair economics, and ... looked on the state as an organic entity ... rather than as an institution to protect men's rights." I doubt persons of the austrian school have this kind of notion of the state.--Silverback 13:57, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Do you "take the Constitution of the United States as their ultimate pattern and guide for envisioning the future"? I don't know about reconstructionists, but most of the Christian right favor strict constructionist judges, so would seem to have a higher regard for the constitution than the average at least. However, probably noone should take the constitution as their "ultimate pattern and guide". It is a compromise document, composed of checks and balances, not really something to be worshiped, it is just a compromise way of living together.

My main objection is that the statements here in the article should mean something, "anti-democratic" is just name calling. Imagine it extended to this phrase "anti-democratic in some unspecified respect".--Silverback 14:09, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Christian Reconstructionism has many contradictory aspects. Clerical fascism is different from Italian corporative Fascism, so that definition you supplied is not useful (nor very current- there are newer and better definitions such as those offered by Griffin or Eatwell). The anti-democratic and even fascistic aspect of Christian Reconstructionism is widely noted by Armstrong, Barron, Clarkson, and others. They are cited as references. You are confusing the terms Christian Reconstructionism and strict constructionism. They are unrelated. Perhaps if you looked at some of the published research it would make this page seem less dubious. --Cberlet 14:20, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I am not confusing the two. I am merely pointing out that if Christian reconstructionists are like the rest of the Christian Right in supporting a strict constructionist interpretation of the constitution, then they are hardly outside the norm in their respect for or lack of respect for the constitution. I don't doubt that the authors you cite call people fascists, what I doubt is that they mean anything like Fascism when they do. It probably bears so little resemblance to fascism that the use of the term is a mere epithet. If people are going to make new definitions of fascism, then they should create new words at the same time so that there isn't confusion. Short of that we probably should qualify the usage in each instance, for instance "Griffin fascism" or "Eatwell fascism", etc. If Armstrong, Barron, Clarkson and other note anti-democratic aspects, we should state what those aspects are, otherwise we are engaging in meaningless name calling, which is especially sad, if their original use of the term was substantiated in some way.--Silverback 14:38, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Could we just have this discussion on one page at a time please? I propose we go back to the Neofascism and Religion page, and leave this page alone for now.--Cberlet 20:19, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm willing to focus on two pages. This one and the neofascism and religion one.--Silverback 04:55, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Too much unattributed characterization by critics

There should be more quotes and summaries that are from the reconstructionist perspective, rather than unattributed or original research summaries of what the implications of the reconstructionists beliefs are. --Silverback 04:59, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

That's fine, but several of the things that you have raised issue with are not criticisms. It could hardly be any less controversial, to say that Reconstructionism is not pluralistic. And, while Reconstructionists have been very clear in advocating democratic procedures, they have not been at all shy about positioning the Law of God over against the sinful will of man, even if it represents the majority. These two things together for many of their critics amounts to "anti-democracy". And when you went so far as to claim that Reconstructionism is not unique in its approach to biblical sanctions against sexual perversity and immorality (justifying the death penalty, "temporal, societal, and eternal") that's just about inexcusable, really. If we were to claim that they are "not" unique, it would falsify the entire article. This distinctive, that the biblical legal sanctions apply, is almost definitional! — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 06:13, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

The original laws against all the sexual morality probably were derived from peoples Bible derived beliefs, dating back to before the modern reconstructionist movement. There is broad support for these laws even today as a residual from more religious times. There really were postings of the 10 commandments in court rooms before reconstructionism, so how they can be said to be unique in this regard is strange.

Whether positioning the law of God over all is anti-democratic, depends on how they view its implementation, and what they propose to do if some aspect of its implementation encounters opposition. I don't see their views on that explained. Believing in a second coming and Christ reigning at that time, which does seem to be a theocracy, is much different from thinking one needs to use coercion now to start implementing their vision of it. At least North's idea of the law of God over the sinful will of man appears to be a personal responsibility. Perhaps they have made threatening statements as implied by the innuendo, but nothing in the article makes that case. In fact everything I've read so far seems to indicate that the non-doctrinaire Christian Right neophytes are more of a threat, since they are less principled and thus more susceptable to populist reactionary rhetoric. I was suprised to see after thinking the must be some merit to fear mongering here.--Silverback 06:28, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

As the article says, most Christians believe that Biblical law is useful in some way as a guide to both, personal and social ethics and morality. However, Reconstructionism insists on the sanctions of biblical law, as part and parcel of the law's biblical teaching. Without the sanctions, there is no biblical law.

As Rushdoony wrote,"The legal crisis is due to the fact that the law of Western civilization has been Christian law, but its faith is increasingly humanism"; and with the conversion to humanism, he argues, there is a conversion of the understanding of sin as an offense against human beings and God, to a view of sin as an offense against "society" or "the people" and the state. "people" in the place of actual persons, and the state in the place of God is part of elevating man above God's law. In Rushdoony's view, a key element of this process of elevating man above God's law is the elimination of restitutive justice, including the death penalty. He quotes Caryl Chessman, from "A Barbarous Form of Punishment" , saying "The very concept of a death chanber is antithetical to the ideals of Western civilization.", to which Rushdoony responds, "... In order to give man the pre-eminence, the humanist logically must destroy any concept of justice as a real and objective standard. Man must be above law and therefore above justice ... Thus, between Biblical law and humanistic law there is an unbridgeable gap and an unceasing warfare." (Institutes of Biblical Lawpp 67; 225-238) — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** \

Keep in mind here, that Rushdoony is arguing that Western civilizations have been applying Christian law through a humanistic faith; and for that reason, they depart from the basis of authority upon which the laws rest. Without the sanctions, the law is not upheld, it is not followed, it is rejected absolutely. Western civilizations may until very recently have acknowledged that acts of homosexuality, incest, adultery, bestiality, and rape are all sins; but because these civilizations have been unwilling to punish sins as they deserve (in these cases, with death, according to Reconstructionism), they have refused for a long time to uphold God's law. This is what Reconstructionists mean when they say that man is elevated by humanism "above the law and therefore above justice." None of this is "dubious" or "original research". It is simply what Reconstructionism teaches and has always taught from the outset. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 07:21, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

It would help if there were a quote regarding the death penalty for these sexual immoralities, and some evidence that it was a general thrust of Reconstructionism, so we can know whether it is a general view or a minority view. Also, whatever one thinks the punishment for these acts SHOULD be, does not necessarily mean they trust a civil government to properly administer it. One concern, I have about the quantify of commentaries that, for instance, North has produced, is that his commentary on what particular old testament passages mean, might be different from his ultimate synthesis when viewed in light of the new testament, and the US constitution. For instance, many US theologians see a special role for the United States, somehow Biblically derived.--Silverback 08:37, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Page 235 of the Institutes of Biblical Law gives a list of 18 things for which death is the required penalty, together with the Biblical text by which that penalty is assigned. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 08:53, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Bible vs the constitution

Also, the crux of the main criticism of the reconstructionists appears to be that they think the Bible is higher than the constitution, as exemplified by this statement "Therefore, they use the Bible, in contrast to political documents like the Constitution of the United States, as their pattern and guide for envisioning the future" Because they hold something higher than the constitution they are called neofascists and totalitarians. Anyone, who doesn't hold SOMETHING higher than the constitution is probably a nihilist. Is that what the basis of this criticism is, a redefinition of fascism and totalitarianism to include anything which isn't nihilism? If this is the criticism of Christian Reconstructionism, it should be made explicit.

Even the courts hold somethings higher than the constitution, such as precedent (even including European precedents), efficiency of the courts, heck, we don't even have the right to a jury trial anymore when penalties are less than 6 months incarceration.

Evidently this article is about some subset of nihilists calling everybody fascists, and the strange thing is, most of them are progressives advocating policies the require either the coercive power of the state or severe social ostracism (in the case of anarcho-communism/"gift economy"). How they can call others fascists and presume to rule themselves is the height of hubris and elitist entitlement.--Silverback 05:11, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

I think that you should read the article without those glasses on, without the presumption that every interesting statement is best seen as a criticism, and that every criticism needs to be weighed for its credibility or validity. This shouldn't be a disputative essay; it should be a frank description. Of course reconstructionists follow the Bible more than the constitution; and of course this causes secularists of all stripes to worry, and to fling words like "clerical fascist" and "theocrat". I say, let the sides say what they have to say, and stop trying to shut them up. They are all part of the story worth telling. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 06:27, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

The difficulty in all the unsourced summarization, is telling which characterizations are those of the critics and which are fair summaries that an intellectually honest reconstructionist would admit to. Consider this statement: "The social structure advocated by Christian Reconstructionism would have the clergy, laity and government, individually and corporately, to be in ultimate submission to the moral principles of the Bible, including the Old Testament, while retaining their separate scopes of authority and roles in society as designated in the Old Testament." It is difficult to tell what this means? Are they advocating a return to tribes or kings, have the proposed amendments to the US constitution, do they view it as the way things will be when Jesus returns, but at this time the constitution is fine, or perhaps they even view the US constitution with its separation of powers as an inspired implimentation of that very law. Perhaps the article just does a poor job of explaining the reconstructionist position, but there is a problem here. My glasses, as you describe it, come from just trying to make sense of the text.--Silverback 06:37, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

That's fair enough, and a good example. I didn't write the statement, and there might not be an equivalent that says quite just that, quite just so concisely. But, I do recognize the fundamental accuracy of the statement. Reconstructionism is a form of Kuyperian neo-calvinism, and what you are reading is one of the main principles of that school of thought. It asserts a pluralistic authority, under God. The state, has real authority touching on the church for example, and exercises real authority over the family, but as institutions church and state are not higher than the family: each one has a kind of sovereignty within its own sphere. Similarly, there is a natural authority within the family, from which those holding state or church power are not exempted; but that doesn't mean that Barbara Bush gets to order her son around, in how to do his job (thank God). What can be said about the family, church and state can also be said about schools, corporations, labor unions, political parties, or voluntary and involuntary associations of various types. All institutions are accountable to God directly, according to their God-given role, and not mediately through the church or through the state. And at the same time, each institution has its special faithful role to play, and every sphere of authority is accordingly built up, or hindered, as that role is carried out either in faith or in unbelief. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 08:45, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I have managed to find more Reconstruction excerpts and information online, and can see now, that it is not as benign as economic libertarianism would lead one to believe. There appears to be a real dedication to restoring God's law, if not an immanent danger of it happening. But however severe some of penalties and emphasees (sp?) seem by modern standards, I don't see how labeling it fascism and totalitarianism is correct or encyclopedic, and selecting those quotes probably does not do justice to the work of the "experts", who presumably did more than name call.--Silverback 10:02, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Silverback: Has it ever occured to you to do actual research--like reading a book--rather than surfing the Internet? Read the Bruce Barron book as a start. He is a relatively conservative Christian evangelical. Serious books and journal articles and even some print popular press articles have lots of documentation on Christian Reconstructionism. William Martin, a Christian professor of religion, has a balanced discussion in his book, With God on Their Side. An average high school student could research and rebut your claims with about 30 minutes of research in a decent public library. The cites are on the page. If you disagree with them, go read them and bring your evidence here. But that you disagree with claims made by serious published authors has no merit in this discussion unless you bring specific quotes and cites by other serious published authors to rebut them. And, in fact, there are already such rebut criticisms on this page. So what is your point? You refuse to do your homework and yet you continue to object. POV does not trump serious published authors. --Cberlet 13:09, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I just moved the North quote down into the proper lower section. It is not standard practice in encyclopedias to put long quotes near the top of an article. With controversial subjects, it is standard practice to at least mention the controvery near the top. --Cberlet 14:10, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

It isn't necessary to agree with such labelling, Silverback. I certainly don't. But what matters to me is that published authors criticize them in these terms, and Reconstructionists read what they write and have responded. That means that there is a thorough record of this debate, from which to write this article. That's all we should be interested in. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:12, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Removing dispute banners

In my opinion, when a dispute banner is put up it should be accompanied by a list of disputed issues to be addressed, so that the banners can be taken down as soon as possible. What remains to address, to remove these defacing, bullying banners? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:01, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

What remains to address, to remove the dispute banners? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:38, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Christian Reconstructionism

Would Hal Lindsey best be described as a Christian Reconstructionist?

No. Lindsey is a favorite target for Reconstructionist criticism. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 14:25, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

For further reading, you may wish to contrast Dispensationalism (linked from Hal Lindsey) and Covenant theology (Which should probably be linked from Christian Reconstructionism and/or dominion theology somewhere as related.) Hope this helps. Srl 23:21, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I disagree, Yes, Hal Lindsey is a Christian Reconstructionist. user:Magnum Serpentine 8-26-06

It seems rather odd that Gary Demar and Peter J. Leithart would write 'The Legacy of Hatred Continues: A Response to Hal Lindsey's "The Road to Holocaust" about a Christian Reconstructionist. --Reconguy 16:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Top-down?

Hi, I'm wondering about the link to Reconstructionist Postmillennialism which article says of change: ...top down (ie through political and legal institutions) rather than the bottom up (ie people's hearts and minds). Seems that that document, or the link thereto, should be: bottom-up, not top down. I don't know of any one in CR, certainly not those listed, who support top-down societal change. Also as I mentioned above, Covenant theology should probably be mentioned somewhere. Srl 09:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Not only are you correct, but I think the page Reconstructionist Postmillennialism is a hybrid of concepts and should be merged into this page and a pointer left. Most Reconstructionists are postmillennial, but not all, and the Chalcedon folks are quick to point out that they think Christian Reconstructionism is not necessarily a postmillennial concept.--Cberlet 15:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

In fact, the two pages on Reconstructionist Postmillennialism and Revivalist Postmillennialism are POV forks and most of the material can go here or on the Postmillennialism page, with pointers.--Cberlet 15:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

POV fork .. interesting, it may well be that. (I think would be bad manners to linkify someone else's comments?) And that is a good point about Postmillenialism in general. Perhaps there needs to be a section about that here that says, "CR generally claim ____". Anyways, I'd like to bring in more references (from actual books even) if they would be useful. thanks, Srl 23:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

More references would be great. I need to research the proper Wiki way to suggest page mergers. Sigh... --Cberlet 23:56, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Merge#Merging - looks like a ((mergefrom|Reconstructionist Postmillennialism)) and Revivalist Postmillennialism on this page (maybe near the end?), and a ((mergeto|CR)) on the other two pages. At least that's how it looks like it can be done. Then, discussion. Srl 03:47, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I am also removing the dispute banners, given the lack of meaningful discussion.--Cberlet 15:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

"Leaders of the Christian Reconstruction movement expect a large majority of citizens worldwide eventually to accept Christ as savior. We believe in postmillennialism. Those who do not share our confidence concerning the future success of the gospel, as empowered by the Holy Spirit, believe that an earthly kingdom must be imposed by force from the top down (premillennialism), or else they do not believe in an earthly institutional kingdom at all (amillennialism).' Gary North, Political Polytheism, pp. 586-587.

POV? anti-democratic

Just reading through some of the Talk here about anti-democracy and gathering some citations, but I wonder about the POV (not the factuality) of "an anti-democratic movement", seems like it needs to be balanced with discussion of republican government and the hebrew republic. Also it might be good to have some definition of the founding principles of American democracy (under objections), I would term this as modern principles of American democracy but that might be POV also. In summary- it seems that the references to democracy in the article may be POV pro-democracy. Srl 17:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Which is good, because when you don't have a democracy your POV is not welcome. --Her girlfriend 05:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Uhm, no. Wikipedia needs to accurately record the views of people who are opposed to democracy. It does appear that M. Rushdoony and some other Reconstructionist theologians are indeed doctrinally opposed to democracy and to political liberalism (in the original sense of the word). Stating this fact does not make the article biased.

I understand that it may seem that way, from a liberal perspective in which democracy is seen as good or valuable, and calling someone "anti-democracy" is equivalent to calling them corrupt, evil, or Stalinist. However, in the present case that is not what is going on. Reconstructionism is, in fact, opposed to liberal democracy; its advocates make a point of saying so. Stating that fact is simply accurate reporting. --FOo 07:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Haven't been on here in a while.. Thanks, FOo and Her girlfriend. As I said, I did not objecting to the statement of fact which is, as you say, accurate reporting. Looks like things have shuffled around a bit in any event. Best regards. 「ѕʀʟ·✎」 06:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

<--------------Some critics categorize the Christian Reconstructionist movement as a form of Totalitarianism or potentially a form of theocratic Fascism, based on a comparison of a number of shared features. Karen Armstrong, for example, sees a potential for fascism in Christian Reconstructionism because the system of dominion envisaged by Christian Reconstructionist theologians R. J. Rushdoony and Gary North "is totalitarian. There is no room for any other view or policy, no democratic tolerance for rival parties, no individual freedom," (Armstrong, Battle for God, pp. 361-362). Armstrong is a world-renowned authority on Christianity and religion. She is hardly ignorant of Old Testament law. We should report what the practitioners say, and what their critics say. Everything else is POV and OR.--Cberlet 03:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

"Theocracy, Theocracy, Theocracy", "First Things" August/September 2006, by Ross Douthat discusses Christian Reconstruction and does not discuss Karen Armstrong's writings, but the article illustrates some of the fallacies evident in the works of Karen Armstrong. Combining guilt-by-association with other biases can lead even educated researchers to make significant errors. --Reconguy 06:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

"The Perfect Surrender", a review by Efraim Karsh, head of Mediterranean Studies at King's College, University of London of "Muhammad: A Prophet for Our Time" by Karen Armstrong. Dr. Karsh notes that this book by Ms. Armstrong is "a thinly veiled hagiography, depicting the prophet as a quintessential man of peace, "whose aim was peace and practical compassion". ... In contrast to Ms. Armstrong's depiction of jihad as a benign struggle for self-improvement, the Qur'anic revelations during Muhammad's Medina years abound with verses extolling the virtues of fighting "in the path of Allah," as do the countless sayings and traditions (hadith) attributed to the prophet."

Karen Armstrong is hardly an objective source, except as an example of someone with an Islamic theocratic and "anti-democratic" agenda. --Reconguy 16:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Armstrong is an internationally acclaimed expert on religion. Your personal opinion is not of interest on the actual entry page. Thanks for sharing.--Cberlet 01:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Please be civil to other editors. Sarcastic insults such as "Thanks for sharing" are not OK here. --FOo 02:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Appeals to authority are a type of logical fallacy. At least Ms. Armstrong gets repeated positive ad hominem, also known as "acclaim".

Hyperbole like claims that Christian Reconstruction "is totalitarian. There is no room for any other view or policy, no democratic tolerance for rival parties, no individual freedom," (Armstrong, Battle for God, pp. 361-362) are disproved with a single exception, and there are thousands to choose from. Imagine if Ms. Armstrong held Islam to the same standard she applies to Christian Reconstruction. --Reconguy 04:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Armstrong is an internationally acclaimed reputable published scholar of religion. Your personal opinion is not sufficient to delete or add material to the actual entry page. I have been asked to not thank you for sharing your opinion here, (see above). --Cberlet 13:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

A reputable, published scholar in Mediterranean Studies dismissed what Armstrong wrote about Islam in the article above. It is not a matter of personal opinion to find Karen Armstrong's favorable statements on Islam an extreme contradicition with her treatment of Christian Reconstruction. Serious scholars usually consider this level of self-contradiction and ignoring relevant evidence an embarrassment.

If sweeping generalizations in red-meat quotes and popularity are the standard for adding material, then Rosie O'Donnell's recent claim on The View that parts of Christianity is worse that the Taliban might score higher on your propaganda scale for adding material. Given your interpretation of the request for you to be civil in these discussions, I must point out that this is not an argument to include Rosie's remarks. (Though Rosie's remarks discredit Democrats in some circles more than 9/11 conspiratorialists do.) The point is that Armstrong is not acting like a serious scholar in the quote you cite, and she has published material other scholars consider defective on other topics. A quote from a critic who accurately describes Christian Reconstruction on democracy and personal freedom, would be appropriate. The Armstrong quote is not accurate. --Reconguy 09:50, 01 October 2006 (UTC)

<-----------It does not matter if you think that what Armstrong said is accurate. That's WP:OR. Please stop wasting our time. Find cites from reputable published sources that challenge what Armstrong says. Then add it to the text.--Cberlet 01:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The quotes already in the article from Political Polytheism by North are enough to refute the nonsense Armstrong wrote about "no room for any other view or policy, no democratic tolerance for rival parties, no individual freedom". No WP:OR is required to dismiss the absolute claims in the Armstrong quote, since such quotes were already provided. Cberlet is clearly wasting our time and unwilling to take quotes from Christian Reconstructionists without reading his personal biases into them to ignore their ordinary meaning. Adding more quotes seems to just get more direct denial from Cberlet, making it pointless. Cberlet's opinion of Armstrong does not matter and should not be reflected in the article.

Since I personally know most of the principal authors in Christian Reconstructionism and proofread some of their books and articles, I could do authoritative WP:OR in other forums. A more structured set of new quotes in this article would be useful to debunk various fantastic claims by critics and the "small-o" obscurantist method of Cberlet.

Furthermore, the initial paragraphs in the article should be rewritten to move the "highly controversial" language/topics further down in the article, after first describing the defining beliefs of Christian Reconstruction, including the presuppositional apologetics of Van Til and the interaction between this set of defining beliefs (which is discussed in various CR sources.) Otherwise, the article opens with prejudicial language and does not have a clear definition of the subject. --Reconguy 03:40, 05 October 2006 (UTC)

This entry should be edited by using published material from a variety of viewpoints. The current version is badly written, convoluted, spends many paragraphs using original research to make uncited claims about what Christian Reconstructionists "really " believe, and is unbalanced. I am posting flags to indicate it is in need of serious work. Adding more uncited original research, no matter how many friends an editor has in CR, will not improve the article, and violates Wiki guidelines.--Cberlet 03:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I heartily agree that the article needs serious work. Numbered footnotes will be needed, in order to make a large number of citations without making the article unreadable. I may be able to create links to a page with the excerpts for the footnotes to help with review. The dispute banner should be able to be removed by agreement, once the article has enough information. After some work to provide context, I might even agree to the Armstrong quote you seem to like - in order to embarrass her group of CR critics. --Reconguy 00:25, 07 October 2006 (UTC)

Your self-perception as the only person who can fix this page is troubling.--Cberlet 03:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I made no such claim. I did announce that I would produce extensive footnotes to document that my edits are based on authoritative sources, and do it in a way that makes it easier to find the relevant texts. Reconguy 02:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

<------- The claim by you and your employer (in the box on the "Dominionism" series) to define "Dominionism" and the claim in the article that Christian Reconstruction is a typical subset of "Dominion Theology" are more troubling for any NPOV article. Such associations belong in a 'critics' section, with a discussion of the disputed nature of these associations, since only critics use the term -- and misrepresent Reconstructionism in the process. See House Divided, pp. 293-4 on one of the misrepresentations of Reconstructionism in the term 'Dominion Theology' (or Page 332-333 links in the HTML version).

Your remarks here create the impression that you 'own' this page in some way (beyond Wiki guidelines), and that you as a critic somehow own the definition of Christian Reconstruction, contrary to any fair procedure/NPOV. See House Divided, pp. 79 (contrary to the Armstrong quote), and pp. 54-57 (illustrating the 'MUD' procedure inherent in your claims of 'clerical fascism' with a reductio ad absurdam/reduction to absurdity) (-or Page 128, 103-106 links in the HTML version). Reconguy 02:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Please wake me up when you find the reputable published cites.--Cberlet 20:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

It is clear that you are asleep and refuse to let the real world intrude. If you accept third-hand hearsay from critics and yet ignore primary sources, everyone should simply ignore your pretentions to scholarship and NPOV. Armstrong has not one single primary cite for her bizarre and error-filled 'analysis' of Reconstructionism in "Battle For God", and directly contradicts what is in the primary sources. Once I get your book through inter-library loan (since nobody should pay for it), I expect to see similar poor work. Reconguy 00:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

<----Please pay attention: I am not suggesting that cites to published material should not be considered for inclusion. I am pointing out that the standard Wikipedia policy for issues that are in dispute is to include reputable postions from all sides. You cannot delete the material cited to Armstrong simply because Greg Bahnsen and Ken Gentry write that they disagree with what she has written. If you cannot understand this simple concept, you should seriously consider not trying to edit here on Wikipedia. Your POV tirades here are a waste of time. --Cberlet 03:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

And the rest of the world?

Is there a reason this article seems to focus strictly on the United States and its origins there? The identifying markers listed in this article of Christian Reconstructionism can be applied to many Christian communities around the world. North Sulawesi in Indonesia is one example, where the population is largely reformed, church is state is practically merged, and education is religiously influenced. As an offshoot of the Dutch Reformed church, they are Calvinist and Postmillennial. Yet there has been little to no influence from American missionaries in their work, as they converted and established their Christian communities in the late 1800s. I suppose what I'm asking is that this article seems to focus on this concept in relation to Dominion Theology and the Christian Right of the United States. Are there terms to define the communities outside the United States that have no connection with broad political movements?

Let's try to follow Wiki guidelines

Note to Reconguy. Please stop altering the text to promote one specific POV.--Cberlet 03:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Note to Cberlet. Neutrally worded comments and citations that respond to serious charges from critics (which ought to require strong evidence) are within Wiki guidelines. The citations to answer critics will only promote a POV if they have better arguments – and that is up to readers to decide. Your repeated ramblings about Wiki guidelines are irrelevant and telling: A poor chess player once complained to the tournament director that his opponent violated rules because the opponent was deliberately annoying him by "making good moves." At least he amused the director. You make a similar complaint, over and over again. Reconguy 18:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Citations

Folks want to discuss how to go about adding specific citations? I would propose that we consider removing all but one banner from the body of the article and leave it at the top of the page until we have added the needed citations. I find the page almost unreadable with all the banners.--Cberlet 12:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

science fiction?

Is this really relevant to CR? Should it move to Theocracy? 「ѕʀʟ·✎」 05:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Christian Reconstructionism

Hi all. Any chance someone could check out Category:Christian Reconstructionism, and fill in the things I left out? For example, if you wanted to add Calvinism, go to the Calvinism article and add the text [[Category:Christian Reconstructionism]] to it. The only other difference is if you're adding a person, you do it like this: [[Category:Christian Reconstructionism|Surname, Firstname Initials]]. I'd do more of this myself, but I'm not so familiar with the Christian Reconstruction community, and I thought someone who knows a bit more could locate more articles better than I could. Thanks,-- TimNelson 14:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Seek NPOV

This is a controversial page on which editors from a variety of perspectives have tried to craft NPOV text and balance. Original research, personal essays, POV bias, etc. violate basic Wiki standards. Continued failure to repect Wiki guidelines will result in a request to have this page locked.--Cberlet 17:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit to "Influence on the Christian Right in general"

I removed the first paragraph of this section. Accusing the Christian Right, which is a very diverse group of people, of homeschooling their children in order to overthrow the government is a conspiracy theory. Without a source, it seems like a deliberate attempt to arouse suspicion towards a particular religious group because they hold a certain beliefs. It's also counter-intuitive; They're withdrawing from involvement in a government institution, in order to take control over it? Awesomebillfromdawsonville 22:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand. That paragraph didn't say that the Christian Right is homeschooling children in order to overthrow the government, or anything close to that. (It says that Reconstructionists have influenced the government, and that they have influence in the Christian homeschooling movement; that's all.) And it didn't say that they're withdrawing from involvement in a government institution in order to take control over it; there's nothing about controlling education in the paragraph. What am I missing? Gareth McCaughan 16:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll join with Gareth in the "huh?" here. I will add, though, that some elements of the Christian Right simultaneously advocate taking kids out of evil secularized public education and taking over public education so that either 1) the public schools can be returned to Godly hands; or 2) the revenue stream can be diverted to Christian or Christian-dominated schools without opposition from the public school authorities. (Over 80% of the voucher school money in Milwaukee goes to religious schools; many here don't think that's a coincidence.) --Orange Mike 17:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Entry has become a mess

This page is now filled with uncited text and biased claims. It is a wreck as an entry and POV. Whole sections are nothing but material from Reconstructionists. This page is a disgrace. This could be a very useful article, but needs energy put into it. Is anyone interested in helping craft an NPOV page? --Cberlet 17:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that POV rant, Cberlet. I'm sure everyone is shocked that an encyclopedic article on "X" would have whole sections that are material from "X" sources. </sarcasm> The article needs some work, especially in sections already noted as lacking references. However, your notion of "NPOV" seems to be what most observers and Wiki guidelines would call POV. ++Reconguy 11:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Please stop with the personal attacks. It is no way to begin fixing an article. The issue is that for the average reader this page simply makes little sense. It is a hodge podge. Long quotes from specific Reconstructionists are implied to be representative of the theology, when they are simply long and obscure opinions. The theology is difficult enough for most readers--even most Christian readers--and the current text does not explain the key concenpts in an understandable way. To open the entry with religious jargon is not helpful. If you are willing to refrain from personal attacks and willing to work collaboratively, we can attempt to make the page better.--Cberlet 13:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to give a positive response to your offer, but I have to deal with what you actually write, not what you claim to mean after the fact. If you want a positive response, it helps to avoid proposing a POV method (i.e., no quotes from "X" about "X") in order to craft an NPOV article. You'll have to do better if you want me to collaborate, except to remove or respond to errors.

It seems unwise to trust your opinion on what is "representative" of Reconstructionists. [For example, "long and obscure opinions" is the one truly unifying characteristic of Reconstructionists.] Some of the long quotes in the article are typical of Reconstructionist replies to various slanderous charges, (especially when they "disgrace" critics for their errors.) When you insist on including less relevant topics, like the misguided charges of certain critics, those long quotes become necessary and relevant.

This is not a personal attack: it is an explanation of how you will need to change your behavior to allow collaboration to improve the article. I agree that the article needs changes in the intro to have less jargon (but keep important links), and fix sections that lack references. ++Reconguy 00:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that some editors refuse to allow any criticism of Christian Reconstructionism without five times as many claims to rebut "misguided charges of certain critics." That very phrase makes it clear that we disagree about the concept of NPOV and Reliable Sources. If the "misguided charges of certain critics" are actually scholars with PhDs and well-respected journalists, and even other evangelical Christians, then the fact that pro-Reconstuctionist editors dismiss them as biased undermines the very concept of an NPOV encyclopedic entry. It would appear that we need to take this to mediation or ask for other assistance, since we are so far apart on basic Wikipedia policies.--Cberlet 02:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPOV requires fairly presenting all significant points of view on the matter from reliable sources. The problem is, what is significant? I am weary of the sort of debates that have recently taken place over at Talk:Dominionism and Template_talk:Dominionism, and I fear that this page won't fare much better. --Flex (talk/contribs) 18:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

When charges are made against the topic of an article, an NPOV article will include published responses to the charges. Cberlet seeks to remove the directly relevant published Reconstructionist responses to those charges (as if they were "not representative") but to keep the charges from critics in the article -- and calls this NPOV. A more logical explanation is that the critics were unaware of the published responses, and are concerned that those responses make the critic's positions seem to be based on poor research. I offered a compromise to let Cberlet remove critic remarks along with some responses, but it seems he thinks he can get more impact for emotion-laden charges against the topic of the article by calling his approach "NPOV" and manipulating Wiki mediators.

There are several other published Reconstructionist lines of argument in response to critics that have not been included in the article. Compared to the available responses to critics published by Reconstructionist authors, those in the article reflect a short method to respond to a broad range of published critics. ++Reconguy 15:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit wars

Please stop the revert wars and edit wars. This page is a wreck. It is barely coherent. It needs serious work. The large blocks of quotes need to be summarized. There is too much rebutal text for the criticism. There is too much OR and POV. Serious scholarly published work should not be deleted as POV just because supporters of Christian Reconstructionism are offended...and this text certainly should not be deleted out of spite. Reconguy take notice. These types of edits are not appropriate, and can lead to sanctions.--Cberlet 03:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

There are probably parts of this article I would question (Calvinism?) but it needs to have some coherent structure before it can be adjusted for tone or emphasis. This is not a place to describe what we think is the case. For our purposes, Christian Reconstructionism is whatever the reliable secondary sources say it is. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Armstrong was not writing as a scholar in "Battle for God" - there were no primary references on Reconstruction, and even her publisher for this book referred to her as a "commentator on religion", and not as a scholar. (A serious scholar would be insulted by this, unless they knew the work was not up to standards for publishing scholarly work.) Without a rebuttal in the article, the neofascism charges are just POV slander - as you inappropriately reinserted them. If you had selected some of the rebuttal, your actions would seem to be a good faith edit, and not just another Cberlet edit war.

Assuming "spite" is not supported from my edit (unless you claim to be a psychic, too.) I removed POV material that only creates the need for an irrelevant rabbit trail for readers, in order to be NPOV. The rebuttal is now summarized in order to avoid edit wars. Claims of absolute truth made for assertions about "Dominionism" were also edited out. Reconguy 20:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Reconguy, I don't know if you are replying to me or Cberlet, but I removed the Easter-egg title "homosexual sodomy" from the link to homosexuality, changed another instance of "homosexual sodomy" to "active homosexuals", and took out material cited to onlinehome.us and a link to onlinehome.us.[1] Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Tom, I was not replying to you before, but I am now. You removed a quote from a primary source that responds directly to charges of neofascism. This edit makes the section POV, and gives the appearance that you are taking sides by claiming secondary sources are preferable to primary sources. Reconguy 21:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Secondary sources are preferable to primary sources. See WP:PSTS. What's onlinehome.us? Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

According to WP:PSTS, under secondary sources: Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published primary and secondary sources. If you were correct, this should list secondary sources before primary sources. Reconguy 21:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

That places Wikipedia at a serious disadvantage in getting NPOV information, if critics are considered secondary sources and those who are the subject of the article are considered primary sources.

The passage you removed was a clear and direct response to the type of charges made, and does not require interpretation. If published gas bags with an agenda can give false and/or biased information in a book, and have more credibility than primary sources, the policy needs more nuance to avoid POV articles throughout Wikipedia and a complete loss of credibility for the Wiki project. Reconguy 22:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

This generalizes christians who adhere to certain forms of Reconstructionism

As a Christian , I adhere to many principles of reconstructionism, but I don't totally agree with Gary North or Rushdoony on every one of these issues. There seems to be a variety of "Christian Reconstructionist" views, not necessarily the one on this page. It doesn't speak for variety of views of people who adhere to this. Not all of us espouse stoning homosexuals. I for one dont believe in ". 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." - Gary North. Im a hardcore Reconstructionist, and I don't support denying religious liberty in any regard. This is very scary to me, as its just too subjective.

But on a side note, doesn't everyone try to impose their morality on society? We all have a certain set of beliefs , a religion , call it whatever you want. Id rather see Christian morality enforced, than some other form of morality. How this is enforced is another matter. I would never support the death penalty for Biblical crimes like , adultery, homosexuality, or other things. (Hate the sin , not the sinner?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Armenia4ever (talk • contribs) 02:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Calvinism as Basis of Regeneration

I think that the following sentence in the intro to the article may be easily misintrepreted:

Calvinism as the basis for personal regeneration that is required to change people before changes occur in the broader culture,

It's clearly most important that introductions are concise and easily understood.

In this theological context, I think it fair to assume that "personal regeneration" refers to "being born again". The sentence therefore reads that "Calvinism is the basis for being born again". While I don't udnerstand reconstructionism very well, I'd be amazed if this was true. Should it read something more like: "Calvinism describing the process of personal regeneration that is required to change people before changes occur in the broader culture,"

Ideas? Bernard S. Jansen (talk) 03:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. StAnselm (talk) 22:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)