Talk:Rousas John Rushdoony
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Amendment
Rushdoony was correct in stating that the First Amendment was intitally intended to apply only at the federal level. Madison wanted it to say, "Neither the United States nor any State shall make any law regarding the establishment of a religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," but other Founders prevailed upon him not to include this out of fear that the Bill of Rights would then not be ratified and that there would be a chance that the country could then fall into civil war. Establishment was already down to around six of the thirteen states at the point of the ratification of the Bill of Rights, I think; the idea that all of the states still had state churches then is incorrect. But in any event, the Fourteenth Amendment has generally been intrepreted as preventing any state from doing anything at the state level that the federal government cannot do at the national level.
While Rushdoony is correct that the Founders were greatly influenced by Christian ideas and even that some of them were practicing Christians, the thought that somehow that most or many of them were supporters of any kind of "Christian theocracy" being the form of government for the United States is just flat wrong. Their concept of religious diversity was undoubtedly limited for the most part to the Judeao-Christian tradition and they presupposed what would now perhaps be called "Protestant morality" as a norm, but the idea that they saw something like seventeenth-century Puritan Massachusetts as the American ideal is ahistorical, and basically wrong.
Rlquall 12:14, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Remember, Rushdooney was a John Bircher, and this extreme political belief is actually the underpinning of his pseudoreligion. His "reconstructionist" beliefs were little more than old-fashioned fascism dressed in pseudo-Calvinistic clothing. Reconstructionism isn't a religious movement at all but a political one. Granted, Rushdooney was a genius in creating a bogus theology by twisting the Bible to back his extreme right-wing political beliefs, but it still remains a political movement and potentially a dangerous one.--Susan Nunes
[edit] Democracy and political views
An anon recently removed the "he objected to democracy" section:
- "Christianity and Democracy are inevitably enemies" Rousas Rushdoony [1]
A friend tells me that, "Rushdoony was opposed to any form of government which rejects God's law and which thereby elevates and expands the role and influence of the state beyond its God-given functions as revealed in the Bible, specifically defense and justice." This friend also suggests that a bald assertion that "he objected to democracy" would be taking statements out of context. I suggest we readd something on Rushdoony's views on democracy and government that provides some of this context. — Matt Crypto 19:00, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Education
I personally don't know what a "C. Sing." degree is. But it's listed under Rushdoony's heading in the Berkeley alumni database (http://cal.berkeley.edu), so I'm listing it here. Sakhalinrf
POV--Corrected the phrase "state-run" education. Thre is no such thing as "state-run" education in the United States. There is, however, public education, which is NOT state-run. The phrase "state-run" is John Birch Society-style rhetoric implying our system of education is somehow "communistic" and thus does not belong in an encyclopedia, even Wikipedia.--Susan Nunes
[edit] Marriage Dates???
If Rushdoony's first wife, Arda, died in 1977, how could he have married Dorothy in 1962? Kyriosity (talk) 16:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Good point, Kyriosity. It appears that he divorced Arda prior to his second marriage. [2][3] I think we need better references to cite, however. I'm trying to see what I can come up with. Jacob1207 (talk) 04:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Christian Reconstruction - institutes.
The holocaust statement is incorrect and unreferenced. Rousas Rushdoony was only pointing out that the numbers of Jews killed cited by some at the time (1970's) had to be wrong because many non Jews were killed in the camps and writers who were in the camps note that 1.2 million were deported to the camps. P 586-587 This correction has been used by many today. See the numbers analysis on the wikipedia page it is actually below Rushdoony's number. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holoucast His point is that it is possible for well meaning people to bare false witness but it is also dangerous. He was not a holocaust denier but was warning of the problem flawed numbers play in creating an opportunity for such people.
The reference in institutes too segregation is not racial segregation but to quarantine from disease and disease propagating moral behaviours. There is no mention of race. page 294 of institutes.
Likewise the reference to slavery is non racial but goes to processes of probation of criminals, the management of bankrupts and the management of the intellectually disabled. Page 286 of institutes.
Yes racists have used these arguments because they believe blacks are intellectually inferior but they are not racial laws in the Torah they apply to all. Gathall (talk) 10:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- All valuable points, and probably violations of WP:BLP if he were living. Feel free to make the appropriate corrections/emendations. --Flex (talk/contribs) 01:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)