Scary RW debate: Theonomy: Is it Exegetically Sound?

[DavidMS]

Two fundamentalists debate weather Chirstian dominated political discource is a good thing as opposed to the more important question, "If we establish a thoecratic state how will we be more moral that the Taliban, House of Saud and Iranian Council of Gaurdians?" In short I am posting this because of the threat of religious anti-modernism to ourselves, our families, our signifigant others, our friends and our secular republic.

http://www.forerunner.com/theonomy/theonomy.htm

We need more than ever a Democrat in the Whitehouse (yes, Even Joe Liberman would be preferable to Bush) to crack down on these deluded and dangerous fools.

I hope I posted this in the right place. It may be better filed under conservative idiots. If that is the case, I apploogize and feel free to move it to the appropreate forum.

[Malva Zebrina]

1. I agree they are deluded and dangerous fools

but we cannot "crack down" on them. They are as entitled to debate and publish as the Catholics or the mainstream Protestant.

Reconstructionists have been around for a long time. It is lately that they seem to have gained some followers with their stringent, literalist approach. As has Opus Dei :shrug:

It is called "freedom of religion" and it is up to people to distinguish what is crazy and what is not. We have seen over time, sects appear and disappear-most of them Christian, but some not-literally--like the Heaven's Gate suicides a few years back.

I remember reading that there is more than one Christian reconstructionist working in the current White House, but they are not inclined to take credit for that as they avoid any publicity , prefering to keep it quiet and remain behind the scenes as far as tehir religious beliefs go . If one does a little research on Christain reconstructionism, it is easy to see why they would prefer not to have it known.

[Zardeenah]

2. But the government should be free from religion...

I think we absolutely need to crack down on this movement. We need to crack down on these people's influence on government -- and make sure they know that they can believe and practice whatever they want, but the government here in the US should NOT be religious.

Federal judges should carefully consider what "state establishment of religion" means, and whether or not passing statutes designed to cater to Conservative Christians and subjugating minorities (like homosexuals or religions that don't believe in one God) is appropriate with our current Constitution.


Susan

[DBoon]

3. A truly American form of Fascism

would combine Christian Reconstructionist domestic policies with Neo-Con foreign policy