I also don't see how you got most of those things off that NPR interview.
=================
Using the total broadcast time of 38:54, the following may be found at -
US military conquest of the world
16:36 - From Grant of the Dominion Movement - "Christians have the obligation ... to establish dominion over the world." Also the repeated refrain "it is dominion we are after" The "we" clearly meaning US members of the Christian Reconstructionist Movement.
Unless you didn't quote the essential portion, there is no mention of military conquest, and no Christian, even the Reconstructionists, would advocate violence as a means to dominion that I know of.
Glad to see you reject this proposition.
Reconstructionism is a very small group.
Infiltration of US government for subversive purposes
The Generation Joshua group mentioned at 7:25 is designed to infiltrate the US government, the word was even used in the context of that group.
This means that they are training people for government work. There is no strongly politically minded group that doesn't do that. There is nothing outside the functioning of normal democracy in that idea. Yes, it is possible for an alien mentality to have influence in the government by such means. I believe many have already done so, leftists and Communists for instance, people who have already subverted the Constitution to an alien ideology in many respects from their positions of power in the government.
One purpose of this group and the Christian Reconstructionists in general (18:40) is to strip the ability of the court system to rule on the establishment clause via the Constiution Restoration Act which was passed by the House and is endorsed by the Republican Party Platform. The passage of this act would subvert the power of the judicial branch as outlined in the US Constitution.
I shall have to make a point of listening back to that, but as you present it I see nothing in this other than an opinion with which you disagree. Conservatives in general believe that the power of the judicial branch as outlined in the US Constitution has been subverted by liberals for decades, who have no appreciation of the true meaning of the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson wrote of how the judicial branch was not sufficiently checked and could end up making law instead of Congress. We believe this has been happening. I may agree with the Reconstructionists on this point.
Execution of certian groups according to Biblical Law (as they interpret)
The Christian Reconstruction Movement call for the replacement of civil law with "Biblical Law" part of which means the execution of homosexuals, aduterers, and all women who engage in premarital sex was specifically and unequivically stated at 12:45 and 31:00.
Nothing in the interview suggests they take it this far. That I believe is your own wild interpretation of what rule by Biblical law would mean.
Support of Racism
Acually, in speaking of the Christian Right (21:00), the statement in the broadcast was that, unlike the past, bigotry against Blacks, Jews and Catholics was now taboo but that as a movement needing an enemy, the new enemy is homosexuals. The reason I put this one up is because my research indicates that while support of such bigotry, while taboo for the leadership, still appears common among the followers. Will elaborate in next post on this thread.
Racism has absolutely nothing to do with Christianity. It is endemic to the human race however. And if any philosophy did anything to justify racism, that is evolutionism, as clearly all creatures evolve into various types, varieties and races -- called "species" these days. Nazism for instance used evolutionist language to justify their extermination of Jews and Slavs. The Bible on the other hand says we're all made in the image of God and all descended from one couple.
Also, that term "bigotry" is highly tendentious and to use it makes you subject to it yourself. Theological differences with Jews and Catholics are very strong, and some people ridiculously call that "bigotry."
Psycological support of Authoritarianism
Not specifically mentioned but according to the common definition, such support is all over this broadcast. Because it is clear I must define authoritarianism before examining this issue further, I will include such discussion in my next post.
Elimination of Freedom of Religion
At 3:40 in the broadcast they clearly state the Christian Reconstructionist Movement wants to make Christianity "dominant and privledged" in relation to other religions. IMHO such a position would be similar to the idea freedom of religion in China and some Islamic nations, which runs from discouragement to elimination. IMHO, my religion would be illegal under Christian Reconstructionists.
I haven't studied their views enough to know whether you are right about his. Having Christianity as the dominant religion does not to my mind imply any suppression of freedom of other religions. But it is just feverish paranoia that would compare domination by Christianity to Islam with its call to murder the infidel, and to Communism -- whether in Russia or China or North Korea -- which regularly imprisons and executes religious people -- mostly Christians -- as "enemies of the state."
Institutionalized bias against homosexuality
Execution of homosexuals would be an obvious indicator of instiutional bias IMHO.
Not one word was said about executing anybody. You are making this up.
The bradcast also spent some time on the strategy whipping up fears of homosexuals as a group being a threat to Christianity (22:00 on).
I heard nothing of the sort, of whipping anything up. You have a paranoid imagination. There is such a thing as the Homosexual Agenda, if that's what was mentioned. It is quite real, but it is to be defeated if possible by democratic means.
In most historical cases of genocide, the authorities first seek to demonize the target. It is an understatement on my part to say I am not comfortable with what I am hearing here.
Well, hey, the most demonized group in the country these days is Christians. Think about it.
Control over all scholarship, so that research and conclusions must be approved by religious bodies
In the broadcast at 1:25 to 3:14, an example was the CDC panel on abstinence education where the panel's conclusion was unanimously rendered that abstinence education was a failure. The panel was then accused of bias by some politician who used the unanimous opinion as evidence of bias. His solution was to pack the panel with non-scientist religious figures in order to come up with a conclusion he and his Christian Reconstructionist supporters would agree with. This is not the only case of such interference in science under the current administration.
I find it interesting we can listen to the same broadcast and not hear the same thing.
Scary as a matter of fact. Your paranoia is VERY scary.
Edit: Actually I found the interview paranoid and scary too, but you seem to have read between the lines and drawn even stranger implications out of nowhere.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2
