Now on ScienceBlogs: Open Lab PSA
Thoughts From the Interface of Science, Religion, Law and Culture
Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of Michigan Citizens for Science and co-founder of The Panda's Thumb. He has written for such publications as The Bard, Skeptic and Reports of the National Center for Science Education, spoken in front of many organizations and conferences, and appeared on nationally syndicated radio shows and on C-SPAN. Ed is also a Fellow with the Center for Independent Media and the host of Declaring Independence, a one hour weekly political talk show on WPRR in Grand Rapids, Michigan.(static)
Ed Brayton also blogs at Positive Liberty and The Panda's Thumb
« Jeffrey Ross: the Roastmaster General | Main | Former Pro Wrestler Objects to Day of Silence »
Posted on: April 12, 2008 9:09 AM, by Ed Brayton
The long-term goal of Christians in politics should be to gain exclusive control over the franchise. Those who refuse to submit publicly to the eternal sanctions of God by submitting to His Church's public marks of the covenant--baptism and holy communion--must be denied citizenship, just as they were in ancient Israel.
Gary North, Political Polytheism: The Myth of Pluralism (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1989), p. 87.
Share this: Facebook Twitter Stumbleupon Reddit Email + More
Comments
Well at least he's honest about his stated goals and doesn't pretend to endorse the freedoms outlined in the constitution while working to undermine them as most Christian right leaders do.
I love this quote from North, "There is no doubt that Christianity teaches pluralism, but a very special kind of pluralism: plural institutions under God's single comprehensive law system."
Oh, a "special kind of pluralism". The kind where everyone believes the same restrictive fundamentalist views and is sanctioned and persecuted if they don't. As the Church Lady would say "Isn't that special."
I think that Iran is more pluralistic than allowed by the confines of this definition.
Posted by: Lance | April 12, 2008 9:51 AM
When people claim that someone like Huckabee is a theonomist, they should pause and consider what an actual theonomist like North has to say.
Why, Huckabee (nor any other Baptist, unless they renounce believer's baptism and embrace infant baptism) might not even be a citizen in North-Land.
Posted by: heddle | April 12, 2008 9:58 AM
Someone was able to read into a Gary North book 87 pages to find that quote? That's truly taking one for the team. There isn't enough prune juice in the world to fix that writing style.
Posted by: kehrsam | April 12, 2008 10:36 AM
Tyler, Texas.
Man, you can't get any more Bible Belt than that!
Posted by: Eric | April 12, 2008 11:00 AM
Kehrsam it was probably just dumb luck. I'm sure you could just open to any page and have a good chance of finding a little nugget like this one.
Is this, by the way. the Gary North? Of Iran-Contra fame or is that just a coincidence?
Posted by: Leni | April 12, 2008 11:17 AM
Be thankful for North's sparklingly clear prose. His concise explanation and economic use of simple terms gives the clearest view yet of dominionist yearning.
I am drawn to his use of persuasive appeal to ancestor worship when he gives authority over contemporary challenges to a simple test of ritual observance, "just as they were in ancient Israel." Ah, yes. Ancient Israel.
Isn't is amazing how wise the ancient ones were? I mean, compared to how healthy and long lived and prolific we modern ones are? Not to mention all the neat toys we have. Provided by science done by regular people applying a more useful wisdom.
So, thank you, Gary North. You really made it easy to see your yearnings, and to understand the motivations of so many otherwise normal folks; you want to force everyone to be like you, to take a portion of the horrid burden of shame that you feel for being born a human being, you poor boy.
No thank you very much. I like what I am.
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | April 12, 2008 11:24 AM
Leni - perhaps you're thinking of the equally (but differently) vile Oliver North...
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | April 12, 2008 11:35 AM
Let's not forget that this guy runs in the doughface libertarian circles. He was on Ron Paul's congressional staff for a while, and Lew Rockwell still publishes his writings. He talks this way when he's speaking to other Christians, but he's not above wearing the mantle of "liberty" to shield prying eyes from his true intentions when he needs to.
Posted by: Wes | April 12, 2008 12:03 PM
"Holy Communion" is the way it is done today is not even in line with how Paul desbribes it in the book of Corithians. His words talk about the Lord's supper and talk about people eating before others and some getting drunk. In my opinion it was probably an extension of Passover in that Passover was when Jesus talked about the wine and bread being his body and blood. They were hangind out together eating and drinking.
Like that dude who was hiding behind the law yesterday to incite people to murder over a textbook, these guys need to read the book they like to quote in context and leave their xenophobic and perhaps racist traditions out of it. Under this North guys idea of society I would be driven right out with you guys. I do not eat the cracker and drink the grape juice. I think it is fine if they want to but I think it is a meaningless tradition for me.
This is almost comical at times how far off these guys are from the true message.
Posted by: King of Ireland | April 12, 2008 12:06 PM
I think you're right Peirce. I don't know why I remembered him as a "Gary".
Posted by: Leni | April 12, 2008 1:05 PM
Wait, what? There's nothing Israeli, ancient or otherwise, about Christianity. It's Roman to the core. In what period of ancient Israel would there be state enforced communion and baptism?
Posted by: wheyghey | April 12, 2008 2:01 PM
For anyone who wants to try and read this tripe, it can be viewed or downloaded at:
http://freebooks.entrewave.com/freebooks/docs/21f2_47e.htm
Thre's c.780 pages (including index) of this sort of stuff. And this kook has written quite a number of other books if that's not enough to melt your brain.
Posted by: blf | April 12, 2008 2:39 PM
Not to mention one of the key doctrinal differences that tore apart the Christian world during the Reformation was the exact nature of communion. Was it the literal body and blood of Christ or a mere representation. Thousands of people died as heretics and in wars fought over these very issues, and the result is basically a stalemate, with an increasingly secular Europe. Clearly this idiot has no grasp of history.
Posted by: CPT_Doom | April 12, 2008 2:47 PM
wheyghey
Actually it wasn't. Luther's Sacramental Union view of the elements is not a big step away from transubstantiation. Especially when you contrast it to the present day baptist view.
The key doctrinal differences of the reformation were on the nature of justification and the sufficiency of scripture. For justification, the reformers and the Catholic Church disagreed on the instrumental cause (faith vs. baptism) the restorative cause (N/A vs. penance) whether one could be simultaneously just and sinful (yes vs. no) whether cooperation was required (no vs. yes) the nature of the righteousness (forensic and synthetic vs. actual and analytic.)
For the bible they both agreed that it was inspired, infallible, and inerrant. They disagreed on sufficiency, dissemination in the vernacular, and private interpretation, with the reformers saying yes, yes, and yes.
Posted by: heddle | April 12, 2008 3:13 PM
Well, wheyghey, there we go. It is as if we must "suffer the little children."
There is little to be gained in pointing out to the true believer the obvious problems and contradictions that need to be dealt with in order to give credibility to their world view. It sucks, I know; it is the burden we bear without, I note, not much complaining.
In the maelstrom of knowledge versus belief there are two sweet spots; one for the fundies and one for the rest of us.
Their's is that moment when they conquer someone's ability to think for themselves by offering an alternative almost wholly dedicated to blaming that very talent for all the ills of the world. While innocently ignoring the benefits.
Ours is seeing a foot actually go into a mouth (like the Expelled story which looks like it has legs) and actually hearing a wannabe emperor claiming the right to make us all miserable. Why, the doctrinal logistics alone are of biblical proportions!
Perhaps we should be "as cunning as serpents and as harmless as a dove." Second Timothy if I recall correctly though I could be wrong.
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | April 12, 2008 3:17 PM
Christian economics?
Posted by: Troublesome Frog | April 13, 2008 2:08 PM
Hmm... religion-restricted franchise? Sounds like someone' been visiting the 18th Century. Is it too much to hope for that he catches typhus or syphillis or cholera or something while he's there?
Posted by: James K | April 14, 2008 12:59 AM