Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
From Gary North, in a 1982 article called The Intellectual Schizophrenia of the New Christian Right:
So let us be blunt about it: we must use the doctrine of religious liberty to gain independence for Christian schools until we train up a generation of people who know that there is no religious neutrality, no neutral law, no neutral education, and no neutral civil government. 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.
Politics
Comments
At least he's honest about his horrible intent. That's more than can be said for most of the religious far right.
Posted by: Marshall Schreiber | August 31, 2010 9:09 AM
Oh hey look, it's the voucher program!
Posted by: cubefarmed | August 31, 2010 9:11 AM
...until we train up a generation of people who know that there is no religious neutrality...
...because they can't "know" this unless and until we teach it to them.
Posted by: Raging Bee | August 31, 2010 9:16 AM
Thank G-d we have someone who is willing to stand up and defend America against the Muslims*.
The Muslims hate us for our freedoms, you know.
* And the atheists. And the Pagans. And the Hindus. And the Sikhs. And the Buddhists. And the Scientologists. And the Shintoists. And the Jains. And the deists. And the Jews. And the Catholics. And the Unitarians. And the... And the... And the...
Posted by: Modusoperandi | August 31, 2010 9:24 AM
Straightforward, hateful, unconstitutional, and fully compatible with any sharia based country.
Posted by: MikeMa | August 31, 2010 9:30 AM
I am glad I retired and moved to a small country in Europe 10 years ago. It appears that you have a plague of stupid going on in the states now. I am glad I won't live long enough to see a theocracy take over the country.If you are not careful it will happen.These christian fanatics are no better than the islamic version of the same thing.To quote G.B.S, "beware the man whose god is in the sky"
Posted by: Ex Partiot | August 31, 2010 9:31 AM
Step 2: Once the perfect bible based state is established false Christians must be silenced less their heresy anger god and spoil our perfect state. For more details see balkanization.
Posted by: Mr Ed | August 31, 2010 9:34 AM
Yikes! Another reminder that Glenn Beck is only the tip of the iceberg for right-wing insanity.
Posted by: J. J. Ramsey | August 31, 2010 9:34 AM
Then watch while the theocracy ends up killing its children in arguments about who are the "Real" believers.
Unfortunately, women's rights, science, and thinking would be minor casualties along the way. The result would be poverty and starvation.
Add enough woo-woo, and the end result is always the same; red and fluid.
Posted by: MacTurk | August 31, 2010 9:56 AM
Mr. North is also a proponent of the Austrian School approach to economics. He was a research assistant for Ron Paul in Paul's first term in Congress ('76). North also has his own archives page a LewRockwell.com: http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north-arch.html
That site promotes libertarianism, I believe exclusively of the conservative persuasion. Lew Rockwell promotes the Ludwig von Mises Institute which promotes Austrian School economics and which Ron Paul has long been associated with though I'm not sure if that association still exists. The site does dedicate a index page for Ron Paul including articles written and published by LewRockwell.com: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/
It's my understanding that if we followed Austrian School economics we'd have a massive contraction of the economy and even in the best economic up cycles, we'd have barriers to growth (lack of money) and horrible consequences for most people (it would fail to thwart monopolies and oligopolies from restricting supply at artificially high prices). The Austrians' disdain for math and empiricism in general is the equivalent to what creationism is to biology, even to the point they argue for past observations that were empirically wrong (typically the threat of inflation during a period of deflation/contraction which we saw mroberts arguing a couple of years ago at the start of this recession).
That should be no surprise since the mindset that attracts conservative religionists to both are the same (anti-intellectual, laziness at learning basic principles of the discipline, prone to conspiracy theories, confirmation bias). What's particularly troubling is that the editor of the standard-bearer mainstream libertarian publication, Nick Gillespie, is a disciple of Austrian School economics.
Posted by: Michael Heath | August 31, 2010 10:00 AM
LewRockwell.com promotes that right-wing, southern nationalist, anti-14th amendment form of "libertarianism" -- really paleo-conservatism -- that I despise so much. That's the source of all the nuts that show up here any time I mention slavery and the Civil War. That's why I could not support Ron Paul in 2008, despite cheering him for many of his positions. The crowd he hangs out with (Lew Rockwell was his chief of staff and remains his closest ally) turns my stomach.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | August 31, 2010 10:23 AM
Ed: So you have a contest for Crazy Bloodthirsty Jewish Quote of the Day? If so, I believe we have a winner:
http://open.salon.com/blog/judy_mandelbaum/2010/08/30/rabbis_genocidal_statements_could_torpedo_mideast_talks
I'm trying to be pro-Israel, but people like this make it nearly impossible. If Israel falls any further into the hands of loons like this, we may have to abandon them to avoid being dragged down with them.
Posted by: Raging Bee | August 31, 2010 11:03 AM
"So let us be blunt about it: we must use the doctrine of religious liberty to gain independence for Christian schools until we train up a generation of people who know that there is no religious neutrality, no neutral law, no neutral education, and no neutral civil government. 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."
To paraphrase:
"So let us be blunt about it. We must co-opt the freedoms of speech, religion and association that we enjoy in this secular country to raise a generation of children who will get busy in making a theocracy, which finally denies the freedoms of speech, association and religious liberty.'
Posted by: Coryat | August 31, 2010 11:31 AM
No wonder so many Christians are alert to the idea of Muslims using our religious freedoms to gain a foothold in the country, then betraying it. They seem to have thought of the idea first.
Posted by: Scott Hanley | August 31, 2010 11:38 AM
Let us be blunt about it: by any reasonable definition of the word, this man (Gary North) is a traitor.
Posted by: Bill Snedden | August 31, 2010 11:46 AM
And he knows this how? In all of history, how many times has this been tried? Zero.
Okay, so file this under "wet brain farts". It's not substantial enough to qualify as a turd of an idea.
Posted by: Loden Pantz | August 31, 2010 12:06 PM
Scott Hanley states:
I perceive conservative opposition to Park51 as just another example of their continually projecting their own objectives onto their opponents. In this case using their churches to "take back the country for God". This was the primary barely covert message in Glen Beck's so-called Restoring Honor rally this past weekend at the Lincoln Memorial.
Both pre- and post-9/11 I continue to fear Christianists more than Muslim terrorists and I certainly fear them more than Muslims in general. Primarily because Muslim terrorists can most probably* succeed only by getting Christianists to react to desires they already possess, i.e., transform us into a more fascist, theocratic state.
*The exception is employing WMDs. However I'm convinced many Christianists are more than willing if not eager to bring catastrophe by ignoring global warming or support taking us into a nuclear-Armageddon.
Posted by: Michael Heath | August 31, 2010 12:28 PM
How much more severe is the loss of basic freedoms guaranteed by the constitution currently being pushed by right-wing fundamentalist christains than the loss of a plane or a building? In that sense the crashing of planes into the twin towers resulted in immediate loss of life and property but also the long term loss of freedom and the honor Beck seems to be looking for. If the US is not strong enough to sustain itself in the face of the attacks they've had, then maybe the bigots and haters are correct.
Posted by: MikeMa | August 31, 2010 12:53 PM
Agreed about the WMD's - by which I mean nukes, not just larger-than-a-cherry-bomb/could-hurt-more-than-one-person-at-a-time explosives. I worry that it's increasingly likely that in the next 20-30 years, some major city in the world will suffer nuclear devastation. Nothing else deserves to be called a nightmare scenario.
Aside from that, terrorists can't begin to do as much damage as we do to ourselves, with guns and on the highways particularly. They can't take away my liberties, but the fundies not only could, they actually aspire to do it.
Posted by: Scott Hanley | August 31, 2010 12:56 PM
Fascism pure and simple.
Must...resist...Godwin!
Posted by: DougH | August 31, 2010 12:56 PM
Compare the number of dead at the WTC nine years ago vs. the number killed each year using handguns. The latter are a small price for the freedom to keep guns, the first a compelling state interest to override the rest of the Bill of Rights.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | August 31, 2010 1:19 PM
That site promotes libertarianism, I believe exclusively of the conservative persuasion. Lew Rockwell promotes the Ludwig von Mises Institute which promotes Austrian School economics and which Ron Paul has long been associated with though I'm not sure if that association still exists.
*Gets out card and highlighter.*
Posted by: Louis B. | August 31, 2010 1:49 PM
Fun fact: Gary North is the guy who started the "Y2K will cause computers to crash and western civilization to fall" scare.
Posted by: KennyG | August 31, 2010 4:19 PM
DougH,
Were you refering to North or to Bill Snedden @15? Either way, works for me.
Posted by: Abby Normal | August 31, 2010 5:08 PM
This sounds alot like what the Taliban brought to Afganistan.
Posted by: Paen | August 31, 2010 5:24 PM
KennyG @ 23:
I was one of the managers overseeing our company's transformation and our supply bases. It was not easy and we certainly would have been brought to our knees if we hadn't made a large commitment of talent and management time to eradicating this risk. It certainly kept a lot of COBOL programmers busy for probably the last time (normally as contractors though I had access to an in-house staff). Our customer base, a who's who in the computer hardware sector, also monitored their supply base very closely and rightly so.
I can't speak to the whole western civilization thingy but you could have seen a ripple of devastation across the American economy if repetitive manufacturers hadn't taken this seriously. I think the success of this mutual effort speaks well of the maturity of the global manufacturers' supply chain across industries that customers insured their suppliers and their suppliers' suppliers' and so on took the appropriate steps and monitored this closely using an industry standard monitoring process developed specifically for Y2K.
Posted by: Michael Heath | August 31, 2010 6:16 PM
Abby Normal @24: WTF?
Posted by: Bill Snedden | August 31, 2010 10:21 PM
What's scary is that they've been doing this for at least three decades. There is minimal state supervision of most Christian schools, especially in the Bible Belt, so they are pretty much free to teach whatever the fuck they want to. If they tell the state, "We teach American history, sure!" the state is not going to inquire what the syllabus says, or what texts they use.
Meanwhile, there is the whole homeschooling movement, inspired by R.J. Rushdoony and others, which has no state supervision to speak of, and such fine institutions of higher learning as Liberty University and Bob Jones U.
So, it's entirely possible for a generation of kids to have been
educatedbrainwashed inside a rightwing, Xian bubble. Some of them ended up on Bush II's staff, in fact.Posted by: wheatdogg | August 31, 2010 10:44 PM
Shorter North:
. . . and then just pat it on its head and let it toddle on its way, I suppose . . .
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | August 31, 2010 11:23 PM
Bill Snedden, I was pointing out that calling for someone to be imprisoned and possibly executed for expressing an opinion that differs from your own about what's best for the country is a call for fascism. Being wrong and vocal is by no stretch of the imagination a reasonable definition of traitor.
Posted by: Abby Normal | September 1, 2010 12:46 AM
Bill Snedden, I just realized something. You haven't confused Gary North with Oliver North, have you? One could reasonably argue Ollie's involvement with the Iran/Contra deals should qualify as treason.
Posted by: Abby Normal | September 1, 2010 1:04 AM
@Abby Normal: I was pointing out that calling for someone to be imprisoned and possibly executed for expressing an opinion that differs from your own about what's best for the country is a call for fascism."
I never called for North to be imprisoned and possibly executed. My labeling of him as a "traitor" was NOT meant to accuse him of a crime, but rather to denote that his statements represent a betrayal of our country's highest values (which is effectively what the act of treason entails). My usage is consistent with dictionary definitions of the word (from dictionary.com)
1. the offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign.
2. a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state.
3. the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.
North is certainly "guilty" of #3 and arguably "guilty" of #2. #1 is the only one, to my knowledge, punishable by law. I would not say North is guilty of this, and did not mean to imply such by my statement. This is not, however, the only acceptable meaning of the word.
And it isn't a matter of his opinion simply differing "...from (my) own about what's best for the country..." His statements are clearly, by ANY objective standard, in stark opposition to the values of liberty and freedom eloquently expressed in our Constitution.
@Abby Normal: "Being wrong and vocal is by no stretch of the imagination a reasonable definition of traitor."
See definition provided. Yes, in fact it would seem to be.
Perhaps you take issue with the labeling of North as a "traitor" because you see that as a legal term of art? Fine, then would you not agree that his statements are "treasonous" if not sufficient to identify him as a "traitor?"
And no, I've not confused him with Oliver North... :)
Posted by: Bill Snedden | September 1, 2010 11:46 AM
Bill Snedden, I disagree about him qualifying under any of those definitions. But if when you said "by any reasonable definition" you meant "except the treasonous ones" then I'd say we're close enough to agreement to not be worth arguing.
Posted by: Abby Normal | September 1, 2010 12:03 PM
The quote seemed fake at first, but I checked it and it turned out to be legit.
You might be interesting to view the source:
http://www.garynorth.com/freebooks/docs/html/cc_1/CC_1-39.html
http://www.garynorth.com/freebooks/docs/html/cc_1/CC_1-40.html
The quote is followed by:
"Murder, abortion, and pornography will be illegal. God’s law will be enforced. It will take time. A minority religion cannot do this. Theocracy must flow from the hearts of a majority of citizens, just as compulsory education came only after most people had their children in schools of some sort. But religious anarchy, like “democratic freedom” in ancient Greece, is a temporary phenomenon; it lasts only as long as no single group gets sufficient power and accepted authority to abandon the principle. Religious anarchy, as a long-term legal framework for organizing a society, is as mythical as neutrality is. Both views assume that the institutions of civil government can create and enforce neutral law.They are cousins, and people believe in them only temporarily, unti lthey make up their minds concerning which God they will serve".
If you think about it, the statement is not as crazy as it seems.
The author is saying that he personally shares the goal of the law based on christian morality and that laws concerning issues like abortion and some others are never religion-neutral.
I might be wrong, but North doesn't seem to imply banning freedom of association and outlawing religions - he is talking about criminalizing activities which must be criminalized according to his view of morality (which is religion-based).
Posted by: Andrew | November 22, 2010 4:52 PM
I will recommend not to wait until you earn big sum of money to order different goods! You should just take the credit loans or auto loan and feel comfortable
Posted by: Dominique28Norton | July 13, 2011 9:06 AM