Petr
02-08-2006, 12:09 AM
http://www.chalcedon.edu/blog/2006_02_01_archive.php#113892030984167220
In the Name of Tolerance
The despisers of Christian Reconstruction are all the same. They rarely read deep enough to fully comprehend the lifted quotes they post on their sites or publish in their books and articles. They love to quote Rushdoony on mixed-marriages, slavery, democracy, or this one on toleration:
In the name of toleration, the believer is asked to associate on a common level of total acceptance with the atheist, the pervert, the criminal, and the adherents of other religions as though no differences existed. (Institutes of Biblical Law, Vol. 1, p.294)
At this point the whining secularists shriek in horror at such an inhumane statement. "How could Rushdoony say such a thing?" "What bigotry." "What a mean-spirited man."
(I keep asking if they'd like some "cheese with that whine," but have yet to get any takers.)
I find the above mentioned quote wherever I read a critique of Christian Reconstruction. In the hundreds of instances this quote is cited I HAVE YET TO FIND ONE THAT CONTINUES THE PARAGRAPH. My guess would be that the very next sentence that Rushdoony writes takes the "bite" out of the soundbyte they need to create public outrage. So, I'll do it for them. Rushdoony continues regarding the toleration of the believer:
The believer has a duty of lawful behavior toward all, an obligation to manifest grace and charity where it is due, but not to deny the validity of the differences which separate believer and unbeliever. (ibid., 294-295)
Well, now. It looks like a different picture emerges. Rushdoony is saying that the Christian must exhibit lawful behavior and manifest grace and charity TOWARD ALL! Need I say more? How devious of the secularist to slant Rushdoony's words.
Falling into Rushdoony's Trap
What's humorous is that secular critics REPEATEDLY fall into a snare when they take on Rushdoony's intellect. The man is deceased and he is still able to demonstrate the folly of his opponents. Rushdoony continues:
In the name of toleration, the believer is asked to tolerate all things because the unbeliever will tolerate nothing; it means life on the unbeliever's terms. It means that Biblical order is denied existence, because all things must be levelled downward. (ibid., 295)
Ah, there it is -- the trap. Can you hear the hog squealing? Rushdoony snags yet another unprepared critic!
He's right. The unbeliever refuses to tolerate anything outside of his worldview -- specifically, the Christian. The unbeliever wants to deny existence to the Biblical order. He's radically intolerant yet accuses the Christian of intolerance. And, whereas Rushdoony exhorts the Christian to charity despite his intolerance the unbeliever has no obligatory ethic. He can only whine.
Tolerance is tied to the idea of separation and segregation -- something the "white" unbeliever practices all the time. In fact, he agrees with Rushdoony in practice, though he decries the doctrine. Rushdoony says:
The religious and moral separation of the believer is thus a basic aspect of Biblical law. Even as segregation from disease is necessary to avoid contagion, so separation from religious and moral evil is necessary to the preservation of true order. (ibid., 294)
As I mentioned, the unbeliever practices this very thing -- especially the white ones. That's why, for instance, many of our critics are not blogging from the ghetto. They "segregate" themselves in safer, middle-class communities where the anglo population tends to be larger. Why? Because, as Rushdoony says, "separation from... moral evil is necessary to the preservation of true order."
That's why I don't live in the ghetto. That's why I don't live in Baghdad either. It tends to breed moral evil. Are there decent people there? I'm sure there are. But I'm not about to invest my family and personal property by dwelling in the community. I'm sure the living spaces are cheaper in the ghetto, but I'll probably get what I pay for.
I'd love to see the ghetto change. I'm glad that churches work there to bring change. There's a long road to haul though. Until that time, all of us practice a form of segregation. We separate from moral evil -- or what we consider moral evil -- and congregate with those of like faith and culture. However, this segregation does not mean I am now free to do evil or defraud those I separate from. That would be a violation of God's law. In fact, I must grant grace and charity when it is called for. It doesn't mean we all have to live together.
I've worked hard for the living comfort of my family, and I bear no guilt for it. But if wisdom is proved by her actions than I must work hard to preserve that well being. My daughter can play outside without threat because of what my hands -- and God's power -- have provided for her. This is segregation. I am avoiding communities where moral evil is rampant.
As I drive down the roads of my town I see rows of lovely homes, manicured lawns, and orderly families that watch diligently over their playing children while respecting the property of their neighbor. This is order. This is the influence of a Biblical world and life view. It's safe for my family and conducive to preserving my heritage and creed. But, the intolerant seek to deny me this way of thinking. There efforts at "thought police" are to drag my name through the mud as a racist or bigot because they possess no law to force me out of my "gated community."
Forced busing is an example. Socialists will use the force of legislation to create their idyllic utopia by relocating children outside of the communities their parents labored to provide them. It's a new form of segregation: forcing separation from one's own community. Yet, the socialist sees it as "integration." It's not. It's a radical reductionism. It's intolerance of Biblical order and is rightly resisted by hard working families nationwide.
Now, Rushdoony did not mention "race" in this portion on tolerance and segregation but smart people should recognize that race often makes the difference. Acknowledging that fact -- which we all do -- is not racism... it's realism! I applaud black and hispanic leaders who work to transform the inner-city. They'll do a much better job than I ever could. But avoiding the issue because of fear the "race card" might be dealt only delays the repairing of our truncated society. Honesty is the best policy.
Rushdoony was right. The intolerance of the unbeliever will "reduce society to its lowest common denominator." Socialists place faith in the messianic state and messiah's need people to save. Those communities rampant with crime, drugs, sex, and violence are the utopia of the guilt-ridden bleeding heart. But, like the rich young ruler the secularist must sell all his possessions and move downtown to avoid hypocrisy and contradiction. Otherwise shut his mouth.
posted by Chris Ortiz at 5:22 PM
In the Name of Tolerance
The despisers of Christian Reconstruction are all the same. They rarely read deep enough to fully comprehend the lifted quotes they post on their sites or publish in their books and articles. They love to quote Rushdoony on mixed-marriages, slavery, democracy, or this one on toleration:
In the name of toleration, the believer is asked to associate on a common level of total acceptance with the atheist, the pervert, the criminal, and the adherents of other religions as though no differences existed. (Institutes of Biblical Law, Vol. 1, p.294)
At this point the whining secularists shriek in horror at such an inhumane statement. "How could Rushdoony say such a thing?" "What bigotry." "What a mean-spirited man."
(I keep asking if they'd like some "cheese with that whine," but have yet to get any takers.)
I find the above mentioned quote wherever I read a critique of Christian Reconstruction. In the hundreds of instances this quote is cited I HAVE YET TO FIND ONE THAT CONTINUES THE PARAGRAPH. My guess would be that the very next sentence that Rushdoony writes takes the "bite" out of the soundbyte they need to create public outrage. So, I'll do it for them. Rushdoony continues regarding the toleration of the believer:
The believer has a duty of lawful behavior toward all, an obligation to manifest grace and charity where it is due, but not to deny the validity of the differences which separate believer and unbeliever. (ibid., 294-295)
Well, now. It looks like a different picture emerges. Rushdoony is saying that the Christian must exhibit lawful behavior and manifest grace and charity TOWARD ALL! Need I say more? How devious of the secularist to slant Rushdoony's words.
Falling into Rushdoony's Trap
What's humorous is that secular critics REPEATEDLY fall into a snare when they take on Rushdoony's intellect. The man is deceased and he is still able to demonstrate the folly of his opponents. Rushdoony continues:
In the name of toleration, the believer is asked to tolerate all things because the unbeliever will tolerate nothing; it means life on the unbeliever's terms. It means that Biblical order is denied existence, because all things must be levelled downward. (ibid., 295)
Ah, there it is -- the trap. Can you hear the hog squealing? Rushdoony snags yet another unprepared critic!
He's right. The unbeliever refuses to tolerate anything outside of his worldview -- specifically, the Christian. The unbeliever wants to deny existence to the Biblical order. He's radically intolerant yet accuses the Christian of intolerance. And, whereas Rushdoony exhorts the Christian to charity despite his intolerance the unbeliever has no obligatory ethic. He can only whine.
Tolerance is tied to the idea of separation and segregation -- something the "white" unbeliever practices all the time. In fact, he agrees with Rushdoony in practice, though he decries the doctrine. Rushdoony says:
The religious and moral separation of the believer is thus a basic aspect of Biblical law. Even as segregation from disease is necessary to avoid contagion, so separation from religious and moral evil is necessary to the preservation of true order. (ibid., 294)
As I mentioned, the unbeliever practices this very thing -- especially the white ones. That's why, for instance, many of our critics are not blogging from the ghetto. They "segregate" themselves in safer, middle-class communities where the anglo population tends to be larger. Why? Because, as Rushdoony says, "separation from... moral evil is necessary to the preservation of true order."
That's why I don't live in the ghetto. That's why I don't live in Baghdad either. It tends to breed moral evil. Are there decent people there? I'm sure there are. But I'm not about to invest my family and personal property by dwelling in the community. I'm sure the living spaces are cheaper in the ghetto, but I'll probably get what I pay for.
I'd love to see the ghetto change. I'm glad that churches work there to bring change. There's a long road to haul though. Until that time, all of us practice a form of segregation. We separate from moral evil -- or what we consider moral evil -- and congregate with those of like faith and culture. However, this segregation does not mean I am now free to do evil or defraud those I separate from. That would be a violation of God's law. In fact, I must grant grace and charity when it is called for. It doesn't mean we all have to live together.
I've worked hard for the living comfort of my family, and I bear no guilt for it. But if wisdom is proved by her actions than I must work hard to preserve that well being. My daughter can play outside without threat because of what my hands -- and God's power -- have provided for her. This is segregation. I am avoiding communities where moral evil is rampant.
As I drive down the roads of my town I see rows of lovely homes, manicured lawns, and orderly families that watch diligently over their playing children while respecting the property of their neighbor. This is order. This is the influence of a Biblical world and life view. It's safe for my family and conducive to preserving my heritage and creed. But, the intolerant seek to deny me this way of thinking. There efforts at "thought police" are to drag my name through the mud as a racist or bigot because they possess no law to force me out of my "gated community."
Forced busing is an example. Socialists will use the force of legislation to create their idyllic utopia by relocating children outside of the communities their parents labored to provide them. It's a new form of segregation: forcing separation from one's own community. Yet, the socialist sees it as "integration." It's not. It's a radical reductionism. It's intolerance of Biblical order and is rightly resisted by hard working families nationwide.
Now, Rushdoony did not mention "race" in this portion on tolerance and segregation but smart people should recognize that race often makes the difference. Acknowledging that fact -- which we all do -- is not racism... it's realism! I applaud black and hispanic leaders who work to transform the inner-city. They'll do a much better job than I ever could. But avoiding the issue because of fear the "race card" might be dealt only delays the repairing of our truncated society. Honesty is the best policy.
Rushdoony was right. The intolerance of the unbeliever will "reduce society to its lowest common denominator." Socialists place faith in the messianic state and messiah's need people to save. Those communities rampant with crime, drugs, sex, and violence are the utopia of the guilt-ridden bleeding heart. But, like the rich young ruler the secularist must sell all his possessions and move downtown to avoid hypocrisy and contradiction. Otherwise shut his mouth.
posted by Chris Ortiz at 5:22 PM