• Hi Guest!

    The costs of running this forum are covered by Sea Lion Press. If you'd like to help support the company and the forum, visit patreon.com/sealionpress

Other Ideologies - Christian Reconstruction

Makemakean

Rootless Rōnin
Glad to see it up! I really wish I could have gone on a bit longer, because the thing with Christian Reconstructionism in and of itself that I find so interesting is not really the whole idea of applying Mosaic Law in these days (which most people who have been influenced by Christian Reconstructionism do not actually hold to), but more this Van Tilian notion that there can be no neutral ground, that the idea of a secular State, before which every religion is equal, you cannot have that, because that in and of itself is a kind of religion (state-enforced atheism), and so, since some religion is going to have supremacy anyway, why shouldn't it be Christianity?

It is this particular idea, this, there can be no neutral ground, that I find particularly intriguing, and of course, particularly poisonous about the whole ideology.
 

BClick

One Million Americans
Location
Little Beirut
Pronouns
He/him
Glad to see it up! I really wish I could have gone on a bit longer, because the thing with Christian Reconstructionism in and of itself that I find so interesting is not really the whole idea of applying Mosaic Law in these days (which most people who have been influenced by Christian Reconstructionism do not actually hold to), but more this Van Tilian notion that there can be no neutral ground, that the idea of a secular State, before which every religion is equal, you cannot have that, because that in and of itself is a kind of religion (state-enforced atheism), and so, since some religion is going to have supremacy anyway, why shouldn't it be Christianity?

It is this particular idea, this, there can be no neutral ground, that I find particularly intriguing, and of course, particularly poisonous about the whole ideology.
That is interesting. I really do need to learn more about the philosophical foundations of the American right - know thy enemy, etc.

I'm particularly interested in why this type of extreme Christianity is so compatible with libertarian economics - I know fusionism was a good political strategy, but I don't know if there's real thought behind it.
 

Makemakean

Rootless Rōnin
I'm particularly interested in why this type of extreme Christianity is so compatible with libertarian economics - I know fusionism was a good political strategy, but I don't know if there's real thought behind it.
I've speculated earlier that people in fringe political movements tend to have a remarkable tendency to deal mainly with people in other fringe political movements. Hence why you can find Anarcho-Communists and Anarcho-Capitalists clashing online and writing lengthy BR-style responses to one another, rebutting one another, over the meaning of anarchism, and no government, etc., whereas Joe Schmoe down the road couldn't care less and frankly feels that neither has any real interest in helping him as much as they have in feeling superior in a debate with a stranger on the internet.

Hence it sort of makes sense that people like Rushdoony would be open to taking in the economics of von Mises, since that would first of all be something he would inevitably come into contact with. There's nothing about von Mises' economics per se that goes against his beliefs. And you know, von Mises particular brand of liberalism with its distrust of the State and everything, a person who already was suspicious of the State as furthering some kind of state atheist agenda and everything... It's not that difficult to understand why he would feel attracted to those kinds of things.
 

BClick

One Million Americans
Location
Little Beirut
Pronouns
He/him
I've speculated earlier that people in fringe political movements tend to have a remarkable tendency to deal mainly with people in other fringe political movements. Hence why you can find Anarcho-Communists and Anarcho-Capitalists clashing online and writing lengthy BR-style responses to one another, rebutting one another, over the meaning of anarchism, and no government, etc., whereas Joe Schmoe down the road couldn't care less and frankly feels that neither has any real interest in helping him as much as they have in feeling superior in a debate with a stranger on the internet.

Hence it sort of makes sense that people like Rushdoony would be open to taking in the economics of von Mises, since that would first of all be something he would inevitably come into contact with. There's nothing about von Mises' economics per se that goes against his beliefs. And you know, von Mises particular brand of liberalism with its distrust of the State and everything, a person who already was suspicious of the State as furthering some kind of state atheist agenda and everything... It's not that difficult to understand why he would feel attracted to those kinds of things.
That makes sense, especially the notion of Rushdoony and von Mises being brought together by a common enemy.

I'm sure a vision of the autonomous family as the basic unit of civilization, and of authority being executed by a patriarch rather than the state, would appeal to both Christian conservatives and many right-libertarians.
 

Makemakean

Rootless Rōnin
That makes sense, especially the notion of Rushdoony and von Mises being brought together by a common enemy.
I do not really know the extent to which von Mises' social views vis-a-vis The Family were particularly divorced from the mainstream during the time in which he lived. The whole notion of conservatives stressing The Family as a basic building block of society is something that first really came about toward the late 60s in the Culture War of those days.

Frankly, I do not know the extent to which von Mises was even aware of Rushdoony's existence.
 

BClick

One Million Americans
Location
Little Beirut
Pronouns
He/him
I do not really know the extent to which von Mises' social views vis-a-vis The Family were particularly divorced from the mainstream during the time in which he lived. The whole notion of conservatives stressing The Family as a basic building block of society is something that first really came about toward the late 60s in the Culture War of those days.

Frankly, I do not know the extent to which von Mises was even aware of Rushdoony's existence.
Sorry, I should have been clearer - I meant the State was the common enemy of Christian Dominionists and right-libertarians, and that The (independent, patriarchal) Family is a common dream - hence its significance to the New Right.
 

Makemakean

Rootless Rōnin
Sorry, I should have been clearer - I meant the State was the common enemy of Christian Dominionists and right-libertarians, and that The (independent, patriarchal) Family is a common dream - hence its significance to the New Right.
Then it would appear that we are in agreement. It's all the whole dovetailing-aspect, which always inevitably happens, probably for the most part ot the dismay of the "intellectual founding fathers".

People like von Mises and Hayek in particular were pretty laissez-faire in as far as social stuff was concerned. They were arguably small-letter-c conservatives, I suppose, but that was not really a sphere they felt worthwhile to say anything about in general. They were concerned with economics, with the philosophy of individualism vs. collectivism, those kinds of stuff.

Frankly, some of Hayek's writings would probably not rhyme particularly well with modern conservative thought at all, at least not modern American conservative thought. Not just his famous essay Therefore I Am Not A Conservative (which famously contains the phrase that "conservatism is only ever as good as what it conserves"), but The Fatal Conceit not just takes biological evolution of granted, its central theme is an entirely secular, evolutionary view of morality (which frankly only makes sense, as it is very much in line with the moral philosophy of the Enlightenment liberals David Hume and Adam Smith).
 

Death's Companion

General Ugg Apologist.
Calvinism remains terrifying to me personally. Also a bit depressing.


So naturally an extreme Calvinist mixed with America and the Right manages to be terrifying and depressing in a very strong way.
 

OwenM

The patronising flippancy of youth
Location
Colwyn Bay/Manchester
Pronouns
He/him
Glad to see it up! I really wish I could have gone on a bit longer, because the thing with Christian Reconstructionism in and of itself that I find so interesting is not really the whole idea of applying Mosaic Law in these days (which most people who have been influenced by Christian Reconstructionism do not actually hold to), but more this Van Tilian notion that there can be no neutral ground, that the idea of a secular State, before which every religion is equal, you cannot have that, because that in and of itself is a kind of religion (state-enforced atheism), and so, since some religion is going to have supremacy anyway, why shouldn't it be Christianity?

It is this particular idea, this, there can be no neutral ground, that I find particularly intriguing, and of course, particularly poisonous about the whole ideology.
One point a blogger I follow used to make fairly frequently is that this was a common argument against the First Amendment at the time, although not seeing atheism as a possibility - ISTR a quote about "are we going to have to swear to Jupiter and Minerva?"
 
Top