Letters

From the February 1999 issue

Kudos to Walter Olson for his excellent article ("Invitation to a Stoning," November). Religious intolerance by conservatives is the main reason why I migrated out of the right wing of the Republican Party and eventually out of the Republican Party altogether.

Now I'm learning that the conservative intolerance I fled from is "Fundamentalism Lite" compared to the Reconstructionists. Although it's easy to chuckle at the ideas of the Reconstructionists, what makes them so dangerous is that they make ultraconservatives like Gary Bauer and James Dobson look almost moderate.

The increasing influence of Reconstructionists over the GOP is especially terrifying for those of us who would be executed several times over under a Reconstructionist theocracy (which probably includes nearly all of the readers of REASON for one reason or another). While I don't for a moment think we ever will actually have stoning or a theocracy in America, I do fear that the poison they spread will lead to continued tragedies of hatred like the murder of Matthew Shepard, abortion doctors, and others.

There are a few places that are Reconstructionist paradises, where Reconstructionist ideas are appreciated and in full force. Iran, Afghanistan, and Sudan come to mind. It's amazing that some people actually consider Iran and Sudan as role models for the United States.

Jim Cheaney

Colo, IA

Protruding conspicuously through the facade of smirking paranoia in Walter Olson's screed against Christian Reconstruction is the outline of the ever-widening chasm between secular rationalists known as libertarians on one side and, on the other, Christians dedicated to re-establishing Christian civilization, by which alone true political freedom is possible. In what he obviously considers gleeful revelations of our dedication to taking seriously the whole Bible, Olson conveniently neglects to mention Rushdoony's conviction in Law and Society that the biblical civil codes are designed for a nation in covenant with God, not modern Western secular democracies which are at war with God. The last thing we would endorse is a "Christian" version of the modern leviathan state. We support maximum individual freedom under God's law. Our vision is not fundamentally about politics.

Much closer to the mark than Olson is William Rusher in his comments in the Fall 1998 Intercollegiate Review:

"If what we have seen thus far is the shape the battle is going to take, we conservatives are going to have to prepare ourselves to lose many allies who fought at our side in the struggles against communism and democratic socialism. Many libertarians and some classical liberals are simply not ready to accept a `metaphysical dream of the world' [Kirk's language] that has a central religious component."

Rationalist libertarianism sows the seeds of statist tyranny by its enthronement of individual autonomy. But individual autonomy is no less repugnant and pernicious than collective autonomy. The autonomous "one" is as socially lethal as the autonomous "many." As Rushdoony has observed, the perennial question of the one and the many--including its political dimension--is solved only in the Triune God revealed infallibly in Sacred Scripture.

This the secular libertarians flatly repudiate. By this repudiation, they seal their own ironic contribution to the growth of autonomous collectivism, of which their autonomous individualism is but a complementary version and with which it is a cooperative endeavor.

Andrew Sandlin
Executive Director
Chalcedon
Vallecito, CA

I find it paradoxical that a magazine titled REASON would run a column which is apparently devoted to inflaming prejudice. Walter Olson has characterized Christian Reconstructionists carelessly, and in a way so as to promote misunderstanding, obscure areas of real agreement, and make it more difficult to honestly discuss the main lines of disagreement.

Based on his oversimplified characterization of some Christian Reconstruction tenets (e.g., nobody advocates stoning "gays," because a preference or an orientation is never a crime) and the closing section of his column, where he seeks to arm his readers with anti-theocratic soundbites, it appears that Olson would like theocratic and secular libertarians to stop working together on matters of mutual interest, and instead start fighting each other.

This would be understandable if the leviathan state were no longer around, because we disagree on the fundamental reasons for opposing statism. However, big government is still with us, and starting a war now would only strengthen the leviathan and harm us both. Remember, the theocratic libertarians are the only people affiliated with Christian conservatives who oppose using the state as an agent of moral reformation (the Bible forbids that). Where else will you find orthodox Christians who oppose the war on drugs (consider Kevin Clauson and Tom Rose's articles in The Christian Statesman, January-February 1996), or who refuse to seek statist solutions to indecent material on the Internet? Do you want Christians working for the separation of school and state, or do you want them crusading for school prayer? Is it Olson's and REASON's goal to push Christians into the arms of Gary Bauer?