Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Jesus wept, and no wonder by Christ!
The name "Bob Jones" has become such a repository of political meaning that it's sometimes easy to forget there is actually a guy named Bob Jones (I mean, putting aside that there are probably a hundred million guys named Bob Jones). Lest we forget, the original greaser Bob has written a hilarious letter of congratulations to President Bush. Some excerpts:
In your re-election, God has graciously granted America—though she doesn't deserve it—a reprieve from the agenda of paganism. You have been given a mandate.
...Don't equivocate. Put your agenda on the front burner and let it boil. You owe the liberals nothing. They despise you because they despise your Christ. Honor the Lord, and He will honor you.
...Undoubtedly, you will have opportunity to appoint many conservative judges and exercise forceful leadership with the Congress in passing legislation that is defined by biblical norm regarding the family, sexuality, sanctity of life, religious freedom, freedom of speech, and limited government. You have four years—a brief time only—to leave an imprint for righteousness upon this nation that brings with it the blessings of Almighty God.
Although the Bob Jones University site appears to be down at the moment, the full text of the letter can apparently be found here.
Thanks to Mark Bonacquisti for the heads up.
|11.11.04 @ 1:02PM|#
Jesus wept indeed.
...and someday he'll save us all from people like Bob Jones.
|11.11.04 @ 1:03PM|#
"God has graciously granted America�though she doesn't deserve
it�a reprieve from the agenda of paganism."
Oh, it's so true! We don't deserve it. If it be your will, o Lord,
please take him back!
|11.11.04 @ 1:07PM|#
Is there a defined biblical norm regarding freedom of speech? Does anyone have any idea what passages BJ might be talking about?
|11.11.04 @ 1:14PM|#
J,
There are oodles code words coming from the religious right these
days. President Bush invoked Dread Scott duriing the debates, for
instance; Dread Scott being code for Roe vs. Wade.
I suspect that "freedom of speech" in this context is code for
prayer in public schools.
|11.11.04 @ 1:15PM|#
had kerry been elected, we'd all be making offerings to various
wood sprites.
the biblical norm for freedom of speech he refers to, i believe,
would be "you have the right to speak until you hit the wall that i
find offensive and will now back up with some random
quotations."
|11.11.04 @ 1:17PM|#
J - uh, it's a big book you know. I think it's in the back
somewhere.
This too is pretty weird: "religious freedom". I don't recall YHWH
saying anywhere "Whatever floats your boat baby. Wave your freak
flag high!" I thought there was sorta one god and the heathen were
misled (at best) and fit for the sword.
Fundies are a blast. Except when they control all three branches of
government.
|11.11.04 @ 1:18PM|#
Bob Jones sounds like a typical Rushdoony Christian
Reconstructionist. Christian Reconstructionists can be on par with
the Taliban. To be frank, they should scare the shit out of anyone
remotely interested in liberty.
More on Christian Reconstructionism (and interrelated beliefs known
as Dominion Theology and Theonomy):
http://www.religioustolerance.org/reconstr.htm
http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/ChRecon.html
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/5/21/13392/6893
|11.11.04 @ 1:22PM|#
"a reprieve from the agenda of paganism"
Really? I think that if forced to chose, Julius Caesar, Sargon, and
Hammurabi would've voted for Bush. Though Alexander the Great and
Marcus Aureilus might've been swing votes.
Xrlq|11.11.04 @ 1:23PM|#
I'm not sure that's "the original greaser Bob." Wasn't the university originally set up by his father?
|11.11.04 @ 1:27PM|#
I figured those phrases he used (like "religious freedom,
freedom of speech, and limited government") were not-so-subtle code
for his own notion of the US as a righteous Christian nation. But
for most of the other things he mentions I can at least come up
with some biblical passages (or at least very vague recollections
of them) he would use to justify his position - nevermind that
there are also a lot that would contradict his position.
But for freedom of speech, nothing at all comes to mind. I have at
least a passing familiarity with the Good Book, but I'm drawing a
blank. I was just curious what he might be referring to, or if he's
talking out of his God-fearing ass even more on this one.
|11.11.04 @ 1:30PM|#
J,
Freedom of speech likely refers to blasphemy, which is a capital
crime according to many Christian Reconstructionists.
|11.11.04 @ 1:33PM|#
Jason,
Wow, I hope he's not encouraging Bush to put blasphemers to the
sword. I'll have to be much more careful what I write on these
threads (I'm sure W checks them out on a regular basis).
|11.11.04 @ 1:35PM|#
I'm almost sure the reference to free speech is about prayer in public schools.
|11.11.04 @ 1:37PM|#
If I remember correctly, and I could be completely wrong about
this but too lazy to re-research it BJ University is denied federal
financial aid when they refused to put their flag at half-mast when
the chickens came home to roost for a certain Pagan Martin Luther
King Jr.
There are at least two other kooky fundy schools that purposefully
don't take federal financial aid (good for them) -- some place in
Michigan -- Hillsdale with some weird leader who has affairs and
suicide? and some place in podunk PA that produced Peter
Bottke.
|11.11.04 @ 1:45PM|#
It's hard to believe that the letter was serious.
Am I the only one chuckling over the URL bju.edu?
|11.11.04 @ 1:53PM|#
A little passage in the new testament concerning wolves presenting themselves as lambs comes to mind every time I hear of Bob Jones. All sarcasm aside, he really does have a lot in common with the mullahs, he rejects the entire doctrine of christ in favor of something a little more, shall we say, roman? And yet presents himself as a christian, always counting on the fact that most have not actually read the bible. Bob's behaviour more acuretly reflects the positions of the pharisees from the bible, a group that the dude they call christ regularly disagreed with.
|11.11.04 @ 1:53PM|#
Ken Schultz,
No, I am fairly certain it refers at least in part to the issue of
blasphemy. All the other issues track Christian Reconstructist
thought quite nicely, so it would surprise me if he deviated with
regard to this issue. You can see this sort of reasoning in the
work of Greg Bahnsen:
When someone comes and proselytizes for another god or another
final authority (and by the way, that god may be man)--when someone
tries to undermine the commitment to Jehovah which is fundamental
to the civil order of a godly state--then that person needs to be
restrained by the magistrate. However, this does not mean that
individuals should be punished for holding heretical views, the
views that Baptists think are heretical or Lutherans think are
heretical and so forth. It simply means that those who will not
acknowledge Jehovah as the ultimate authority behind the civil law
code which the magistrate is enforcing would be punished and
repressed. You would, therefore, be open, I believe, to hold Muslim
views or Hindu views in the privacy of your own home, provided it
was not a Christian home that you've now come into to subvert and
draw away from Jehovah. You would be able to hold these views as a
private conviction. But you would not be allowed to proselytize and
undermine the order of the state. Before people who are
non-theonomists get too terribly upset about this view, I would at
least ask them to reflect on this fact: every civil order protects
its foundations.
Greg Bahnsen, "An Interview with Greg L. Bahnsen," Calvinism Today,
Jan. 1994, p. 23.
|11.11.04 @ 1:56PM|#
Another prominent Christian Reconstructionist has this to say
about speech:
The question eventually must be raised: Is it a criminal
offense to take the name of the Lord in vain? When people curse
their parents, it unquestionably is a capital crime (Ex. 21:17).
The son or daughter is under the lawful jurisdiction of the family.
The integrity of the family must be maintained by the threat of
death. Clearly, cursing God (blasphemy) is a comparable crime, and
is therefore a capital crime (Lev. 24:16).
What about the integrity of the church? What if someone who is
not a member of the church publicly curses the church? Is the State
required to apply the same sanction? The person may not be
covenantally subordinate to the particular church, or any church,
unlike the subordinate child who curses a parent. There is no
specific reference to any civil penalty for cursing anyone but a
parent or God, nor is there any civil penalty assigned for using
God�s name in vain. Then is there a general prohibition against
cursing? On what grounds could a church prosecute a cursing
rebel?
One possible answer is the law against assault. Battery
involves physical violence against a person, but assault can be
verbal. A threat is made. A curse is a threat: calling the wrath of
God down upon someone. Another approach is the law against public
indecency. A third: cursing as a violation of the victim�s peace
and quiet. Restitution could be imposed by the civil magistrate to
defend a church or an individual who is victimized by
cursing.
What about cursing a civil magistrate? It is clear that this is
an act of rebellion analogous to someone in the military who is
insubordinate to his superior officer. A citizen or resident alien
is under the lawful authority of the civil government. By publicly
challenging this lawful authority, the person becomes a criminal
rebel. There is no explicit penalty assigned to this crime. We
know, however, that public flogging is lawful, up to forty lashes
(Deut. 25:3), yet no crime in the Bible ever explicitly requires
public physical punishment, except on an eye-for-eye basis, or the
unique case of the woman who has her palm split in response to her
specific prohibited physical violence against her husband�s
opponent in a fight (Deut. 25:11-12). The punishment for cursing a
civil magistrate is therefore left to the discretion of the
magistrates or a jury. It might be public flogging; it might be a
fine imposed in lieu of public flogging.
Gary North, The Sinai Strategy: Economics and the Ten
Commandments (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics,
1986), pp. 59-60
|11.11.04 @ 2:06PM|#
We here spend so much time trying to figure out how to scrape
together just a few more Libertarian voters.
I've said we should first have a look at conscientious
non-voters.
How about this for a compromise?
Could Libertarians form a coalition with pagans?
My point is: conscientious non-voters, pagans, etc., etc.--they
each and all far outnumber Libertarians, and always will.
Anarchist atheist speaking.
|11.11.04 @ 2:07PM|#
Jason Bourne has made it very evident that he is a Christian hating, anti-religious, intolerant LIBERAL many times on this discussion board where people like to feel their hot air through their keyboards.
|11.11.04 @ 2:10PM|#
B. Beatty,
Actually, I am a libertarian. :)
And if its "intolerant" for me to quote actual Christians, well so
be it. :)
*yawn*
|11.11.04 @ 2:13PM|#
B. Beatty,
And let's be blunt, you will never, ever see me asking for the
government to impinge on the rights of Christians (or any other
religious group) to worship, assemble, think, say, etc., anything
that they want to, and I have never, ever argued for such here. So
I really don't get the whole "intolerance" charge. Unless by
"intolerance" you mean simply that I am not an adherent of
Christianity, to which I would reply, tough shit bitch.
|11.11.04 @ 2:15PM|#
B. Beatty,
What you appear to want is "affirmative action" for Christians,
where they are free from criticism, derision, mockery, etc. Well,
let's be clear about this; if Christians have the right (which I
acknowledge) to create banners where they call me - a gay man - a
sinner who is headedfor hell, then I have the right to mock them in
turn. Get over it.
|11.11.04 @ 2:20PM|#
JB... or is BJ... You are a blow hard. You're a liberal. And,
Libertarians are so often no more than a grown up children who grew
up listening to punk music, raised by Christians and never got over
their teenage agnostic, anarchist rebellion.
Wah, wah, wah. You sure swear a lot for a grown up.
|11.11.04 @ 2:24PM|#
B. Beatty,
JB... or is BJ... You are a blow hard. You're a
liberal.
I asked you to prove it once already; now I'll ask you to prove it
again. You implied that the proof was ubiquitous, so I should that
it would be easy for your demonstrate. Either put or shut up.
:)
And, Libertarians are so often no more than a grown up children
who grew up listening to punk music, raised by Christians and never
got over their teenage agnostic, anarchist rebellion.
Are the extent of your comments always going to be personal insults
that border on the absurd?
|11.11.04 @ 2:27PM|#
B. Beatty,
BTW, I didn't grow up listening to punk music. And if anyone is
being childish, its well, you, for this pointless lashing out you
are subjecting us to. I await a reasoned response to my statements,
but I am afraid that I will be waiting a long time.
|11.11.04 @ 2:32PM|#
B. Beatty,
Come on, you can do better than that.
What, pray reveal, makes me a "liberal?"
Hmm, let's see, I am a capitalist, does that make me a
liberal?
I favor a very small and limited government, does that make me a
liberal?
I advocate very expansive near unlimited rights with regard to
freedom of speech, assembly, the press, expression, etc., does that
make me a liberal?
I advocate personal ownership and take a dim view of laws which
seek to regulate the use of drugs, pornography, etc., does that
make me a liberal?
I'm an atheist, does that make me a liberal?
I'm gay, does that make me a liberal?
Somehow I suspect its the being gay and atheist part that offends
you so. However, neither of those particular traits make me a
liberal, they just make me someone who offends your own moral
code.
|11.11.04 @ 2:33PM|#
It's always so easy to get you guys to come out. Why do you
figure that is? You're so defensive?
It's so easy for you to generalize about "all" Christians.. but, if
someone generalizes about why you hide under the Libertarian
rainbow you go charging through the board loaded for Bear.
Grow up. You're not teenager anymore. Try to be a part of the
society that grants you all the privileges that go with that.
|11.11.04 @ 2:39PM|#
B. Beatty,
It's always so easy to get you guys to come out. Why do you
figure that is? You're so defensive?
Now you're just getting lame. Now you are apparently just a
troll.
It's so easy for you to generalize about "all"
Christians..
That would be interesting if it were actually true, but it isn't.
You'll note that I referred to Christian Reconstructionists in
these posts, not to "all" Christians. Quit misrepresenting my
posts.
...but, if someone generalizes about why you hide under the
Libertarian rainbow you go charging through the board loaded for
Bear.
Actually, you didn't "generalize" in reference to me; you attacked
me individually. At least get your fucking story straight
lady.
Grow up. You're not teenager anymore. Try to be a part of the
society that grants you all the privileges that go with
that.
I am part of that society. I'll treat this as the silly, throwaway
statement that it is.
Anyway, now that you've declared yourself a troll, I think that you
can safely be ignored.
|11.11.04 @ 2:41PM|#
Neither Jason nor Jean nor Gary,
My style? *chuckle*
Let's see here, Beatty laid into me with a inept personal attack,
and we are discussing "my style?" *LOL*
|11.11.04 @ 2:44PM|#
B. Beatty,
Thanks for the chat though; I really enjoyed fisking your comments.
I mean it was easy to do and all, but still, it helps me keep in
practice. :)
|11.11.04 @ 2:45PM|#
Mr. Beatty,
What about those who grew up as you described but were raised by
Jews?
Just wondering ...
"Of all religions, the Christian should of course inspire the most
tolerance, but until now Christians have been the most intolerant
of all men."
|11.11.04 @ 3:18PM|#
I'll take my shot at generalizing Christians. They are charged to be christ-like, yet I have never found one that has given it any significant effort. I think its more of a club than anything; like the Toastmasters, but more bossy.
|11.11.04 @ 3:39PM|#
Would the webmaster redact all posts just south of Ruthless at
2:06?
Thank you very much.
(You can leave in what pigwiggle just said.)
|11.11.04 @ 3:57PM|#
dhex,
Toastmasters are, well, an organization which celebrates the art of
rhetoric. Though they might resemble the Elk's Lodge in
organization, they are devoted to rhetoric rather than swilling
beers.
|11.11.04 @ 4:07PM|#
Hey Jason,
Is the 'Gary North' you quote the same guy that posts fairly
routinely on lew rockwell dot com?
The position seems only slightly more extreme...
Thanks,
Shirley
|11.11.04 @ 4:19PM|#
Shirley Knott,
Yes, I think that's the case. North is heavily influenced by
Austrian economics. North is also one of those Y2K-disaster idiots
too (guess we are still waiting for that). :)
|11.11.04 @ 4:20PM|#
i dunno jb, this gal seems to have been hitting something:
http://www.toastmasters.org/images/homesteph.jpg
thanks for the 411.
|11.11.04 @ 4:40PM|#
Eric,
He has the right to say what he wants to say, and we have the right
to criticize what he says; no violation of rights is required for
individuals to criticize the communications of others.
Eric|11.11.04 @ 4:43PM|#
Jason,
I'm aware of all that. I'm just wondering what's the point? So an
idiot wrote a letter? Happens all the time. He didn't hurt anybody.
Why waste time on it?
Eric|11.11.04 @ 4:48PM|#
Jason,
Good enough reason as any!
BTW, I like your alias. I've read Ludlum's Bourne books and they're
great. Movies weren't nearly as good, of course.
|11.11.04 @ 5:36PM|#
Sorry to go back to B Beatty, but "Grow up. You're not teenager anymore. Try to be a part of the society that grants you all the privileges that go with that" reminds me of people who think my rights exist because of the Armed Forces. Get it straight, Beatty - Individual rights exist not through some benevolent fiat of government or society, but because of the fact of the existence of that individual. Our rights exist BEFORE the creation of any government or society run by self-serving, pompous blowhards like yourself.
|11.11.04 @ 5:38PM|#
"He didn't hurt anybody. Why waste time on it?"
Speaking for myself, he makes other Christians look like idiots. As
a Christian, when such people expose themselves in public, I have a
duty to denounce them.
|11.11.04 @ 6:40PM|#
"The question eventually must be raised: Is it a criminal
offense to take the name of the Lord in vain?"
By the way, Jason, I find this quote to be particularly interesting
because the writer has misconstrued the meaning of the Commandment
so. This is the Commandment against hypocrisy. Don't tell other
people you're one of God's people unless you're going to act like
one of God's people; that's what the Commandment means.
The traditional example of people breaking this Commandment are
those who say "Damn it!"; they aren't taking the admonition
seriously. However, those who, like Mr. Bob Jones III, would force
God's will on others in spite of God's refusal to do so himself
provide the best example of breaking this Commandment, I think.
drf|11.11.04 @ 7:56PM|#
hey b betty:
how nice: either your circus had a day off, or your beginning
composition at community college ?
snicker.
|11.11.04 @ 8:55PM|#
Jason -
Some good posts. But I think Beaty really is joking. The
reconstructionists need to be read by more people.
|11.11.04 @ 10:14PM|#
drf said:
"hey b betty:
how nice: either your circus had a day off, or your beginning
composition at community college ?
snicker."
Are you thinking of Clyde Beatty, the straight lion tamer?
Clyde was straight, wasn't he?
He was with the lions, at least, I guess.
Or did I mean rigid? Or turgid?
|11.12.04 @ 8:05AM|#
"I advocate very expansive near unlimited rights with regard to
freedom of speech, assembly, the press, expression, etc., does that
make me a liberal?
I'm an atheist, does that make me a liberal?
I'm gay, does that make me a liberal?"
YOU'RE A LIBERAL! GET BEHIND ME, SATAN! THE POWER OF CHRIST COMPELS
YOU! THE POWER OF CHRIST COMPELS YOU! THE POWER OF CHRIST COMPELS
YOU!
THE POWER OF CHRIST COMPELS YOU! THE POWER OF CHRIST COMPELS
YOU!
|11.12.04 @ 11:16AM|#
The original Bob Jones is quite dead. The current Bob Jones of
note is Bob Jones III.
- Josh
|11.12.04 @ 12:19PM|#
i thought these guys were *against* cloning? har har.
seriously, unless you're rambo, don't be a sequel.
Kevin Carson|11.12.04 @ 12:25PM|#
Jason and shirley,
Gary North is Rushdoony's son-in-law, BTW.
Here in Northwest Arkansas, we have a lot of Republibaptists in the
state legislature. I mean, these guys are Shiite Republicans--and
most of them have degrees from Bob Jones. I can usually identify
one of them on TV without ever having seen him before, just because
he wears a navy blue suit and looks like he's got a stick up his
ass (sort of like the Hitlerjugend equivalent of an Eagle Scout, or
something).
|11.12.04 @ 1:37PM|#
So the missing link here, the one that makes BJ talk about "free speech" and "freedom of religion" is that a certain type of fundie believies it is their right, as good God-fearing Christians, to have civil power. Therefore, when they are restrained from exercising coercive state power (by Roe vs. Wade, by the First Amendment, etc.), the consider that to be an affront to their civil liberties.
|11.12.04 @ 2:29PM|#
Kevin Carson,
Wow, I had no idea. I knew that Rushdoony was North's mentor, but I
had no idea he married into the clan.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245