Gary North and the Ron Paul Curriculum

[Sola_Fide]

I knew Dr. Paul was not a Christian Fundamentalist -- otherwise he wouldn't have such a vast secular following. Nevertheless I am glad Lew clarified that statement on his blog. I am confident that Dr. Paul and Dr. Woods are going to or have already had talks with Mr. North to ensure nothing too over the top religiously is put into the curriculum.

What is a "Christian fundamentalist"?

 

[July]

I'm not sure. It's a word that gets applied to a lot of different people. But I don't know of any normal definition for it that I could positively say that I know Ron Paul has disavowed. Perhaps the person I was responding to can point to something specific about him that they think indicates he is not one.

In the context of Gary North, I think a theocrat is someone who thinks that human activity on earth ought to be governed by God's Law, revealed in the Bible. And he believes that one day the Gospel will spread throughout the earth to such an extent that people willingly living by this law will be the norm, and that his job as a Christian includes the pursuit of that agenda. Ron Paul may disagree, or he may agree. I don't know. I haven't heard him address the issue.

I don't think that's exactly what many people have in mind when they think theocrat-- that word invokes the idea of a totalitarian state with an official state church, oppressive laws regulating worship, oppressed minorities, etc. The idea of the gospel eventually spreading throughout the world, people becoming enlightened and voluntarily coming together to create Christian societies, with a government not based on violence or coercion...I think that sounds like something different.

 

[The Free Hornet]

I don't know if this was posted yet or elsewhere:

blog. skepticallibertarian.com/2013/04/08/gary-north-the-libertarian-taliban/ Gary North: The ‘Paleo-Libertarian’ Taliban Writing Ron Paul’s Curriculum

It is abundantly clear that Gary North does not have a clue what about constitutes a civil society. This is a man whose worldview is so violent, bigoted, intolerant, homophobic, sexist, dogmatic, and bloodthirsty that it makes the Ku Klux Klan look like the NAACP. I wouldn’t feel comfortable letting my children in the same room with him, much less pay him money to indoctrinate them with his views on government, Western civilization, and the Bible. A man with North’s history would be more appropriate as a guest lecturer at the Westboro Baptist Church than a representative of classical liberalism.

 

[jmdrake]

I'm not sure. It's a word that gets applied to a lot of different people. But I don't know of any normal definition for it that I could positively say that I know Ron Paul has disavowed. Perhaps the person I was responding to can point to something specific about him that they think indicates he is not one.

In the context of Gary North, I think a theocrat is someone who thinks that human activity on earth ought to be governed by God's Law, revealed in the Bible. And he believes that one day the Gospel will spread throughout the earth to such an extent that people willingly living by this law will be the norm, and that his job as a Christian includes the pursuit of that agenda. Ron Paul may disagree, or he may agree. I don't know. I haven't heard him address the issue.

People willingly living by the law of God (assuming we can agree on what that is...and as a Seventh Day Sabbath observer I know I don't agree with the majority) isn't bad if it's just a "norm." But what happens to those who don't follow the "norm?"

finally denies the religious liberty of the enemies of God

Hmmmm.....^problem. BIG problem.

 

[sailingaway]

People willingly living by the law of God (assuming we can agree on what that is...and as a Seventh Day Sabbath observer I know I don't agree with the majority) isn't bad if it's just a "norm." But what happens to those who don't follow the "norm?"

finally denies the religious liberty of the enemies of God

Hmmmm.....^problem. BIG problem.

If he actually does that, that is a characterization by someone who doesn't like his beliefs.

Regardless, if those beliefs are not expressed in this curriculum, he can personally believe them and to say he can't would be OUR intolerance, wouldn't it?

 

[The Free Hornet]

If he actually does that, that is a characterization by someone who doesn't like his beliefs.

Regardless, if those beliefs are not expressed in this curriculum, he can personally believe them and to say he can't would be OUR intolerance, wouldn't it?

Somehow this reminds of...



No kids here, but I would NOT be tolerant of letting nutbags teach them.

 

[Natural Citizen]

What is a "Christian fundamentalist"?

I had shared these papers in the Religion thread. Similar in nature. Particularly relevant to discussion we'll certainly see down the road regarding some aspects of foreign policy and various visions in what it should entail.

In this position paper, James Parco provides compelling evidence there has been a disturbing expansion and entrenchment of Christian fundamentalism in the U.S. military, a cultural force which remains at times both tacitly and overtly endorsed by senior military leaders. Parco supports his claim by presenting a number of case studies demonstrating a clear pattern of unconstitutional religiously sectarian behavior. He then analyzes the merits of the competing philosophical perspectives on the proper role of religious expression by men and women in uniform.

Parco concludes the report with recommendations that those in power should implement immediately in order to fully protect the U.S. military’s necessarily secular foundation and the religious freedom of all who volunteer to serve.

James Parco, PhD., Lt. Col. USAF (Ret.) is an associate professor of economics and business at Colorado College. He graduated with a bachelors’ degree in economics from the U.S. Air Force Academy and was commissioned in 1991. He went on to earn an MBA from the College of William & Mary and a PhD. from the University of Arizona. After completing his doctorate, he returned to the faculty of the U.S. Air Force Academy. He has also served on the National Security Council at the White House during the Clinton Administration, as well as in a diplomatic capacity overseas with the American Embassy in Tel Aviv. Parco retired from active duty as a lieutenant colonel in 2011.

To download the author’s foreword, a summary of key findings, and the full position paper, please follow these links:
Foreword (PDF)
Key Findings (PDF)
Position Paper (PDF)

Copyright © 2013 Center for Inquiry, Inc. Permission is granted for this material to be shared for noncommercial, educational purposes, provided that this notice appears on the reproduced materials, the full authoritative version is retained, and copies are not altered. To disseminate otherwise or to publish requires written permission from the Center for Inquiry, Inc.

http://www.centerforinquiry.net/

 

[Sola_Fide]

Okay, but what is a Christian fundamentalist?

 

[The Free Hornet]

Okay, but what is a Christian fundamentalist?

OMFG! Why does God need a starship?

 

[jmdrake]

If he actually does that, that is a characterization by someone who doesn't like his beliefs.

That was given as a direct quote, not a characterization, along with book name and page. I haven't read the book yet myself. If the quote is made up then Gary North should sue for libel.

Regardless, if those beliefs are not expressed in this curriculum, he can personally believe them and to say he can't would be OUR intolerance, wouldn't it?

I never said he couldn't have whatever belief he wants. That doesn't mean I have to approve. It doesn't mean I can't raise concern. And all beliefs are not created equal. If you believe in the Easter Bunny I don't care. If you believe that everyone should be forced to believe in the Easter Bunny, then I do care even though I respect your right to have that belief. And how can one be sure such a belief might not find its way woven into curriculum through stealth? Today's textbooks don't come out and say "Everyone should be a secular humanist socialist" either. I will reserve judgment on the final curriculum, but if North is indeed against religious liberty for all (including the "enemies of God") then that is concerning. From my own perspective it's as concerning as if he espoused Maoism.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Okay, but what is a Christian fundamentalist?

A point of view, I suppose. Of course, it could be said to be frank Luntz 101.Just depends upon who it's coming from.

Is why I like to work with the facts and then figger on where relevance exists if at all. Is a far more practical means to bypass this kind of language skullduggery.

That's a good paper scribbled up by the Lt. Col. Maybe give it a read.

To download the author’s foreword, a summary of key findings, and the full position paper, please follow these links:
Foreword (PDF)
Key Findings (PDF)
Position Paper (PDF)

 

[compromise]

I don't think there is anything wrong with being a Christian fundamentalist.

Btw, opposing separation of Church and state =/= theocracy. There are only two theocracies in the world, yet most countries in the world do not have total separation of Church and state.

 

[sailingaway]

That was given as a direct quote, not a characterization, along with book name and page. I haven't read the book yet myself. If the quote is made up then Gary North should sue for libel.



I never said he couldn't have whatever belief he wants. That doesn't mean I have to approve. It doesn't mean I can't raise concern. And all beliefs are not created equal. If you believe in the Easter Bunny I don't care. If you believe that everyone should be forced to believe in the Easter Bunny, then I do care even though I respect your right to have that belief. And how can one be sure such a belief might not find its way woven into curriculum through stealth? Today's textbooks don't come out and say "Everyone should be a secular humanist socialist" either. I will reserve judgment on the final curriculum, but if North is indeed against religious liberty for all (including the "enemies of God") then that is concerning. From my own perspective it's as concerning as if he espoused Maoism.

The part I was referring to was:

"finally denies the religious liberty of the enemies of God"

I'm reading the original article now, but honestly, if it isn't in Ron's curriculum, I don't really care what North does on his own time.

 

[sailingaway]

The article links saying they are going to the original so I can read it myself don't actually go there. And the other stuff is by other people he just lumps in with North as if North were responsible for what they say because the author (who seems very collectivist for a libertarian) chooses to give them the same label.

So, whatever. I'm not all that interested in North. I'll wait to see what Ron's curriculum actually says.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

That was given as a direct quote, not a characterization, along with book name and page. I haven't read the book yet myself. If the quote is made up then Gary North should sue for libel.



I never said he couldn't have whatever belief he wants. That doesn't mean I have to approve. It doesn't mean I can't raise concern. And all beliefs are not created equal. If you believe in the Easter Bunny I don't care. If you believe that everyone should be forced to believe in the Easter Bunny, then I do care even though I respect your right to have that belief. And how can one be sure such a belief might not find its way woven into curriculum through stealth? Today's textbooks don't come out and say "Everyone should be a secular humanist socialist" either. I will reserve judgment on the final curriculum, but if North is indeed against religious liberty for all (including the "enemies of God") then that is concerning. From my own perspective it's as concerning as if he espoused Maoism.

This. 100%. I am not too familiar with the man but a few things I've read from him are concerning. That being said, I can't wait for the curriculum to come out.

 

[July]

Personally, I find North's views on capital punishment troubling...but, I don't believe in capital punishment anymore, so on that issue, I don't think he sounds any worse than any other average conservative or liberal, even many liberty leaning ones, who also believe in capital punishment. I think that blog article raises an interesting bias to characterize him as a "Taliban" though. Capital punishment is seen as barbaric when religious societies do it, but what about in secular/humanist societies? At any rate, I read through parts of Gary's book and it seemed he was implying that capital punishment was an exception for murderers, and that it ought not to be brought about by any one person alone or arbitrarily (which, unfortunately, is still more than we can say for our current government and it's drone war). I skimmed much of it, so maybe I missed something else. Honestly I don't know enough about North to know what his exact beliefs are and what he means by that quote, so I guess I'll wait and see.

 

[Sola_Fide]

I wish that the people using the word "Christian fundamentalist" could tell me what they mean by it in a sentence or two. There's got to be a simple definition of this so that we can move forward and talk about it.

But beyond that issue if anybody knows anything about the Reconstructionist movement (I do, I know everything about it) you would understand that it was in the 80's and 90's that Reconstructists wrote the most stridently about applying the Mosaic civil laws to modern society. Before that period of time, in the 70's, Reconstructionists were not particularly strident on this issue (and actually wrote some very good books.....Rushdoony wrote some great books). And since the 90's, they have begun backing away from some of those strident positions as well.

 

[Natural Citizen]

I wish that the people using the word "Christian fundamentalist" could tell me what they mean by it in a sentence or two. There's got to be a simple definition of this so that we can move forward and talk about it.

But beyond that issue if anybody knows anything about the Reconstructionist movement (I do, I know everything about it) you would understand that it was in the 80's and 90's that Reconstructists wrote the most stridently about applying the Mosaic civil laws to modern society. Before that period of time, in the 70's, Reconstructionists were not particularly strident on this issue (and actually wrote some very good books.....Rushdoony wrote some great books). And since the 90's, they have begun backing away from some of those strident positions as well.

Well. Here's a wiki scribble on it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_fundamentalist

Generic, of course. I don't particularly like to use them for sourcing. Actually don't put a lot of weight into sources overall but that's just me, I suppose. Anyone can fudge around with the terms of controversy on wiki.

 

[sailingaway]

I wish that the people using the word "Christian fundamentalist" could tell me what they mean by it in a sentence or two. There's got to be a simple definition of this so that we can move forward and talk about it.

But beyond that issue if anybody knows anything about the Reconstructionist movement (I do, I know everything about it) you would understand that it was in the 80's and 90's that Reconstructists wrote the most stridently about applying the Mosaic civil laws to modern society. Before that period of time, in the 70's, Reconstructionists were not particularly strident on this issue (and actually wrote some very good books.....Rushdoony wrote some great books). And since the 90's, they have begun backing away from some of those strident positions as well.

But that is his father in law and even Daily Kos said they had a falling out and North doesn't use the same language. Are we even sure North is reconstructionist and not just being pegged because he's conservative Christian and his famous father in law was? All the links to him seem very loose.

 

[Sola_Fide]

But that is his father in law and even Daily Kos said they had a falling out and North doesn't use the same language. Are we even sure North is reconstructionist and not just being pegged because he's conservative Christian and his famous father in law was? All the links to him seem very loose.

Actually Rushdoony was critical of North. He disagreed with North's harsh attitude and disagreed with his method of implementing the civil laws. Rushdoony was much more moderate (if you can call it that) in regards to the civil laws of Moses, and this tension between North and Rushdoony has been talked about in many places.

Rushdoony was an amazing scholar. I don't agree with his views on theonomy, but as a philosopher, he was excellent. One of my favorite books is The One And The Many: Essays On the Issue Of Order and Ultimacy. It's mind-blowing, with so many philosophical insights.

He was anti-government: