Frank Schaeffer, son of evangelical icon Francis Schaeffer, has long been prone to overreact to stuff he doesn’t like. For instance, when he converted from evangelicalism to Greek Orthodoxy, he wrote a convert book called Dancing Alone: The Quest for Orthodox Faith in an Age of False Religion that basically pronounced anything Western in Christianity anathema. Yesterday, in an amazing overreaction to the religious right of which he used to be a part, Schaeffer donned the tinfoil hat and told readers of the Huffington Post that there’s no difference between the religious right and…Iranian theocracy:
The Republicans are faulting President Obama for not taking a “strong enough stand” in support of the freedom marchers in Iran. Yet if the Republican/Religious Right/Neoconservative agenda had come to full fruition over the last 35 years the Republicans would have plunged America into our own version of the misbegotten theocracy destroying Iran today.
Had we succeeded America would be another version of Iran. Instead of people like James Dobson and Pat Robertson having become marginalized they’d be sitting in Washington advising whomever was the next Republican president. Instead of environmental protection and new mileage standards for cars there would be new anti-gay laws on the books.
So the theocrats in Tehran are against car mileage standards and environmental protection as a matter of religious dogma? Who knew?
If the far right of the Republican Party and we of the Religious Right had had our way by now there would be a constitutional amendment and/or laws forcing prayer in schools, disenfranchising gay men and women, banning all abortions under penalty of death, banning gay men and women from serving in the military, launching a neoconservative led and religious right backed holy war against Islam, fixing Israel’s borders permanently to incorporate all the land taken in 1967 forever into a “Greater Israel” based on the “fact” that “God gave the Jews” the land “forever,” capital punishment would be used routinely to punish a variety of crimes including being gay, civil rights for blacks, women, gays, unions would be in retreat, and — other than enforcing “morality” – George W. Bush’s style of “free market” non-governance would be permanent.
Think this is all far fetched? Then you never sat in secret meetings with Pat Robertson or the late Dr. Kennedy — as I did when I was a religious right leader — fomenting plans to “bring America back to God.” If we’d won America would be a slicker more dangerous version of Iran.
I have no idea what might have happened in those “secret” meetings, which were no doubt held under the auspices of the Learned Elders of Zion. In particular, there’s no way to know whether any of these ideas were actually discussed, or whether they are the invention of Schaeffer’s fertile imagination. For one thing, he’s attributing ideas that didn’t even become pertinent–holy war against Islam? banning gays from the military?–until the 1990s to people participating in meetings in the early 1980s. For another, he mentions ideas that were never part of the public debate, such as capital punishment in connection with abortion and “being gay,” and that were the purview only of a marginal theological movement (Christian Reconstructionism). Though organizations like Americans United for Separation of Church and State and People for the American Way have tried to build Reconstructionism into some kind of looming boogeyman on the verge of taking over the Republican Party if not America itself, its extreme positions regarding the use of Old Testament law in modern public policy have had zero influence on actual politics. But if Schaeffer had left it at this, he might be accused of distorting history or exaggerating about the past. But he doesn’t:
Picture America if Sarah Palin was president, both houses of Congress had a deep Republican majority, and the last 30 years of appointments to the Supreme Court had all been far right choices. Picture Fox News as the only TV news with access to the government, and the editors of the New York Times in jail for “treason.”
Cue the black helicopters, left-wing version. One has to wonder if Schaeffer is aware that Sarah Palin ran for vice president, or that both houses of Congress had Republican majorities working with a Republican president for four of the last eight years. Whatever. At this point he’s sliding into fantasy land, and that means there needs to be a master mind standing behind this neo-fascist coup. He conveniently supplies one:
The Religious Right has been awash in anti-democratic (even anti-American) religious ideologues for the better part of 40 years. For instance I knew the founders of the so-called dominionist or “reconstruction” wing of our movement personally, people like the late Reverend Rousas John Rushdoony the father of “Christian Reconstructionism” and the modern Christian home school movement.
Rushdoony (who I met and talked with many times) believed that interracial marriage, which he referred to as “unequal yoking”, should be made illegal. He also opposed “enforced integration”, referred to Southern slavery as “benevolent”, and said that “some people are by nature slaves”. Rushdoony was also a Holocaust denier. And yet his home school materials are a mainstay of the evangelical home school movement to this day!
Rushdoony’s 1973 opus, The Institutes of Biblical Law, says that fundamentalist Christians must “take control of governments and impose strict biblical law” on America and the world. That would mean the death penalty for “practicing homosexuals.”
Yes, well. I’ve never had much use for Rousas Rushdoony, who may or may not have held some of the views attributed to him. The point is, so what? Even if Rushdoony was a Holocaust denier, does that make anyone else in the religious right one? Even if Rushdoony thought slavery was a stroll in the park, why does that mean that anyone who ever associated with him or read any of his books must as well?
Picture the harshest Old Testament laws applied at home and the harshest neoconservative military policy abroad and that would be America if the Republicans had everything they wanted. We’d be in three wars now instead of two – Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran. It would be open season on domestic surveillance. Torture would be legal. Habeas Corpus would be a thing of the past. Women would be in prison for having had abortions. Gay men and women would be hounded and if they were murdered there would be leaders saying they had it coming. The CIA and FBI would be operating inside the USA to crush dissent. Blackwater (and other companies like it) would be taking over more and more military duties and operating internationally as a mercenary death squad.
Look at Iran and give thanks that the Republican Party — the tool of America’s mullahs married to the Neocon war mongers — is in decline and has been rejected by the American people. Work to keep America secular, free and democratic.
At this point, one can only shake one’s head and wonder whether Schaeffer has not been taking his lithium.

June 21, 2009 at 7:04 pm
What a nutcase! He should stay off the absinthe.
June 22, 2009 at 2:13 pm
Thank God the impact and usefulness of Dr. Rushdoony’s work did not depend, in any way, on you having “much use” for him.
John Lofton, Editor
TheAmericanView.com
Recovering Republican
JLof@aol.com
June 22, 2009 at 3:02 pm
Whatever. Please name a single office-holder on either a federal or state level who would identify with Rushdoony’s ideas regarding the use of the Old Testament law in American jurisprudence. My point is that Rushdoony was and is a marginal figure at best with regard to public policy, contrary to Schaeffer’s ravings or your opinion of him.
June 22, 2009 at 3:35 pm
“Whatever.” Now, there’s an intelligent, compelling response. And yours is a stupid and dangerous way of arguing. We don’t do right and wrong by counting noses. God’s Law is true for all people for all time — whether anyone agrees or not. As St. Paul says, God’s Word is true even if all men are liars. And certainly your erroneous way of arguing must have been heard in Nazi Germany in response to those who opposed the Holocaust:
“Please name a single office-holder on either a federal or state level who would identify with” the idea that it is wrong to kill Jews.
And, of course, not many did. Hitler simply gave them a new “law” which was not really law because man-made laws that contradict God’s Law are NO LAW. That’s the Bible, St. Augustine, Aquinas, Blackstone, Martin Luther King.
Wake up, please…
John Lofton, Editor
TheAmericanView.com
Recovering Republican
JLof@aol.com
June 22, 2009 at 4:50 pm
“Thank God the impact and usefulness of Dr. Rushdoony’s work did not depend, in any way, on you having ‘much use’ for him.”
Now, there’s an intelligent, compelling response. All I really thought it deserved was a “whatever,” given that it addressed virtually nothing that the post was actually about, nor did it deny anything that Schaeffer said about Rushdoony–an astounding omission, considering you obviously know more about him than I do, but for some reason couldn’t be bothered to address anything substantive in the post but my throwaway comment–but I gave more.
“We don’t do right and wrong by counting noses.”
Of course we don’t, but that wasn’t my point, now, was it? My point was that inasmuch as Rushdoony’s theoretical work impinged on politics, it has had no real influence (contra Schaeffer, who thinks him an evil genius who is behind everything that conservative evangelicals stand for). That has nothing to do with whether he was right or wrong, or whether what advocated should be done or not, it had to do with practical political effect. Period.
“And certainly your erroneous way of arguing must have been heard in Nazi Germany in response to those who opposed the Holocaust:
‘Please name a single office-holder on either a federal or state level who would identify with’ the idea that it is wrong to kill Jews.”
If you are implying that there was no one in the Nazi government who opposed the Holocaust, I’d suggest you brush up on your history before trotting out violations of Godwin’s Law. And if you’re not…then what are you talking about? What does that have to do with my actual argument? Again, I was talking about whether Rushdoony has had any practical political influence, not whether he was right or wrong. In the same way, one would have to say that those who opposed the Holocaust didn’t have much influence on government policy, even though they were obviously morally right. Do you get it now?
So, to sum up: you’ve given an answer to an argument that I didn’t make, tossed insults but no response toward the one that I did, ignored the substance of the post, failed to defend your man Rushdoony from the attack that mattered, and completely missed the point I was making. Have I missed anything?
June 23, 2009 at 8:47 am
Provide, please, evidence to support you assertion
“that inasmuch as Rushdoony’s theoretical work impinged on politics, it has had no real influence…”
Thank you.
John Lofton, Editor
TheAmericanView.com
Recovering Republican
JLof@aol.com
June 23, 2009 at 2:24 pm
I can’t prove a negative, but when I look at where public policy has gone in the last twenty or thirty years, I don’t see much in the way of accomplishments, or even public advocacy, for some of the positions for which he’s known (especially those having to do with the use of Old Testament law in public policy). For instance, there are no advocates of any note calling for the banning of abortion under any and all circumstances. Even Henry Hyde, as stalwart an opponent of abortion as there has been in the years since Roe (and a Catholic who would have agreed with Rushdoony that abortion is wrong under any and all circumstances) never sought a total ban, knowing that there was no conceivable way to achieve one.
If there’s evidence that there have been accomplishments or influential public advocacy of Rushdoony’s positions, I’d be interested in hearing it.
June 23, 2009 at 3:39 pm
Are you a Christian? If so, what kind of church do you attend? Thank you.
John Lofton, Editor
TheAmericanView.com
Recovering Republican
JLof@aol.com
June 23, 2009 at 3:56 pm
Why, no. I’m a Shintoist, and I attend a Two Seed in the Spirit Predestinarian Baptist Church, at least when I’m not organizing pig pickin’s for the local mosque. What about you?
June 23, 2009 at 4:09 pm
Why do you not answer the questions seriously?
JL
June 23, 2009 at 9:43 pm
David,
Don’t waste your time on him. He’s divisive like so many in the Christian Reconstruction movement…they couldn’t hold a denomination/church together if they tried(see the RPCUS and many churches that have dealt with them). This PCA member is happy to have lost most of them to whatever groups took them in.
Btw, I find Rushdoony important as a religious historian, but his influence is vastly overblown. Most people in a typical church wouldn’t recognize his name. For more on him and his ideology see: Church History (77:2- June 2008) Molly Worthen, “The Chalcedon Problem: Rousas John Rushdoony and the Origins of Christian Reconstructionism.”
June 23, 2009 at 10:04 pm
David: Thanks for the encouragement. I’ll take it, right after I say this to Mr. Lofton:
I didn’t answer your question seriously because it was either 1) not serious or 2) rude. I presume you’ve seen the title of my blog, and if you were actually the slightest bit curious about me you could have either looked at the “About” at the top or the “About Me” panel on the side. If you looked at those, and still asked those questions, you were being rude, not to mention insufferably arrogant. If you didn’t, you don’t actually care one way or the other about me. Either way, I’ve had enough of you.
June 24, 2009 at 3:41 am
“For instance, there are no advocates of any note calling for the banning of abortion under any and all circumstances. Even Henry Hyde, as stalwart an opponent of abortion as there has been in the years since Roe (and a Catholic who would have agreed with Rushdoony that abortion is wrong under any and all circumstances) never sought a total ban, knowing that there was no conceivable way to achieve one.”
May I quote you?
June 24, 2009 at 9:05 am
Hey!, there’s a nice name for a “Christian” site –
“suckonthis.” But, no, you didn’t answer my question seriously because rhetorically reckless folks such as yourself are incapable of a serious conversation, in this case about Dr. Rushdoony, about whom you have made false statements, supporting them with no evidence at all. Sad. Iron sharpens iron. You, however, are mush. So, you flee. You are typical of those who, over the years, I have tangled with re: Rushdoony.
John Lofton, Editor
TheAmericanView.com
Recovering Republican
JLof@aol.com
June 24, 2009 at 9:46 am
And you, sir, need to learn how to read. “Suckonthis” is the name of a commenter. The false statements that you should be worried about are those of Frank Schaeffer, to whom you have not replied. Nor have you replied to anything I’ve said, instead heading off on yet another tangent every time you’ve commented. Given your inability to engage with my arguments, and your willingness to throw around insults rather than substance, you are now banned. Have fun mumbling to yourself.