Replies

You miss the same point everybody misses with "Reconstructionism". Here is a thought-experiment to clear things up for you.

If a legal election is held under the terms of our Constitution, and the Federal Judiciary sustains the decision of the ballot by a vote of the majority of the Supreme Court....is this "imposing tyranny?"

Nowhere in any "Reconstructionist" literature does anyone advocate anything but complete legal, open-ballot, judicially sustained voting.

Are you saying you will not defend the tenets of the United States Constitution?

Nowhere in any "Reconstructionist" literature does anyone advocate anything but complete legal, open-ballot, judicially sustained voting.

They don't advocate violent overthrow of the government, certainly. They do, however, seem to intend to radically change the country if they take over. These changes seem to involve disenfranchising anyone they consider to be "non-believers." It's Wahhabi'ism with a Calvinist flavor.

Nowhere in any "Reconstructionist" literature does anyone advocate anything but complete legal, open-ballot, judicially sustained voting.

This is the key reason all the fear mongering is misplaced and the charges against these people and groups are so dishonorable.

You miss the same point everybody misses with "Reconstructionism". Here is a thought-experiment to clear things up for you.

If a legal election is held under the terms of our Constitution, and the Federal Judiciary sustains the decision of the ballot by a vote of the majority of the Supreme Court....is this "imposing tyranny?"

With all due respect, I don't understand the point. Do you mean that if enough of the American voting public can be convinced to repeal the First Amendment and turn the U.S. into a theocracy would this be imposing tyranny? If so, the answer would be yes. It is not a difficult question.

I mean, honestly, do you think it would be okay if the majority were to, say, take the franchise away from non-Christians, even if it changed our form of government first so as to be able to do so "legally?"

I'm not afraid this is going to happen, and I don't think that anyone who would advocate this is representative of Christians. But it's your thought-experiment, so I think it's only fair for you to follow it through. I am getting the impression that people are reacting more to a perceived agenda of some posters than bothering to stake out their positions. If no one here supports turning the U.S. into some sort of Christian nation where adherents of the official religion are favored, then this is just a not-very-interesting wrasslin' match between two fellow Freepers. Okay, I admit it, a strangely compelling wrasslin' match :-)

Those who do advocate such a program should be proud to come out and say so. Then the merits can be debated.