Conclusion:
There is much to be gained in the example of Rushdoony-- both in his achievements and failings. But we'll have to do better than Carl Trueman to appreciate either.
I read that site I and I would say Rushdoonys own words condemn him. They write this to exonorate him but it actually works against him:
Rushdoony later wrote:
It is difficult to imagine that anyone can deny the reality of the mass slaughter that characterized the twentieth century, whether it be the Armenian millions murdered by the Turks, the Jewish millions murdered by the Nazis, or the untold millions murdered by the communists in China, Russia, and Cambodia.
Here Rushdoony seems to make a moral equivalence of the atrosities of the Armenians, Cambodians, Communists and Jews. They are not morally equivalent. The Jews have been slaughtered for the cause of being Christ Killers since the Roman empire. The Holocaust was an attempt to wipe from the Earth, one specific group of people. The Jews. It wasnt political, like the killing of Cambodians and Communists. Nor ethnic like Areminians. It was to destroy the Jews, a religous group, G-ds chosen etc, extermination. No other group in history has had production facilities manufactered just for their extermination. If Hitler could of had 100 million Jews and the time to kill them, he would have. If he could have killed every last Jew on the planet, including children, he would have.
Rushdoony ackowledges the horror but then adds:
In my Institutes of Biblical Law, I noted that the scope of such mass murder had so numbed the modern conscience that the murder of a "mere" thousand, or ten thousand, no longer shocked, tempting some to inflate the scope of lesser atrocities, lest they not seem sufficiently horrific.
There he says it again. "Inflating the scope of lesser atrocities". The 6 million figure has been analyzed throughly. That number is not inflated. Therefore his accusation of "inflation" for the purpose of gain of some sort is patently wrong and disturbing in its implication.
It was not my purpose to enter a debate over numbers, whether millions were killed, or tens of millions, an area which must be left to others with expertise in such matters. My point then and now is that in all such matters what the Ninth Commandment requires is the truth, not exaggeration, irrespective of the cause one seeks to serve.
Why even go there in the first place Rushdoony? Couldnt he find some other example of false witness? To claim exaggeration is in fact a form of holocaust denial. He says he doesnt want to argue the numbers and then argues the numbers! He cant have it both ways. And since he ends his statement by claiming exaggerated numbers, he is "denying the holocaust numbers" ie a revisionist with questionable motives.
Furthermore, on this site, your guys admit that Rushdoony had racist tendencies.
"Yet on race, sin colored his vision."
I am not convinced RJR is a good guy at all. But this is more of an internal squabble between Christians.