What he has instead are the Christian Reconstructionists"”the acolytes of the late R.J. Rushdoony"”who are genuine theocrats, of a sort, and who also rank somewhere between the Free Mumia movement and the Spartacist Youth League on the totem pole of political influence in America. Yet this doesn't prevent them from figuring prominently in nearly all the anti-theocrat anthropologies, playing the same role that international communism played for right-wing paranoiacs in the 1950s: the puppet master working from the shadows and the hidden hand behind every secular setback.

Now, a bit of history, in a letter sent by Barbara Forrest:

Both Dembski and Gordon are members of the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture, the creationist arm of the Discovery Institute, a conservative think tank in Seattle. It is significant that the CRSC recently received $1.5 million from wealthy businessman Howard Ahmanson. See Walter Olson's article at http://www.reason.com/9901/co..... For over twenty years, Ahmanson has served on the board of Chalcedon, Inc., an extremist Christian organization run by R.J. Rushdoony. See Jerry Sloan's article, "The Man Behind Knight" at http://www.frontiersweb.com/sf.... You can view the CRSC site from the Discovery Institute page at http://www.discovery.org. The page has an announcement about the Baylor conference and other activities in which Dembski is participating. You will find links to CRSC articles, including Dembski's.

a sketch of what America will look like if the theocrats get their way. "All government employees"”federal, state and local"”would be required to participate in weekly Bible classes in the workplace, as well as compulsory daily prayer sessions," as would employees of any company or institution receiving federal funds. There would be a national ID card, identifying everyone by their religious beliefs, or lack thereof"”and "such cards would provide Christocrats with preferential treatment in many areas of life, including home ownership, student loans, employment and education." Non-Christian faiths would be tolerated, "but younger members . . .would be strongly encouraged to formally convert to the dominant evangelical Christianity." Gay sex would be prosecuted, and "known homosexuals and lesbians would have to successfully undergo government-sponsored reeducation sessions if they applied for any public-sector jobs." Political dissent would be squashed, religious censors would keep watch over the popular culture, and "the mainstream press and the electronic media would be beaten into submission."

Yes, you are right; it is hard to pick a favorite. Thanks Mike. This is the most fun read I had for a long time. It would be great even if only half of what the anti-theocrat claim is true. Oops am I playing into their paranoia?

Without going into details, this is eerily similar to a personal experience that I have.

What he has instead are the Christian Reconstructionists"”the acolytes of the late R.J. Rushdoony"”who are genuine theocrats, of a sort, and who also rank somewhere between the Free Mumia movement and the Spartacist Youth League on the totem pole of political influence in America. Yet this doesn't prevent them from figuring prominently in nearly all the anti-theocrat anthropologies, playing the same role that international communism played for right-wing paranoiacs in the 1950s: the puppet master working from the shadows and the hidden hand behind every secular setback.

and of course there's the ubiquitous theocon, suggesting a deadly mixture of Oliver Cromwell and Paul Wolfowitz.

This cracked me up.

btw, there is a radio talk show host in S.F. who calls himself the neocon theocon. But I don't think he was thinking of Oliver Cromwell.

This is taken from that article and seems to fit here.

Yes, I'm not expecting this blog to remain tightly focused. People can comment on the First Things article or choose a loosely related tangent if they want.

Darwin's Divisions
The Pope, the Cardinal, the Jesuit & the Evolving Debate About Origins

This is taken from that article and seems to fit here.

The Gould Standard

It may be useful to cite one particularly revealing passage from one of Steven Jay Gould's popular books on evolution. Gould was a paleontologist at Harvard and a talented writer who was a Darwinist even though he openly declared that the fossils told a different story.
In Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes, he admitted that the critics of evolution had a powerful case at the Scopes trial in 1926, but he did not hesitate to say that the intellectual descendants of these people need to be resisted. He called them "a motley collection" whose "core of practical support lies in the evangelical right," and then declared that

creationism is a mere stalking horse or subsidiary issue in a political program that would ban abortion, erase the political and social gains of women by reducing the vital concept of family to an outmoded paternalism, and reinstitute all the jingoism and distrust of learning that prepares a nation for demagoguery.

No doubt it would be inaccurate to suggest that all Darwinists are pro-abortion zealots bent on destroying any remaining vestiges of Christian civilization, but the passage indicates that the debate about the status of neo-Darwinism is not likely to be a dispassionate discussion among philosophers of science. Whether or not all the protagonists are explicitly aware of it, the debate is about alternative worldviews.

"” Martin Hilbert

Gould, I'm sure would make no distinction between IDism and Creationism. I just wanted to mention a point that I heard P.Johnson make. Nazism and Stalinism were not crimes of the Theists. Also, I would assume that jingoism and paternalism are evolutionary vestiges that in around the last 300 years some have evolved beyond. This would surely be classic case of punctuated evolution. What was the environmental pressure responded to I wonder? I guess these outmoded traits haven't been fully selected out yet.

At least Gould doesn't confuse those who want to influence culture, like P. Johnson, with those that want to control it, the theocrats, whoever they may be.