From the Easy Chair

Never Talk About Politics & Religion

Professor: Dr. R.J. Rushdoony

Subject: Conversations, Panels and Sermons

Lesson: 185-214

Genre: Speech

Track:

Dictation Name: RR161K19

Year: 1980s and 1990s

Dr. R. J. Rushdoony, RR161K19, Never Talk About Politics & Religion, from the Easy Chair, excellent colloquies on various subjects.

[ Rushdoony ] This is R. J. Rushdoony, Easy Chair number 76, July the 23rd, 1984.

We are very happy to have with us again John Lofton, editor and columnist from The Washington Times. He has been out here fro the Democratic National Convention and he has come up here into the mountains to recuperate a bit. And we have also Otto Scott. We hoped to have John Saunders with us also, but he had to be out of town today.

John, suppose you start off by giving us your general impressions of San Francisco.

[ Lofton ] Ooh.

[ Rushdoony ] And then the Democratic National Convention.

[ Lofton ] Well, from what little I saw of it I didn’t care a whole lot for either San Francisco or the Democratic National Convention, although they resembled one another very closely. I didn’t really get to circulate much in San Francisco. I think the thing that stands out in my mind about the city was they did have a big rally of the homosexuals and the Lesbians across the street from the Democratic National Convention Center and I say that a little while because I have never really seen such a thing in person. I listened to a few of the speakers and one of the speakers at the rally was Congressman Ron Dellam of California. And toward the end of his speech he talked about... or was screaming, actually, about how the Democratic party must rule out the first use of nuclear weapons and he said that this must be done to preserve our children and their children’s children’s children. And all these lesbians and homosexuals were wildly applauding this plea for their children which to me sort of captured the... the spirit of San Francisco, because obviously while those people there were someone’s children, I don’t think that many of them would be having children and certainly their children wouldn’t be having any children.

[ Rushdoony ] Well, I understand that next door to the Democratic National Convention there was another convention.

[ Lofton ] Yes. The hookers.

[ Rushdoony ] The hookers.

[ Lofton ] The Honkers. That is right. I... I had read about that in the paper. I did not...

[ Rushdoony ] You didn’t go there.

[ Lofton ] No, I did not go there. One... one hooker’s convention was enough.

[ Scott ] Well, it brings up a couple of points. One was on the hooker’s convention the cab drivers told met that... that they asked me the difference between a politician and a hooker. And said I didn’t know and he said the hooker’s price is up front.

[ Rushdoony ] This was a San Francisco cabbie.

[ Lofton ] That is right, because you were in San Francisco also.

[ Scott ] Yes, for two days of the four, yes. And the other thing is that a new bumper sticker might come out of the gay lesbian combination. Sterility is wonderful.

[ Rushdoony ] Yes, that seems to be the temper of our time. That would sum it up, very, very well.

[ Lofton ] Well, if I get ... let me comment just briefly an impression about what went on inside the convention hall. What struck me most forcefully about this convention was the utter lack of any representation of moderate or conservative Democrats. There is no doubt in my mind at all that had it been a secret ballot that Jessie Jackson would have been the party’s nominee. What I thought of was the 1972 convention which nominated George Mc Govern. It was an extremely radical bunch there, very far left. And there was literally no representation that I saw at the podium of the moderate or conservative Democrats in the party.

Now The Washington Post and the ABC network took a poll in which they contrasted the views of the rank and file, so-called, Democrats, average man in the street Democrat with the convention delegates and I will just give you two subject areas which I thought were very interesting. In the area of the so called social issues on abortion among the Democrat convention delegates nine percent, only nine percent of the delegates favored a constitutional amendment to outlaw abortion. The figure for rank and file Democrats was 43 percent. Almost half of the party favors an amendment to outlaw abortion, but only nine percent of those inside the hall. This is a sizable gap. Also now in the foreign policy area nine or I am sorry 22 percent of the delegates, people inside the hall said that they favor fighting the threat of Communism even if it means using force, 22 percent of the delegates. In the country at large among the rank and file Democrats the figure was 63 percent of rank and file average Democrats favor fighting the threat of Communism even if it means force.

So what... what that said to me was that while Jackson and Mondale and Gary Hart and Ferraro may all be rabidly pro abortion and rabidly anti, anti Communist and there is no doubt that every speech they made along these lines got enthusiastic applause, many, perhaps millions of Democrats, if they were watching at all, were sitting home saying, “This is not our party. This is not a group that we are agree with.” And I think that it is the moderate to conservative Democrats who will provide Ronald Reagan with his very slim margin of victory.

And just one footnote. I think that is why you saw Walter Mondale, of all people, in his acceptance speech talking about balancing the budget, about a strong national defense and even threatening to use the veto to hold down federal spending. I think the name of the game for the Democrats is simply try... to try to hold the moderates and Democrats in place so that they don’t leave the party, because Mondale and the Democratic party, I believe, realize that this could, indeed, be the margin of victory for Ronald Reagan.

[ Scott ] Well, there is another interesting point it brings up and that is I first noticed some years ago when the White House conferences on various topics were launched that those who were invited to these White House conferences were carefully screened in advance so that there was an overwhelming body of majority opinion in favor of the issues that the administration wanted to promote. I am talking now about the Johnson administration in particular. There was the beginning of the organization, you might say, of the electorate. And one of the men who was masterminding such a conference I was in his office once and he was going over the list and he would say, “Is he a good guy?” meaning did he agree in advance on the... on the position that was going to be adopted by that particular gathering?

Now the Democrats in San Francisco have put together what amounts to a quota representation, a sampling which was balanced between men and women, presumably. I understand this time that it was 50... about evenly divided between the sexes and I don’t know what the rest of the quota consisted of, but the general impression was that this meets the civil rights quota system all the way through. And what it ... what it now appears from you what you say to be clear is that they also loaded it with those who were in favor of certain positions in advance.

[ Lofton ] Exactly. Exactly.

[ Rushdoony ] Now I am going to ask a follow up question on this. Would you say that the representation at the Republican National Convention will be similar, that it will represent people who will be far more liberal than the rank and file Republican?

[ Lofton ] Well, that... that, of course, is a good follow up question. Traditionally, I believe, Republican conventions have been more reflective of the party at large if not the nation than the Democrats have. I mean, I have always heard it said that conservatives always control the Republican party conventions. And that.... that has been the difficulty for the liberal or moderate Republican who may have indeed run well in the general election, but conservatives they can do nothing else within the party could always stop a liberal or run the moderate.

[ Scott ] The press made a big thing about the conservative capture of the Republican party after Goldwater.

[ Lofton ] That is right.

[ Scott ] The first time the conservatives actually won in the Republican convention was the Goldwater convention. Prior to that the liberal Republicans always prevailed. And...

[ Lofton ] You are right. But I am talking about since Goldwater.

[ Scott ] Right.

[ Lofton ] Yes.

[ Scott ] And... and the liberal Republicans made quite a thing about the fact that the conservatives defeated them in the convention. They made that seem un American. In fact, it was one of the things which caused the Goldwater defeat and which put the Republican party in the shade for a number of years. This time the conservatives apparently have more moderated in the Republican part. If you look at the... the complaints of the extreme right against the Reagan administration, it is that too many liberal Republicans are in high positions.

[ Lofton ] This is...

[ Scott ] So therefore I think we will have to wait and see what kind of a delegation appears there. There may actually be a struggle in the Republican convention.

[ Lofton ] Well, I mean if you think there is a possibility of a fight might break out in one of the hotel lobbies, sure. As for any struggle, I doubt it. I think you are right that the...

[ Scott ] ... on the...

[ Lofton ] ... the conservatives have moderated their views and they are going to support Ronald Reagan, that this is going to be a gigantic coronation or a ... or a pep rally and ... and that is... that is unfortunate in light of what Mr. Reagan is doing.

I was reading the newspaper this morning and I read it yesterday and I thought, gosh, I can’t leave Washington for two weeks that Ronald Reagan doesn't raise taxes. This was very scary. This must have been how Moses felt...

[ Rushdoony ] Yes

[ Lofton ] ...when he went up on the mountain and he come down in a few days and they already had the golden calf marching around again. He kept saying, “Hey, I told you guys, knock this off.”

Really, now here is Ronald Reagan. In 1982 he gave us the largest tax increase in history. It was something like 227 billion dollar tax increase, not tax cuts over five years. Then we had Walter Mondale at the convention saying in the interest of candor, open, that is an honesty. Mondale said, “I am going to raise taxes, so is Ronald Reagan, but Ronald Reagan won’t do it fairly. I will. And he won’t tell you he is going to do it.”

Well, a few days later at the White House briefly Larry Speaks, the president’s press spokesman, of course, is asked about is Mondale right. Is Mr. Reagan going to raise taxes? Well, Mr. Speaks is not going to really say. But he did say that Ronald Reagan’s record has been to cut taxes. But Ronald Reagan’s record as president has no more been to cut taxes than Ronald Reagan’s record as governor of California was to cut taxes.

[ Rushdoony ] Right.

[ Lofton ] But I guess what Mr. Speaks meant was that Ronald Reagan’s record is to make speeches saying he is going to cut taxes, because, seriously, the thing that he has done within the last two weeks is sign into law a... at least a 50 billion dollar tax hike and probably at 65 billion dollar tax hike with only 13 billion dollars in so-called spending cuts in government.

Now I remember in 1982 Ronald Reagan wrote me a personal letter because I had slipped him a note at one of the press conferences. He wrote me a personal letter saying that he had supported that largest tax increase in history in 1982 because he got this deal with the Congress where for every dollar increase in tax revenue, every dollar in tax hikes, he would get thee dollars in reductions in the federal budget and this was a great deal.

Well, as it turned out he got less than one dollar for one dollar spending reductions versus tax increase. And in a recent press conference he said that he would never again go for a deal like this, that he was burned once. Never again. Now within the last two weeks he has gone for a deal which is, as I said, 65 billion dollars in tax hikes versus 13 billion. It is own six to one. So he has done exactly, again, what he said he wouldn’t do.

And just one other point on the tax thing. It seems to me that what Mr. Reagan is doing is he has, indeed, reduced marginal tax rates but he is de facto restoring these tax cuts piecemeal by just raising this tax and that, closing this so called loop hole and that so called loop hole. The tax rates still remain low, but he is piling it back on through other sources of revenue.

Let me respond to the ... the platform question. I don’t ... I don’t think platforms means anything to Ronald Reagan. He ran on the platform vigorously in 1980. In fact, in his first press conference as president elect he was invited to disavow the platform. The press was really pressing him on whether he was going to carry it out. This was in his first appearance with George Bush after he was elected president and he said no. If he ran on that platform that the people voted for him on the basis of it and he said it would be—and these are his words—cynical and callous to abandon the platform. But he has abandoned the platform. Most recently, just one example in the military national defense area the platform said that Republicans would restore the military superiority of this country over the Soviet Union, because the American people demand it. That was the phraseology. And, indeed, the American people do. If you ask most Americans do you want to be behind, equal to or ahead of the Russians, it is a dumb question. Americans want to be number one in everything.

So what had happened? Ronald Reagan has explicitly abandoned superiority. This is just what Nixon did. Nixon ran all over the country in 68 saying he was for superiority. Then when he was elected he hired Henry Kissinger, which I don’t recall him telling any of us he was going to do and Dr. Kissinger gave us parity and strategic sufficiency, all kinds of gobbledy gook and gibberish to cover up the fact that we were slipping. And Ronald Reagan is doing the identical thing.

So the platform is not going not mean... I... I think it may be a hard line platform. There may be a struggle over it, over it. I don’t think it... I don’t think it means much of anything. In fact, in Newsweek magazine about three weeks ago in their little gossip section called the periscope they had a little item that the people in the White House have now decided to formally abandon the 1980 platform pledge to abolish the department of education and the department of energy, that they are no longer going to ... that they are not going to reiterate this call.

Anybody surprised?

[ Rushdoony ] No.

[ Scott ] Not surprised.

[ Lofton ] Surprise.

[ Scott ] Not surprised, but certainly disheartened.

[ Rushdoony ] Yes. I would like to ask a question about one of the speakers at the Democratic convention. Jesse Jackson did something unusual at any national convention of either party. He brought up, however wrongly and however much misused, the names of Moses and of Jesus Christ.

[ Lofton ] He certainly did.

[ Rushdoony ] And would you like to comment on that?

[ Lofton ] Well, it ... no, probably not. It is rather disgusting to me to see Jackson do that. I say that because I think he invoked those names, basically, as a ploy. It was interesting that he did say in his speech text that everyone in that room was bound by Jesus and Moses. Now, I mean... I mean that is really news that... you had to be in that room and see those people to realize that... how silly this line was for that group. But that... that ... it struck me as that is one... that is one of many ways where the reverend Jackson, so-called, seems to get away with things that other people wouldn’t try or most other people wouldn’t even try and if they did try them they are... they would not get away with them. Many of the anchor people came on afterwards and really praised that speech and said how great it was, that it was unprecedented and without parallel that someone would make such an explicitly religious speech. And I though, well, now what if the reverend Falwell told us... let’s be really far out, the reverent Rushdoony appeared before the Republican national committee and talked about the ... the need... the need to be bound by Christ, to bow the knee as Lord and Savior. Well, they would... they would tear the place apart. And I don’t mean out of adulation. The networks… all the people on the floor for the networks would, I am sure, locate the... the nearest Jewish individual or the nearest Atheist or Agnostic to get them to tell at length in ad nauseum how offended they have been by this religious reference.

But none of that occurred for Jackson. It was just praise for the high...

[ Scott ] Well, this... this disparity is of long standing. They are very indignant about Mr. Falwell. There is lots of anger over ... pardon me, over the expression of any religious faith in Republican ranks or conservative ranks. In the meantime we have had a whole army of left wing clergymen running around on the Democratic platform for years.

[ Lofton ] Well, of course, Jackson made many of his speeches in black churches and from the podium and I remember all throughout the campaign seeing news film where the collection basket was being passed right in the church building and it was all to collect funds for Jackson’s political campaigns.

[ Rushdoony ] Well, you know, it is an interesting thing. Policy Review recently asked a large number of Americans, religious leaders and political leaders, intellectuals and so on about the attitude that should be taken in politics with regard to sexual questions. And the clergy, the intellectuals, the politicians with one exception gave the most wishy washy and weasel answers imaginable. And that one man why gave a letter perfect statement which was really beautiful, superb, was Howard Philips.

[ Lofton ] Well, he certainly...

[ Rushdoony ] From the conservative caucus. He spoke out very clearly and unequivocally. No, they are ready to speak on sexual matters only if it is pro gay, most of these people. Then they feel there is something political about the issue. Anything else is off limits to politics.

[ Scott ] One issue, one side of one issue is rapidly becoming the American pattern of public discussion. I have never heard an anti abortion spokesman given a hearing on television or radio. I have only heard references to ...

[ Rushdoony ] Well, for a while I suppose...

[ Scott ] ... to these...

[ Rushdoony ] Yes.

[ Scott ] But at least for the last several year I would only hear those in favor of abortion, never those against. And we could go down the line on all these issues and we hear the public hears through the media, generally speaking, one side.

[ Lofton ] Oh, well, that was one of the numerous disgraces of this Democratic convention is here you had a group of delegates who not only do not represent this country, they do not even represent their own party, yet this story was covered up by every major network. That I saw nothing about this on the networks about this discrepancy between the delegates and the rank and file average Democrat. We certainly saw no pro life anti abortion spokesman at that podium allowed to give his or her speech even though as I said earlier they represent nearly half of the Democratic party. And they weren’t even allowed one little puny speech even at midnight when maybe I don’t even ... in prime time. They were not allowed at the podium at all. They are totally shut out. And I think that is going to hurt that party in this election, because these people know who they are and they know they weren’t there. And thy are angry about it and I think that they are going to see in Mr. Reagan, or at least in Mr. Reagan’s speeches and public utterances an identity with him on these issues and I think that, as I said, that could be the difference in the election for the Democrats.

[ Rushdoony ] I think both parties increasingly represent the media more closely than they do the people.

[ Lofton ] I would agree with that.

[ Scott ] I think that is... I think that is true. And I ... I think that it is unusual to see the network commentators who jump upon Mr. Reagan’s gaffes and errors if they find any with such alacrity being so silent about the content of what they heard. For instance, reverend Jackson was propounding liberation theology. He might just as well have made that speech from Nicaragua. And yet it wasn’t pointed out to the people that this was what they were listening to.

[ Lofton ] Well, you know, speaking about gaffes, let’s talk for just a ... a minute about what I have ... think was Geraldine Ferraro's first gaffe and it was certainly not her last one. As a matter of fact, she is probably was committing one as the listeners to this tape hear it. It was very interesting to me that the Democrats seemed to start out with the idea of waging something that I would have never predicted and that is a... a holy war against the infidel Ronald Reagan. Geraldine Ferraro attacked Ronald Reagan’s Christianity because he had not been able to translate it into the federal budget that his budget was insufficiently Christian, which is an interesting idea, because Ferraro is a Catholic and says that as a member of Congress she cannot impose her views on other people, but she takes Mr. Reagan to task for not Christianizing the budget which is to say imposing his views on the federal budget which is, if you look at the budget recently have a... has obviously not had the views of any Christian imposed on it.

But shortly after Ferraro attacked Ronald Reagan’s religion, his Christianity, Walter Mondale picked it in an interview and was very eager to respond to it and ally himself with her on this issue. Governor Cuomo of New York has said I what I found to be an absolutely astounding statement on the record with a reporter quoting him in the Los Angeles Times that ... that he had encouraged Ferraro to attack Ronald Reagan’s Christian because Cuomo said, as a woman I told her she could get away with it. This was a direct quote. Now that is a... that is a ... an interesting thing to say and it is a very stupid thing to... to admit to a reporter, if, in fact, you did that.

But my point is that... that Ferraro has not tried to back off of this thing saying that maybe she does have a loose mouth and runs it too much, but she did say that she was not sorry. And, again, I am looking at the media’s reaction. Good grief, suppose Ronald Reagan had, say, attacked Mondale’s so-called Christianity because Mondale once went to New York and spoke to this giant homosexual rally to get money and support and that Reagan had attacked his faith. There would be editorial after editorial. All the networks with their commentators would go wild. They would be, you know, 100 part series in the New York Times. They would be interrupting TV soap operas with bulletins. Mini cams would be chasing Reagan and his family all over the country to ask them to defend and this attack on someone’s religion. Why it would be thought of as a scurrilous, hideous thing. And to me the story is just as severe. There has been no editorials, no comments.

[ Scott ] It landed deep.

[ Lofton ] I think so.

[ Scott ] And there is another element. When Mr. Cuomo told Ferraro that she could get away with it American women get away with a lot of verbal rudeness and a great many of them lack manners and civility, especially in ... when they get on the platform. We saw this exemplified when the statements of N O W group before the nomination of Ferraro...

[ Lofton ] Well, you are talking about N O W the national organization for women.

[ Scott ] That is it.

[ Lofton ] Yes.

[ Scott ] Yes, in which they came on in ugly terms with threats very coarsely expressed and so forth. Now a great many American men... one of the problems between the sexes in the United States is this very lack of civility on the part of women. Little girls, for instance, are encouraged or allowed to say things that little boys are not. And now that the barriers and inhibitions have been released and language has been desexed so to speak, there is no more polite language and impolite language. You hear expressions from women that appall older Americans like myself.

[ Rushdoony ] Older, Otto? No.

[ Scott ] Well, I am... I am sorry to admit it. Yes.

[ Rushdoony ] But you are younger than I am. Let’s not talk that way.

[ Scott ] All right. But at any rate what we have here sounds very much like what we used to privately refer to as a big mouth broad.

[ Lofton ] I, of course have never used that term.

[ Scott ] And...

[ Lofton ] I want to get that on the record.

[ Scott ] Of course not.

[ Lofton ] Right now.

[ Scott ] Privately or otherwise.

[ Lofton ] I have never referred to big mouth broads that way. I mean... well... you know, one... one thing that ... that struck... that was very funny about this whole name the woman on the ticket is the national organization for women, as you say, did come out dressed I their bear skis waving their clubs about how we want a woman and you better give her to us. And Mondale, of course, instantly complied and there were a lot of talks that he had caved in to these cave women. And ... and one news story I saw seeking to knock that down said that, oh, oh, no, no, no, Mondale had stood up to those who strongly urged him not to cave in to the women, that he had stood up to them by naming the woman, which I thought was a very byzantine way of explaining his spinelessness. He... he had stood up to those who said this will be viewed as a cave in. You shouldn’t do it. But he told them, “No, no, and he named the woman anyway.” Wasn’t that courageous?

[ Rushdoony ] I would like to get back to something you referred to earlier in which you dealt with beautifully in your column. So I am really quoting you when Ms. Ferraro said that she did not believe in imposing her morality on other people...

[ Lofton ] What ever it is.

[ Rushdoony ] First, she didn't admit that her morality did not include a pro life position and, second, the pro life position is not any person’s morality. It is not something that you and I have that we impose on others, but as you pointed out in your column, it is Christian morality. It is God’s position.

[ Lofton ] Well, of course, you and I devoutly believe that and I think you put your finger on one of the weaknesses of ... of Catholicism as I understand it and that is they tend to speak about Catholic teaching rather than God’s Word. So Governor Cuomo does that and even archbishop O’Connor in New York does that. So one immediate problem one has in reading a story about someone violating Catholic teaching is, you know, trying to understand exactly what it ... what it is and how important it is, because, of course, many Catholics have violated earlier Catholic teaching. The teaching has just been changed, whether it is about meat on Friday or... or whatever. So there is sort of that ... that... that way of speaking which is confusing, but that is absolutely correct. It is... it is the old personalization of the faith which, of course, as you well know and have written is fatal to the faith, the idea that it is a private personal matter which I wouldn’t... wouldn’t impose on anyone because as ... if... if she is a good Catholic then, of course, she believes Catholicism is the true faith, that it is the truth and that it is true for everyone.

[ Rushdoony ] Yes.

[ Lofton ] But the argument is... is, of course, a phony argument and it is a ... a flawed argument because she says as a member of Congress I can’t impose my religious faith on anybody. Dictate it is the word she uses, but every time Congresswoman Ferraro has ever voted for a law, she has voted to impose that law obviously on any one who disagrees with it. She... the law has been her view. She has voted to impose the law. It is a syllogism. She has voted to impose her view.

Now the interesting thing is that by declining to impose her religious view of Catholicism she has now said that she will not impose that view which is the one I like best of all her views. So the only views she won’t impose on us is the religious view. All of her secular views she has no problem.

[ Scott ] Well, Governor Cuomo, though, is in trouble with his church. The archbishop in New York made it very clear that no Catholic could say he was personally against abortion while being publicly neutral or, in other words, tolerate it and said that was inconsonant with the Catholic position. He also said that Catholics shouldn’t vote for anyone like that.

[ Rushdoony ] Think one of the sad facts of our time is that we are taken the position the Lord requires of us and institutionalized it. We call it Catholic doctrine or Catholic teaching or reformed doctrine or this is the fundamentalist position and so on as though it were the property of one group. And what we should be saying is thus saith the Lord.

[ Lofton ] Very good. Well, that is right. I mean, it... it... if there has to be a fight and, I guess, as long as there are people there will be, it ought to be about what the Bible says or doesn’t say. That is where the fight ought to be. It ought not to be about do we turn to the Bible. That is not what the fight ought to be about.

Now you mentioned the archbishop O’Connor. He has... he has spoken out on this question as have the New York bishops rather forcefully, I thought. But, see, there... the problem that faces them now is they have clearly got what? Heresy? Is that what we call it?

[ Scott ] It is disobedience.

[ Lofton ] Well, I would call it heresy. I... it... unbelief from Ferraro, from Cuomo. So what are they going to do about it? They know that they are not in tune with the Catholic teaching. Or we ... we would say God’s Word. So what are they going to do about it? See.... is... is archbishop O’Connor going to go all the way now...

[ Scott ] No.

[ Lofton ] ...and try to excommunicate Governor Cuomo as he ought to or excommunicate Mrs. Ferraro? I don’t think so.

[ Scott ] Well...

[ Lofton ] Then he... then they are going to have the worst of both worlds. Then you are going to have an archbishop who has spoken out. He is ignored. I am sure they are not going not change their view. Then the ball is back in his court. What do I do? Am I just all hot air or what .. what does this church stand for? Anything?

[ Rushdoony ] Unfortunately people today feel the Church should have no teeth.

[ Lofton ] Or gums.

[ Rushdoony ] Yes. And this is something that has permeated every denomination, every group in Christendom. And the clergy know it. So it is a good question. Should they go ahead and proceed even though, say, an excommunication may be ignored, there is a lot of ground work that needs to be done to restore faith in the life of faith not eh ground level. An today we have separated Christianity from politics, from medicine, from the arts and sciences, from education, from the media, form every area of life and thought. And the result is we are creating a national disaster, a world disaster and invoking God’s judgment upon us because the various churches may not deal—and they are all derelict here—with their godless members, but they has better believe that God will do so.

[ Lofton ] Amen. You know, I have... I have read part of Governor Cuomo’s diaries. I guess the only stupider thing than writing them was to have them published, but anyway he did it and I read part of them. And he goes on at length about his faith and the role it played in his early years and how much it meant to him and his family and everything. And then he goes on to talk about the role of government and what he feels that ought to be. And there is a total, absolute disconnection between the faith and what he thinks the role of civil government ought to be. It is... it is just astounding that he would not notice this kind of thing as he wrote it, that is own eyes would not se the words and it would dawn on him that this faith that he says is the root and the foundation of everything, in fact, dictates nothing.

[ Scott ] Well, this is...

[ Lofton ] Which is a dead faith, right? That is what it says...

[ Scott ] That reflects his behavior as governor on the abortion issue.

[ Lofton ] Abortion issue, the homosexuality... the homosexuality issue. There is just no connection between his faith and what... and one of the things that... that has interested me is I have at home and I have told you this earlier, Rush. I have at home many books on Catholic moral theology in the 1930s, the 40s and even into the 50s. And all of them prescribe very strict limitations on civil government, on the role of the state in education. And it was interesting to me the extent to which Governor Cuomo’s views in now way even conform to what was traditional Catholic teaching on all these questions. He... he is like a religious anarchist. None of his faith is in any way connected to anything he does in his life.

[ Scott ] Well, he may not know what the traditional position of his particular church is. There is no subject of which the general average American—and I have to include Cuomo in that category—is more ignorant than theology. It has absolutely been expurgated from public education. And very few people go to a seminaries. Very few people read theology or theological books. The whole subject is a... is a dark ... it is terror incognitus, so to speak. No one knows anything about it.

What this adds up to is that a great many people have religious ideas or opinions, we might say, that are somewhat like that of a 12 year old child. And since they don't study or explore the subjected as they get older they continue into life with what amounts to very child like approaches to some very important subjects. And they substitute this lack of information and lack of the basic effort by attendance somewhere, listening to their pastor, listening to their priest, and assuming that that is all that is necessary in order to be a good Christian. And this gives rise to he general myth that Christianity is a less than intellectual pursuit, when, in fact, it is an extremely sophisticated faith which requires study and thought.

[ Lofton ] Well, of course it is... it is an ancient problem and Rush has written about it in his paper I think about box theology.

[ Rushdoony ] Yes.

[ Lofton ] It is the idea that God is the God of the home, maybe, maybe. God ... God of the Church, but anywhere else he has no application, nothing anywhere else is under him. And, of course, this is a fearful and dangerous view to hold not only for your society, but because throughout Scripture God comes down very hard on those who attempt to limit his authority. Who was the ... the one king, Assyrian king who said that God was the God of the hills, but of the valleys? And I remember vividly reading that his forces, although it did not say for how long, his forces which at that time were engaged in combat lost 100,000 footmen a day because he had limited God’s authority as with King Herod who gave not God the glory and fell down and died. This is a terrible, terrible thing to say that God is not the God of everything.

Yet that is what Cuomo and Ferraro have said, that this is just a private personal thing that I wouldn’t let govern anything.

And as sort of a footnote that is scary is when you think about without God the only thing that would govern Cuomo is his intellect, it is kind of scary what the... the people of New York are operating under if it is not God. Then that means it is Cuomo and that is ... that is kind of spooky.

[ Rushdoony ] Yes.

[ Scott ] To be limited to his measure...

[ Lofton ] What...

[ Scott ] ...means that we are...

[ Lofton ] That is right...

[ Scott ] ... we are kind of ... a little bit dwarfed.

[ Lofton ] That is right.

[ Rushdoony ] Well, we do have a problem today because in every church people are ignorant of what they are supposed to believe. They are ignorant of what it means to be a Catholic or a Presbyterian or almost anything. You name it. They just belong. They are buying fire and life insurance by being faithful to their church. But they don’t want God to mess with their daily life.

[ Lofton ] Can I ask you a question? When... when did this start in America the idea that when... when God started ... in their eyes, anyway, started to shrink like the incredible shrinking man that he ... he becomes the God of the home and the Church and the... of course, I suspect if you go to the home or the church in many of these people he is not even the god there. But when did this idea start?

[ Rushdoony ] Well, in Europe it started with the Enlightenment, about 1660 or thereafter Pietism began to take over. Both Catholics and Protestants began to withdraw from the world of politics and economics and limit the faith to the devotional exercises. In this country it did not happen until after the 1820s when the old Puritan temper began to disappear and the faith was increasingly restricted to the devotional aspects, to the private life. So that we have a background which is more recent of applying the faith to every area of life.

Now the only relic of the older position in Europe was that you had, for example, in some countries, the Catholic party. In the Netherlands you had a reformed party, the anti revolutionary party was its name. So in politics for a while some kind of input was retained, but even that virtually disappeared after the 30s. And today there is no effort to apply it. And most people are ignorant of the fact that the faith has to be universal or catholic in its application.

[ Lofton ] Well, I would say that they are... that they are not only ignorant, they are extremely some certainly the people I run into for some reason seem to be very hostile. Maybe I have something to do with that, but they are very hostile to the idea that... that...

[ Rushdoony ] Yes.

[ Lofton ] ...that God is to be the God of everything. Now as you... as both of you know I am a ... a recent convert. I was baptized a little over two and a half years ago and my three children with me... I am 43 years old. And what astounds me over and over is to run into people, meet them, people who say they are Christians and I begin talking or asserting things as if we all agreed on them only to find out that ... that there is no... there is virtually no agreement at all. I was... I was at a luncheon one time where Richard John Newhouse spoke and he is the man who has written this new book The Naked Public Square and I was talking to him about whether or not in his judgment the ... that is where you get the ear of those kind of people, you ask them to give you their judgment first and they are all ears. The trick of course, is to keep their ears.

But anyway, I said, “In your judgment, does the Bible say anything about civil government or what the role of it ought to be?” I was going to talk to him about whether or not he though the modern welfare state was compatible with Scripture.

Well, I mean, the... the... the question wasn’t even fully completed before there is kind of a wrinkling of the nose and clearly it is... a ... sort of a disgusting question. And painful for him. And basically the answer as I recall it was that the... John, you have got to be very, very careful about applying this ... I don’t even know if called it the Word of God, applying the Bible to every day life. He said this is a very, very dangerous thing to do. And I quickly agreed and said that, in fact, I could think of only one other thing more dangerous and that was not attempting to apply the Bible.

[ Rushdoony ] Good.

[ Lofton ] And I put over and over and over and over I meet Christians and I talk to them at length and for the life of me I do not know what they think God is the God of.

[ Rushdoony ] Yes.

[ Lofton ] It is a frantic search with them to find something. Is it sports? Is it, you know, religion? Well, what is he the God of? And... and they have a very difficult time telling you where they think God’s Word ought to govern. He is really an abstraction of them.

[ Rushdoony ] Yes.

[ Lofton ] They read the book. They know the verses. Yes, I am familiar with your idea, John, but where do I think God really ought to govern? Gee, I ... this is a very dangerous question, you know?

[ Rushdoony ] Yes. You remember last night I told you or yesterday noon, I believe it was, something I plan to write about. Dr. Charles Rice of the Notre Dame University school of law has written an excellent analysis of the so-called right of privacy. And it is a growth in Supreme Court decisions in terms of American law.

Now you have either God is God or you have man as God. And original sin is the temptation of Genesis 3:5. Ye shall be as God knowing, determining for yourself what is good and evil, making your own law as you go along.

Well, as man has become the center this right of privacy has grown so that man no longer feels that God has any right to interfere or anyone has any right to interfere. You remember the illustration I gave you.

This very, very attractive young woman in her early 20s who was in her bedroom one day during the day time with her lover and her husband walked in unexpectedly and beat up on the lover and threw him out and while he was doing this, this young woman called for the police. And when they came she demanded that her husband be arrested. Why? He had violated her right to privacy.

Now...

[ Lofton ] What...

[ Scott ] I... I... I imagine he was arrested.

[ Rushdoony ] Although he was not the police just laughed in her face and she really wondered what the world was coming to.

[ Scott ] Oh, yes.

[ Rushdoony ] She was indignant for almost weeks over that.

[ Lofton ] Well let me bounce an idea off of you as to maybe why this is happening. As man sees himself as God, he wants to turn himself into a ... each... each man wants to be like his own ark of the covenant.

[ Rushdoony ] Yes.

[ Lofton ] He... he wants a holy of holies around him. You are not allowed to touch. He probably... and many would probably prefer that you would die if you touched them. Yet they do stuff that as they become god...

[ Rushdoony ] Yes.

[ Lofton ] then they want like sort of ... a moving temple around them.

[ Rushdoony ] Very good.

[ Lofton ] ...when they are all of... you cannot approach or at least on all fours when you come up there.

[ Rushdoony ] Yes.

[ Lofton ] Yeah. They... they retain the form as they see themselves becoming god. They want to be worshipped.

[ Scott ] And...

[ Lofton ] Which means this zone of privacy...

[ Scott ] And corresponding to that they turn God into Santa Claus.

[ Rushdoony ] Yes.

[ Scott ] He throws lollipops down from heaven. He doesn't bring trouble.

[ Rushdoony ] Oh...

[ Scott ] Despite...

[ Lofton ] The loving ...

[ Scott ] Despite the example of Jesus.’

[ Lofton ] But not the.. {?} that is right.

[ Scott ] God does not approve of suffering. And this carries us back to what my... my observations before. I mean the Catholic hierarchy and at least in the Vatican is having a great deal of difficulty restoring to its numerous congregations around the world some idea of their responsibility as Christians. This is where the liberation theology is proceeding so rapidly. And what really amazed me when presumably sophisticated network commentators getting a million dollars or more a year didn’t recognize liberation theology when it was placed in the American idiom and brought tears to the eyes of those delegates.

[ Lofton ] I would like to add a footnote to what I had said earlier about this whole Governor Cuomo mock... Ferraro and bishop O’Connor business, because I ... I was personally very heartened by bishop O’Connor’s forceful speaking out on this question of abortion and homosexuality. My point is that I hope he follows through and does... and makes... you know, a real tough decision on what has to be done here. Otherwise I think it will have been... he will have demonstrated his weakness by striking but missing or just issuing a statement and then letting...

[ Scott ] Well, look at the...

[ Lofton ] ... them forget about it.

[ Scott ] Look at the difficulty that confronts with congregation leaders like Cuomo and Ferraro.

[ Lofton ] Sure. Oh, there is no doubt it. But see, he is into it already. He has already spoken out. He has stressed the position. And he is going to be looked upon as a... a man who lacks the courage of his religious convictions if he just issues a statement and does nothing else.

I happen to think that if he moved to excommunicate Cuomo or Ferraro that it would just electrify Catholics across this country and would brig that particular faith together as... as they have never been brought together before in modern time and, indeed, all Christians in America would cheer this man. Imagine someone who ... who not only issued a statement, but when it was ignored he followed through, whether it stuck or not is problematical. I mean, he can only run so far in the race. They could ignore it or whatever, but the point is he would have... he would have gone all the way with this. And that is... that would be almost unprecedented in these times. But it has got to be done.

Or else he is going to be seen as a man who is not serious, who just is sort of like another bureaucrat issuing press releases and they throw them in the trash and then he just continues to greet them with a smile at receptions as if nothing had happened. See?

[ Scott ] Well, of course, this is reflective of the great division that is running through Christendom where a remnant, so to speak, is struggling. It is gaining. It is increasing in numbers. Mainline churches of all descriptions are... have been losing people because they have allowed the congregation to drift away from the Word of God. You know they...

[ Lofton ] That is true.

[ Scott ] ...the... the... the loss of faith really begins with the clergy.

[ Rushdoony ] Yes.

[ Scott ] And it is... it is...

[ Lofton ] Of course...

[ Scott ] ...it is unwillingness ... it is fear of applying the discipline that is necessary to keep any community together, whether it is a religious community, a political community or any other community. Lack of discipline runs through the whole American society like a thread.

[ Lofton ] What it is...

[ Scott ] And this is...

[ Lofton ] It does and...

[ Scott ] And this is one of the reasons why we can’t seem to get together on military defense, on the budget, on any subject.

[ Lofton ] You know, one of the things that ... that really came home to me when I read about some of the early church council debates is that this was a meeting held to establish what was true and all those outside of this circle of truth or beyond the line of truth, however you want to say it, they were out.

[ Scott ] Yes.

[ Lofton ] I mean this was a real argument about what was true. Now the modern church council, the idea is we meet to come together.

[ Rushdoony ] Yes.

[ Scott ] All right.

[ Lofton ] Truth? If we happen to discover some accidentally, well, no one is going to be angry, but it is in no way the central idea of the meeting.

[ Scott ] Well, don’t forget that the essential element...

[ Lofton ] It is so wrong.

[ Scott ] ... the... the pillar of a democracy is that majority rules. If the majority of a people cannot determine their own destiny then you cannot discuss them as a democratic nation. But in that convention in San Francisco it was the minority that was extolled and the majority that was excluded.

Now to exclude or to ignore the majority of the American people is essentially tyrannical, whether you put in those terms or not. Your idea is tyrannical because you mean you want as a minority to tell the majority to shut up and take their orders.

Now on the other hand, the congregations of all the churches are not consulted and many of the mainline churches change and liberalize their theology and didn’t consult the congregation.

Didn’t ask the congregation what its opinion was, didn’t take a vote, didn’t have discussions, just said the prelates or the ... the ministers just said, “Well, we are going to change your book of common prayer or whatever, because we think that it is good for you.”

[ Lofton ] But...

[ Scott ] So but all of the same sort of...

[ Lofton ] Yes.

[ Scott ] ...tyrannical anti majoritarian reasoning coming out. And, of course, you can’t have an informed majority without discussion.

[ Lofton ] Well, I... I... I think... well, while I agree this is absolutely true, but I... you wonder why is there so little outcry from among these congregations. And I think it... it is for this reason. They don’t know their Bible. Because...

[ Rushdoony ] Yes.

[ Lofton ] ...for them their religion is what ever their church does.

[ Scott ] That is it.

[ Lofton ] They don’t have any standards by which to judge their church. As a matter of fact, the idea that there is some standard by which we should judge our pastor or our board would be probably grounds for expulsion from the Church. That... the ecclesiastical arrangement has be... is their...is their Scripture.

[ Scott ] That is right.

[ Lofton ] They just know nothing ...

[ Scott ] They grew.

[ Lofton ] Sure. Whatever our... our ... our hierarchy does ... and this is not... not just Catholics, either.

[ Scott ] Oh, no.

[ Lofton ] I mean this is stressed.

[ Scott ] By no means.

[ Lofton ] No.

[ Scott ] No, it is the entire religious establishment.

[ Lofton ] Yeah. Whatever they say is right, because they say it. And we don’t want to hear anything out of you, Lofton, right, or this Bible. Don’t be pumping this Bible in here. Doing it here is very amazing.

[ Rushdoony ] Well, what is happening now, however, is that there are Bible study groups, Catholic and Protestant all over the United States. And there is a tremendous and growing groundswell of informed Christians. The militancy, for example, in things like pro life is rarely on the part of the clergy. It is primarily on the part of the laity. And in virtually every group where you have to make a moral stand, you have a few clergymen who have done remarkable work, but, by and large, it is the laity who are saying something has to be done here. And I think this is the foundation of true renaissance in the churches.

The people no longer can leave it to the clergy.

[ Scott ] And you shouldn’t have in any event.

[ Rushdoony ] Yes. Exactly.

[ Lofton ] Can you say... can you say quickly whether or not there is a precedent for this grass roots up, of this laity up movement?

[ Rushdoony ] Well you would never have had the councils of the early church which define the faith, for example, Nicea, Constantinople and Chalcedon without that kind of laity. There was a tremendous discussion among the laity on the issues. Today people read those confession and say, “Well, this is highly subtle and involved doctrine.”

[ Lofton ] Are we saying here that our faith is too important to be left to our preachers?

[ Rushdoony ] Yes. Then it was the barber shop talk. And we have records of that.

Well, our time is really up. I this been a delight to have you hear, John.

[ Lofton ] Well, thank you very much.

[ Rushdoony ] We will look forward to seeing you again whenever you need to rest from the wilds of Washington, San Francisco.

[ Lofton ] Frequently.

[ Rushdoony ] ... or New York.

Thank you all for listening and we will be with you again in two weeks.

[ Voice ] Authorized by the Chalcedon Foundation. Archived by the Mount Olive Tape Library. Digitized by ChristRules.com.