Freedom Writer - November 1995 BEST OF THE FREEDOM WRITER Radical Religious Right responds

Freedom Writer - November 1995

BEST OF THE FREEDOM WRITER
Radical Religious Right responds!

_On_January_4,_1991,_The_Freedom_Writer's_Skipp_Porteous_
appeared_as_a_guest_on_"Sound_Off,"_hosted_by_Paul_
Gonzales_on_Superstation_WSB_in_Atlanta,_Georgia._Gary_
DeMar,_a_leading_Christian_Reconstructionist,_was_also_
invited_to_speak_on_the_program,_and_joined_the_broadcast_
during_its_second_hour._DeMar_is_a_member_of_the_Coalition_
on_Revival's_(COR)_steering_committee,_and_addresses_
the_topic_of_Christian_activism_at_the_group's_conferences._
	
PAUL Just when you think you've heard it all, you tune 
into the Paul Gonzales show and you find out there's 
a group of Christian people — people that call themselves 
Christians — who advocate the execution of homosexuals, 
adulterers, fornicators, and I guess, women who have 
abortions.

SKIPP Jay Grimstead, the head of COR, says, "The Bible 
has something like eleven reasons for capital punishment. 
Murder was one. Homosexuality, rape, kidnapping, were 
some of the others." And he said, "The actual punishments 
we don't have agreement on, but we think that homosexuality, 
and abortion, and pornography should be outlawed."

PAUL Gary, we very much appreciate you joining us tonight.

GARY Well, thanks for the opportunity. I appreciate 
it.

PAUL How long have you been listening tonight, Gary?

GARY Since the beginning.

PAUL OK, what do you have to say to Skipp?

GARY Well, I waited this long to see how many, I want 
to call them lies, but this is misinformation that 
Mr. Porteous has been sending out. He started off by 
saying the Coalition on Revival is a Reconstructionist 
organization. At first he said it was a front for Reconstructionism. 
I've been involved with the Coalition on Revival since 
its inception. It is not, and I'm going to repeat, 
is not a Reconstructionist organization. It does not 
advocate the things that Mr. Porteous is saying.

SKIPP OK, you know who Dr. Jay Grimstead is?

GARY Oh, sure. I spoke to him today.

SKIPP Alright. Is he a Reconstructionist?

GARY No, he isn't.

SKIPP Alright. Well, listen, this is what he told me, 
and I quote him.

GARY Let me get something straight. First of all, you 
have not defined Christian Reconstructionism. You have 
defined certain distinctives that you say are Reconstructionist 
thinking. I have written a number of books setting 
forth detailed definitions of what Christian Reconstructionism 
is. Even my Reconstructionist friends, and others who 
disagree with me, point to my books, _The_Reduction_
of_Christianity_ and another book I wrote called _The_
Debate_Over_Christian_Reconstruction_, as primers as 
to what Christian Reconstruction is. I have not heard 
you give an accurate definition of Christian Reconstruction. 
And yet you've been on the air for an hour and thirty-five 
minutes.

PAUL Why don't you give us a definition?

GARY The definition of Christian Reconstruction is 
simply this: that the Bible applies to every facet 
of life. That means, not just the judicial aspects 
of life, civil government as one example, but self-government, 
family government, church government, business, economics, 
every facet of society. The Bible has something to 
say about each of those things. Now, most Christian 
Reconstructionists, especially those of us who write, 
are into the scholarly avenue of research. That is, 
we look at the Bible and we say, what does it say about 
this particular issue? And then we set forth what we 
feel the Bible says about that issue. For example, 
the execution of homosexuals. We do not believe that 
homosexuals ought to be executed. Mr. Porteous claims 
to have been in the Pentecostal church and knows the 
Bible from cover to cover. The Bible doesn't say that.

PAUL Alright, let me get a comment from Skipp.

SKIPP I'm wondering how many pages he's torn out of 
the Bible. Listen, this is what Dr. Jay Grimstead told 
me, and I quote him accurately and exactly. He said, 
"We believe that God has given the Bible as a rule 
book for all society, Christian and non-Christian alike." 
And, he added, "I concur with most of the Reconstructionist 
matters. I am trying to help rebuild the society on 
the word of God, and loosely, that would be Reconstructionist 
orientation in anybody's book." Then, he also added, 
"The Bible had something like eleven reasons for capital 
punishment, and murder was one, and homosexuality, 
and rape, and kidnapping were some others." This is 
what the leader of your group said, Gary.

GARY Well first, he's not the leader of my group, and 
secondly....

SKIPP What do you mean he's not the leader of your 
group! You say you're a member of COR. You're on the 
steering committee of the Coalition on Revival.

GARY We're talking about Christian Reconstructionism. 
I'm a member of a number of different groups.

SKIPP Well, you're on the steering committee of the 
Coalition on Revival. Jay Grimstead is the head of 
the group.

GARY Let me explain. The Bible doesn't say that homosexuals 
should be executed. What it says is this: if two men 
lie together like a man and a woman lie together, they 
are to be put to death.

SKIPP What the hell do you think that is?

GARY Well, wait a minute. If a guy comes up to me and 
he says, "I'm a homosexual," that doesn't mean that 
he's to be executed. If you understand the Scriptures, 
it says very clearly, if a man comes up to you and 
says, "I've murdered somebody," that doesn't mean that 
person ought to be put to death.

PAUL Oh, so what you're saying, Gary, is if you catch 
homosexuals in the act, then the Bible says to execute 
them.

GARY The Bible lays forth the severest penalty. The 
severest penalty would be capital punishment for two 
men who publicly engaged in sodomy. Which would mean, 
that if that law were on the books — which it has been 
on the books in many states, and probably still is 
in many states in the nation today.

PAUL Does it say publicly in the Bible?

GARY Oh, you've got to have two witnesses. So, you're 
going to have at least two witnesses who would come 
forth and testify against two people who engaged in 
sodomy. Now, Atlanta is a pretty populous city for 
homosexuality. I would imagine that most people in 
this city, probably 99 percent of them, have never 
seen two people engaged in sodomy. But, if it did happen, 
the severest punishment that could come upon somebody 
would be capital punishment. It doesn't mean that has 
to be the punishment.

SKIPP By capital punishment, you mean death.

GARY Well, yes.

SKIPP Now, there was a case a couple of years ago, 
and I believe it was Georgia, maybe it was another 
state....

GARY It was Georgia.

SKIPP Two men were seen by the police, because the 
police came in the house for a different reason, and 
saw them having sex, engaging in homosexual activity 
in bed.

GARY Sodomy.

SKIPP They were arrested. So, you're saying that these 
two men, according to the Bible, could receive the 
death penalty?

GARY Well....

SKIPP Is that what you're saying?

GARY First of all, remember, the Supreme Court upheld 
Georgia's law. Secondly, yes.

SKIPP Secondly, yes! The Bible advocates the death 
penalty for homosexuals.

GARY No, it doesn't.

SKIPP Homosexual activity, excuse me.

GARY For example, if a guy raped a seven-year-old. 
He sodomized a seven-year-old boy _ the seven-year-old 
boy is innocent. 

SKIPP No, no. You said "two men, two men lying together."

GARY Right.

SKIPP The Bible says they should be executed.

GARY Right.

SKIPP Alright, so....

PAUL Wait a minute, wait a minute. Would you condone 
that?

GARY Condone what?

PAUL If indeed this movement were to go right by the 
Bible as you just said a few moments ago, would you 
advocate two men being caught in a homosexual act being 
executed?

GARY No. That's now what I'm saying. What I'm saying 
is that the severest penalty....

PAUL Wait a minute, now! You said the Reconstructionist 
movement advocates the Bible being very much a part 
of every aspect of society and you mentioned government.

GARY Right.

PAUL So then, if you indeed believe that, then you 
would have to believe that people caught in homosexuality 
should be executed.

SKIPP That's Biblical law.

GARY They could be executed.

SKIPP They could be.

PAUL They could be.

GARY Right.

PAUL So, what are you saying here?

GARY I just told you want I'm saying. That could be 
the severest penalty. Let me give you an example.

PAUL Wait, before you get to that, now, you said, again, 
these are your very own words. You said, that this 
movement that you're involved with, advocates the Bible 
being used as a basis for everything in society, including....

GARY Wait a minute....

PAUL No, you wait a minute, please. If indeed that's 
the case, if you believe that, then you would be contradicting 
yourself if you wouldn't advocate homosexuals being 
executed for homosexual activity.

GARY I want to make sure the listeners understand that 
when we talk about movement, are we talking about the 
Coalition on Revival, which is not a Reconstructionist 
movement, or are we talking about Christian Reconstruction 
itself? Which movement are you talking about?

PAUL Yeah, but Gary, I'm understanding how you just 
very cleverly steered away from my point — that you 
would have to agree with the death penalty for people 
caught in homosexuality.

GARY I already agreed with you that that could be the 
severest penalty. I mean, I don't know how many times 
I have to tell you. Yes, I agree that the Bible lays 
the death penalty for two men who are engaged in sodomy 
in public. Yes. I don't know how many times I have 
to tell you before it gets through your head!

SKIPP Does the Bible allow the same punishment for 
an abortionist?

GARY If abortion were illegal, the question comes down 
to what punishment would there be for someone who performed 
an illegal abortion? Now, if the pro-life community 
is correct, which I believe it is, that a pre-born 
individual is in fact a human being, then the same 
rights are accorded to the pre-born child as a born 
child. Then the same punishment would occur for the 
doctor performing the abortion. So, the pre-born child 
is in fact a human being, and a born child is in fact 
a human being, therefore, the same punishment prevails. 
That is, if capital punishment could be brought on 
someone who killed a one-day-old child, then the same 
punishment would occur with someone who killed a child 
in the womb.

PAUL So Gary, you would agree that a doctor performing 
an abortion should receive capital punishment?

GARY Obviously, if abortion were illegal, and he performed 
an illegal abortion and killed a preborn baby the same 
punishment would apply. And of course we've got our 
own system today that very people who commit murder 
actually suffer the death penalty. That could be the 
severest penalty, yes.

PAUL So, now what our guest was saying at the top of 
the show, that people who are Reconstructionist believe 
in this, you have told us that the death penalty could 
be given to people who perform abortions, and the death 
penalty — your word is could be applied under a Christian 
nation for people who are caught in homosexual acts. 
OK, how about adulterers?

GARY You can take two cases out of the New Testament. 
It's interesting, though, when people don't believe 
the Bible, like Mr. Porteous, go to the Bible and takes 
cases out of it to support his position when it's convenient. 
And when it's not convenient he lays the Bible aside. 
But let's take two cases. The first case is Mary and 
Joseph. As we know, Mary was with child, but Joseph 
hadn't known a woman, hadn't known Mary. That is, he 
hadn't had sexual intercourse with her. Now, what was 
he to suspect? He was to suspect that she had committed 
adultery. Now, it says in Scriptures that he decided 
to put her away, quietly or secretly. That is, he was 
to proceed with a divorce without making it a part 
of the civil court. That is, not making a charge against 
her of adultery. Of course, an angel comes and explains 
to her that that which is conceived in her is not by 
man, but by the Holy Spirit. Now, the law in Scriptures 
concerning adultery means that the innocent party has 
as [recourse] the toughest penalty that could be brought 
on the guilty party, the death penalty. So, for example, 
if a woman had a husband who was a constant womanizer,and 
he just would not stop, she could bring charges against 
her husband for adultery, and the severest penalty 
could be, according to Scripture, the death penalty. 
It wouldn't have to be, but it could be. Now, this 
would do a number of things. And again, I want to go 
back and underscore something. Most of the laws in 
the Bible were designed not so much to be implemented, 
but to keep people from practicing that particular 
behavior.

PAUL Well, all laws are basically that way.

GARY Right. Well, it was the same thing with homosexuality. 
When there were laws on the books that could punish 
homosexuality, it didn't do away with homosexuality 
per se, but it kept it hidden. Kept it in the closet.

PAUL And again, back with the same question again. 
You're using the word could be, and if indeed the Recon-structionist 
movement ever made it in America, would you advocate 
these Biblical principles being carried out, just like 
the execution of the adulterer? Just like the execution 
of the abortionist, and just like the execution of 
the homosexual?

GARY Well, I believe, like Mr. Porteous does, in the 
democratic process. Of course, these laws couldn't 
be brought into the legal system unless people actually 
wanted these laws.

PAUL But if indeed enough people who have your belief 
system get into that, and people vote for all of this, 
then you would go along with these strict penalties?

GARY I'm saying that they could be implemented, yes.

SKIPP You are working toward that goal, though, aren't 
you?

GARY Not necessarily, no. This is what usually happens 
when you're researching in an area. Mr. Porteous has 
taken probably one tenth of what we actually do, and 
he has blown it up like an inflated balloon and he 
says, "This is what Christian Reconstructionism is."

PAUL What I'm going to do is give our two guests the 
final six minutes to debate a little bit. Skipp, anything 
you want to say to Gary?

SKIPP Yeah, Gary, could you give us your viewpoint 
on the separation of church and state?

GARY Well, first of all, the Constitution, including 
the Bill of Rights, says nothing about a separation 
of church and state. The First Amendment says, "Congress 
shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, 
or prohibiting the free exercising thereof." Which 
simply means that our national government cannot establish 
a national church. Typically, what's happened in our 
day, the courts, and other things, they have interpreted 
that to mean that nothing religious can be involved 
in any sort of civil decision. And I just think that 
that's just erroneous. Any fourth grader who knows 
anything about history knows as a fact that religion 
was always incorporated into decision-making policies. 
Prayer, Bible-reading, laws based upon Scripture principles 
have no violation under the First Amendment. At the 
time of the drafting of the First Amendment there were 
nine states that had established state religions. I'm 
not advocating that, but obviously the First Amendment 
does not mean what Mr. Porteous and other advocates 
of church/state separation....

SKIPP Gary, Jay Grimstead told me that "the goal of 
a number of us is to try to Christianize the state 
of California." Then he said, "the church is not supposed 
to try to take over the government of San Jose. The 
people who take over the government of San Jose are 
American citizens who happen to be informed by the 
Bible on what is justice and what is injustice. The 
Bible controls both church and state." Would you agree 
with Dr. Grimstead on that statement?

GARY That the Bible is a law book for both church and 
state? Yes, but that's different than saying that church 
and state are merged by the Bible. The Bible is very 
specific about a separation between church and state. 
And I recommend that you read my Ruler of Nations to 
see how I've laid out, very specifically, in great 
detail, what the Bible and what the Constitution says 
about the principles. I'm getting the impression listening 
to you and debating this topic, and writing on this 
topic for over ten years now, that most of the critics 
of Christian Reconstruction haven't read what Recon-structionists 
have written. And Paul, to give you some idea, we have 
nearly one hundred books on the market right now, very 
easily available to anyone who wants them, to go in 
and look and see what we have to say. I'm amazed that 
Mr. Porteous misunderstands very clear statements in 
our books what we mean by separation of church and 
state.

SKIPP Well, Gary, earlier you accused me of lying about 
many things I said tonight, but in the last twenty 
minutes or so, you've confirmed everything I've said.

GARY No, because at the beginning of the show you claimed 
— and it was very clear what you were doing — the Coalition 
on Revival is a Reconstructionist movement, and then 
you said that these people, the LaHayes, Wildmon, and 
so forth, should leave this organization because this 
is a Reconstructionist organization, and it isn't. 
I've been on some of even the drafting documents and 
anything that even hinted at Reconstructionist distinctives 
were left out because the people didn't agree with 
them. Now, how can you say it's a Reconstructionist 
movement when I was there? I was in the drafting document 
on government. And there isn't anything about what 
you're saying about Christian Reconstructionist distinctives 
in that drafting document. So, to say then that the 
Coalition on Revival is a Reconstructionist organization, 
when its documents have none of the particulars of 
Christian Reconstruction in them, specifically the 
one on civil government, is a bald-faced lie. 

SKIPP Well, I happen to have some of those documents 
myself, and I'm also going by what your leader Jay 
Grimstead said, that he is a Reconstructionist and 
he agrees with most of the Reconstructionist doctrines.

GARY OK....

PAUL And wait, I've got to say something here so that 
we don't run out of time. You did say that our first 
guest, Skipp, mentioned that the Bible principles should 
be applied to society, in your viewpoint. And you did 
say that....

GARY All Christians agree with that!

PAUL Yeah, but most Christians don't think that capital 
punishment could be applied to people caught in homosexual 
acts, or could be for adulterers, or whatever.

GARY Paul, this is one thing that I want to say....

PAUL And that's what he said at the top of the show, 
for all intents and purposes. You agreed with that!

GARY But see, Christian Reconstruct.... What he's saying 
about Christian Reconstruction is one tenth of one 
percent of Christian Reconstruction.

SKIPP The one tenth I'm speaking about is the worst 
part of it.


[ref001]Return to table of contentsCopyright 1995 IFASThe 
Freedom Writer / ifas@berkshire.net

[ref001] index.html