Gary North was nearly impossible to track down. He did not return multiple e-mails, and when finally reached by phone, he refused to talk and hung up.
But if you know where to look, he is everywhere.
Mr. North, a onetime aide to Representative Ron Paul of Texas, a possible 2012 Republican presidential candidate, is the leading proponent of “Christian economics,” which applies biblical principles to economic issues and the free market.
Largely unknown to the broader public, Mr. North is an influential figure on the American far right. He has written dozens of books, blogs prolifically and is on the curriculum of Christian home-schoolers across America.
Dr. North writes [url=http://www.garynorth.com/public/7954.cfm]”Why I Hung Up on a [i]New York Times[/i] Reporter”[/url] on a portion of his website that is available to non-subscribers. As a reader of his materials for over 30 years, I’m struck that mainstream reports focus on minutia and avoid the bigger picture. Not that I’m surprised by that…
[url=pastorzip.blogspot.com]The Rev. Steven P. Tibbetts, STS[/url]
And what precisely, is the bigger picture? No matter how you slice it “Christian economics” is nothing but social Darwinism and Neitzschean morality with a thin veneer of religion. It bears little resemblance to the Christian social and economic teaching of other Christian theologians and leaders (including the popes of the past one hundred years) – to say nothing of Christ himself. It does resemble to a marked degree to atheistic superman rants of Ayn Rand.
Thank you, Dan. Yes indeed.
Anyone who finds Ayn Rand a better plan than the current marxian suicide that this nation (and all of western europe?) are practicing is cool breeze blowing through the hell that is here on earth.
RE: “No matter how you slice it “Christian economics†is nothing but social Darwinism and Neitzschean morality with a thin veneer of religion.”
Setting aside that “Christian economics” is not defined, we can all assume that Dan Crawford is referring to a free market and is spouting ridiculous and grandiose twaddle again.
RE: “”nothing but social Darwinism” . . . which demonstrates to readers that Dan doesn’t know what Darwinism stated about the person.
RE: “and Neitzschean morality” . . . heh — because a central planning State is far less “Neitzschean” [sic] than the free decisions of individual men and women made in God’s image.
The rhetoric merely illustrates the antithetical political worldview and moral values of conservatives and liberals.