Like all religious politicians, Nevada Senate candidate Sharron Angle conveniently sees her campaign as just another part of God’s plan. To be specific, Angle’s god is of the Southern Baptist Christian variety–not Catholic, not Muslim, not Jewish, not Mormon, not Seventh Day Adventist–you get the picture. That means that when she speaks of making the United States a Christian nation, she means something very specific. I think we can agree at this point that Angle does not favor the separation of church and state as expressed by Founding Father Thomas Jefferson in his famous Wall of Separation Letter. In fact, as Anjeanette Damon of the Las Vegas Sun reports, Angle may be a Christian Reconstructionist.
Christian Reconstructionists believe in a return to Mosaic law or the Law of Moses. According to Frederick Clarkson, author and lecturer who has written extensively on right-wing religious groups from the Christian Coalition to the Unification Church:”
“Reconstructionism would eliminate not only democracy but many of its manifestations, such as labor unions, civil rights laws, and public schools. Women would be generally relegated to hearth and home. Insufficiently Christian men would be denied citizenship, perhaps executed. So severe is this theocracy that it would extend capital punishment beyond such crimes as kidnapping, rape, and murder to include, among other things, blasphemy, heresy, adultery, and homosexuality.”
I find it striking how violent Christian Reconstructionism is and how closely it mirrors Sharia Law with it’s wide application of the death penalty for crimes from murder, rape, and kidnapping to adultery, homosexuality, abortion, and sex outside of marriage (presumably for women only).
Like other conservative religious figures, Angle’s views of how to support the “traditional family” in the United States is completely at odds with actually providing support for families. If Angle really wants families to survive and thrive with one bread winner, she would support unions since union membership increases the wages and benefits of its members. Or she would support employer childcare programs, health care reform, family planning, etc., because these programs assist parents with economically challenging circumstances and help them provide a more stable family environment. Instead, Angle supports policies that would erase the tax base and eradicate social services that allow many families to survive whether they have two working parents or one. As a policy position, it’s not just inconsistent, it’s unkind.