BuzzFlash interviewed  the author yesterday, and what he has to say is interesting- and alarming.

BuzzFlash: You use a phrase which received some comment in the reviews we read, and that was "Christocrats " (pronounced with a short "i"). What does that mean?

Rabbi James Rudin: I had to develop a term to describe the specific Christian conservatives who, in my judgment, are trying to change the basic structure of America after 220 years. I found that using words like "fundamentalist" or "extremist" or "Christian conservatives" or "Evangelicals" was inaccurate. In my own work - 35 years with the American Jewish Committee and Christian-Jewish relations - I've found that the overwhelming majority of Evangelical Christians are not committed to changing the basic relationship between church and state, and between government and religion. There's a small percentage who are, so I searched for a name that would set them apart from other Evangelicals or Christian conservatives.

Now, this is an excellent and insightful point- the "Christocrats" are a small minority in the Christian world, but they are very influential. A question we should be asking ourselves is how we can reach and teach the vast majority of Christians who prefer a wide space between church and state?

Rabbi Rudin makes another point:

BuzzFlash: What separates a "Christocrat" from someone who is a true believer in Christianity but also respects the separation of church and state?

Rabbi James Rudin: I use the concept of "deed, not the creed." Millions of our fellow American citizens are theologically conservative Christians. But they're not all actively seeking laws passed specifically on issues of church and state.

We can judge people by their deeds. The Christocrats' deeds are really an attack on public schools, on libraries, and the media. They attack the existing structures and then try to have them replaced with Christocratic libraries, Christocratic public schools or academies, or Christocratic media. It's kind of a shadow library, shadow schools, shadow everything. That's the strategy - to destroy the existing structure, or discredit it, and then try to replace it - using federal, state or local public money to  support their schools or their unique libraries. They've also tried to create a parallel media system of television, radio, magazines, newspapers, which reflect their point of view.

After 200 years of American history, it is an attempt to make this into, not just a country where 82% of the population say they're Christians, but instead to make America into a Christian nation in terms of its laws.

There have been several attempts in the past to put this into Constitutional amendments. They have all failed. There was one attempt in the mid-19th century and one in the 1950s - to make this legally a Christian nation. Now I think another attempt is being carried out, even though about one out of five Americans do not consider themselves to be Christian - they are agnostic, atheist, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Confucian, or whatever.

Deed, not creed. Observe what they actually do, not what they say or believe. It is this observation and understanding that is vital in uncloaking the often stealthy advance of the Christocratic elements in the various levels of our government. On paper, web, and television, they  often come across as apparently charming and harmless people of deep piety, who only want the best for the citizens. But if you bother to scratch the surface, dig deeper, listen to their sermons, attend meetings where their representatives deliberately hijack proceedings, and observe their deeds, the gloves come off. They will say things to put people off guard or direct their attention elsewhere, and then make their move.

Consider the Institute for Renewal and Democracy", for instance. Sounds fairly innocuous, on first glance. But scratch the surface, and you will find an organization intent on assimilating mainline and moderate churches into the Christocratic movement, emptying their coffers and turning their congregants into obedient foot soldiers.

If you read deeply into the Christocratic movement, you will discover a whole lexicon of apparently harmless sounding terms which are in reality code words for some very troublesome actions that they are taking. "Wedge issues", "Critical Analysis", "Renewal", "Restoration" "Family Values" (that's a big one) "Reconstruction"... all of them have specific meaning in their circles. Most of them  blow by non-Christocrats, seeming harmless.  

Let's look at what Rabbi Rudin says about reconstruction as interpreted by the Christocrats:

BuzzFlash: Let me ask you something about the Constitution. You mentioned that some people feel the Bible trumps the Constitution. But, actually, they've said that the Constitution was divinely inspired, and therefore they read into it certain religious qualities that were not put into the Constitution. Doesn't that defy the notion of strict constructionism, because you're really claiming the origin of the Constitution to be different than it was. It was created by men who debated a document. They say it was a gift from God. To me, that's not strict constructionism. That's a logical fallacy.

Rabbi James Rudin: It's a reconstruction. You're exactly right. One of the issues is that part of the Christocratic movement is saying, oh, well, in 1787 and in 1776, with the Declaration of Independence, it was an oversight. It was an accident that neither Christianity nor Jesus was mentioned in either document. I show that as the Constitution was being ratified by the various states, everyone was quite aware that there was an absence in the Constitution of any reference to Christianity or to God's law, or to the Bible as the supreme law of the country. There had been serious debates going on. I quote some of the critics of the Constitution of 1787 - and it took people like James Madison and an under-appreciated Southern Baptist minister named John Leland, who, along with Jefferson and others, were able to get the Constitution adopted.

It is very ironic to note that it was a Southern Baptist who was instrumental in keeping references to Christianity and God's Law out of the Constitution. Leland must be spinning in his grave over what has become of the SBC. Rabbi Rudin also notes this:

But it was neither an accident nor an oversight nor sloppy writing. There was a bitter debate in both North and South, by ministers and by lay people. It's another myth that is thrown up to confuse people - that somehow there was a mistake made, and they want to correct the mistake. There was no mistake. It was very clear.

Another sad part is that the second largest Christian body in America, the Southern Baptist Convention - second only to the Roman Catholic Church in population - were until recently one of the strongest advocates for the separation of church and state. Unfortunately, in the past twenty years the Southern Baptist Convention has moved completely away from their traditional position favoring strict separation. Jimmy Carter, a Southern Baptist, has written about it, Bill Moyers, Al Gore, Bill Clinton - all Southern Baptists - are very concerned.

One of the ironies is that in countries where there is an established church - for instance, England, Sweden, and France before the revolution - religion today is quite stagnant in many of those countries. Yet in America, because we've got a free market of ideas and freedom of religion, religion has thrived as in almost no other developed country of the world. If we were ever to make one religion the legal religion of America - call it America's religion - it would be a disaster. One reason the Constitution was so clear on this, both inside Article VI, which had no religious test for office, and in the First Amendment, was just what you said. There were so many different Christian groups vying for power and position that the answer was that none of those groups could be the established church, and let all be free. That's been the genius of America for 220 years.

I think one of the parts of the book that has captured a lot of attention is the little known debate between Patrick Henry, who was the Governor of Virginia, and Thomas Jefferson, both raised as Anglicans. Patrick Henry wanted to have a church tax in Virginia and have tax money go into the Anglican Church, which was the dominant church in Virginia. Jefferson fought it all the way with Madison, and he was successful. Out of it came this statute of religious liberty for Virginia. But it was a near thing, and had Patrick Henry had his way, we today might have taxes, as there are in other countries, to support specific churches.

Let me also be very clear. There is not a total separation of church and state in America. Religious institutions get a tax exemption on their property. If you and I give money to a specific religious institution, we get a tax deduction. I have no problems with that. The problem I wrote about is the drive to legitimize one specific group of Christians as the holders of the truth, and the right to impose their values on 300 million other Americans.

There you have it. The entire interview is worth a read.