|
PREPARING US FORA PROTESTANT-CATHOLIC GOVERNMENTAL TAKEOVERIn small
wide-margin study booklets, we have been gradually releasing the most
in-depth series of final events Spirit of Prophecy studies ever researched
out (our End Time Series). Those of
you who have been obtaining them, as they are released, well-know that the
event which will trigger a cavalcade of final events, leading directly to
the general close of probation and the Second Coming of Christ, will be an
organized Protestant drive in the political field--which will lead them
ultimately to coerce Congress into enacting a nationwide Sunday Law with
iron teeth. In this
present article, we will observe that the Religious Right is fast learning
how to become political experts at manipulating the public, winning support
for its positions, and getting the votes to place its men into office on all
levels in America--from local school boards to the U.S. Senate. As America
becomes more decadent, many are aroused to try to stop it--if possible--by
legislative enactments. But it quickly becomes obvious that success in
stacking political committees and legislatures is crucial. In 1980, the
Religious Right worked hard to sweep Ronald Reagan into office. But there
were many others in America who also wanted to see him elected: pro-gun
advocates, hard-line anti-Communists, etc. But the
situation became confused when the national economy showed strong signs of
collapsing in 1992. A large proportion of the public decided that keeping
their jobs was more important than moralism. The result was the election of
William J. Clinton, that strange one from Arkansas, who quickly revealed
that he loved homosexuals, promoted hard-core pornography, and seemed
anxious to encourage every imaginable type of secular and immoral takeover. Every
passing month since Clintons election has revealed some new favored vice
or family scandal. And people across the land are becoming desperate. Enter the
Religious Right. It consists of a variety of Evangelical leaders, from James
Dobson to Pat Robertson. And it also includes Roman Catholic bishops and
cardinals. But, in
1992, the Religious Right failed--although by a small margin--to win the
presidential election. At the 1992 Republican Convention in Houston, it was
reported that church leaders, such as Robertson, drafted major portions of
the political platform. Strong speeches were given, which spoke of imposing
moral values and eliminating the secular opposition. Many reacted
unfavorably to such strident language, including many key Republican leaders
who were secular. Our job
is to win elections, not cling to intolerances that zealots call
principles, said GOP National Committee Chairman Rich Bond,
as he left office in 1993. He added: We cannot confuse principle
with intolerance. Were not going to be exclusionary. That was the
attitude. Yet, as the months passed and the Clinton administration backed
what Christians saw to be one abomination after another, the concern
intensified. It has
become obvious that--right now--is the golden opportunity for the
Religious Right to come to the forefront of American politics and take
over local and federal governments across the land. People are getting fed
up with the scandals, cover-ups, and trashy living that people in high
office are encouraging. Indeed,
developments of each year since the 1990 Democratic victory seem to
intensify the determination of people with morals to get rid of the
immorality once and for all. But, within
the past six months, a majority of Religious Right organizations have swung
over to the position that they must compromise on basic principles, if they
are going to win the elections. The decision is being made that getting
votes is more important than upholding standards and family values. The
underlying tactics appear to be: (1) Gain control of the Republican
nominations on all levels. (2) Run for political seats on compromise
platforms that please as many as possible. (3) Win the key elected offices
in the nation. (4) Use those positions to bring a return to national
morality and Christianity. (5) Enact legislation which will focus on
commonalities which all the churches can agree upon. A
32-year-old former political consultant, Ralph Reed, Jr., is a key man in
this. As head of Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition, he is in charge of
making the policy decisions which will ensure big wins in elections
throughout the United States. And what is
the Christian Coalition? It is the largest single Christian political action
group in America. It was founded on the mailing lists of Pat Robertson when,
in 1988, he unsuccessfully tried to run for the presidency. It is now the
leading Religious Right organization in the country, with 450,000 members in
50 states and an annual budget of $8-10 million. Reed
outlined the new strategy in the summer 1993 issue of Policy Review,
a magazine published by a conservative organization, the Heritage
Foundation. In an article entitled, Casting a Wider Net, he
outlined the plans for doing just that: reaching more voters in order to win
more elected offices. Reed said that the problem was that the conservatives
needed to tone down their message, so they could get more worldlings on
their side at election time. He said the Religious Right was weakening its
effectiveness by concentrating disproportionately on issues such as
abortion and homosexuality. In support of this viewpoint, he cited polls
showing that only 12 percent of the public favored elimination of abortion. What did
Reed recommend in place of that key conservative plank? such things as
taxes, crime, government waste, health care, and financial security. This was
exactly what key Republican leaders had been urging them to do. Republican
leadership, including National Committee Chairman Haley Barbour, applauds
this willingness to compromise principles for the sake of votes. It is
politics as usual. In the
months after the 1992 election, many were blaming the Religious Right for
the loss of the White House. It was felt that the strong pro-Christian and
anti-abortion speeches at the GOP Houston Convention (such as those by Pat
Robertson and Pat Buchanan) turned the tide against the Bush re-election
campaign. To some, Houston seemed like letting Christian fundamentalists
take over the grand old party. Progressives
on both sides--in the Christian Right and in the main party
itself--decided they must get together, settle their differences, and find
ways to work together. They must tear down the walls which separated them.
Such things as anti-abortion must be toned down or, if necessary,
eliminated entirely from party speeches. The term that used to describe
their newfound alliance they called the big tent. There was room, they
said, for both Christians, secularists, and even abortionists in the party! And, believe
it or not, it was even agreed upon that anti-homosexual talk must be toned
down or cease. Pro-choice
Republicans now say the flight from anti-abortion is becoming a stampede.
The desperate frenzy to win, win, win, is draining the Religious Right of
its declared moral fiber. If you will not stand for anything, what will you
stand for? only what the majority want? Massachusetts
Governor William Weld is thought by some to exemplify the ideal successful
Republican candidate: pro-choice and pro-gay rights. Some Republicans want
to move him on up to the presidency. Listen to
Ann Stone, chairperson of the Republicans for Choice: Our party should be
pro-choice, not because were pro-abortion, but because were against
government being involved in the decision process. After failing to get
pro-life off the platform in 1992, she says, Next time around I think
there's a good chance well either get pro-life dropped or the language
radically changed. But it
should not be forgotten that, in November 1993, Mike Farris won 46 percent
of the Virginia votes (although he lost the race for lieutenant governor and
openly campaigned against abortion). At
the same time, George Allen, Jr., won the governorship of Virginia--the
first Republican governor of that state in 16 years--with the full backing
of what his Democratic opponent (a judge) called extremist right-wing
groups--such as Concerned Women for America. Allen did not make an issue
of being against abortion, but did stand for other family values. So what was
the political mainstream in Virginia, and who were the losers? This fact
came as a shock to many in politics and the media. Shortly afterward on
Nightline, Ted Koppel admitted, Maybe the Religious Right isn't always
wrong. That may be a bitter pill for some to swallow, but its the way
things are. All across the country, there are people of faith who consider
their values to be under siege. In that last
part, Koppel surely spoke the truth. But what he meant by saying not
always wrong was that the Christian Right was able to get its candidate
elected. And elected meant right, which is the crazy world of
politics and worldlings in general: The majority is right, and nothing else
matters. On that same
telecast, Pat Robertson was interviewed. In response to the remark that a
subtle change, not in his beliefs, but certainly in his packaging had
occurred, Robertson said this: I would
urge people, as a matter of private choice [private opinion to keep to
yourself], not to choose abortion--because I think its wrong. Its
something else, though, in the political arena, to go on a quixotic crusade
when you know that you will be beaten continuously. Not so
subtle packaging. Robertson said, in effect, Its time to throw out the
pro-life plank. Its time to work together with the abortionists and
fellow travelers, with anyone who will help us get our candidates
elected. It was not a
change in packaging, but in product. Just as
Robertson's Christian Broadcasting Network has had its name changed
to Family Channel, so Ralph Reed, head of Christian Coalition, has
been hard at work to change its appearance and objectives. The aim is
simple enough: Take in enough non-Christians to win the ballot boxes of
America. According to the new view, born-againers are simply not
enough to do the job. Their unique goals need to be tabled for a time. The
Christian Coalition used to be mostly white and mostly Protestant. But now
it is trying to take in minorities (Hispanics and Blacks), Catholics, and
Jews. What do the people want? Give it to them. Later, in office, we can
make the needed changes in legislation. The 1993 New
York City School Board elections were a classic. The Christian Coalition got
together with the Catholic cardinal and plotted out political strategy. Then
they brought in the Jews, Hispanics, and Blacks. This ecumenical coalition
was able to win school board seats throughout the city. That same November,
a Republican Baptist preacher, Mike Huckabee, became lieutenant governor of
Clintons home state of Arkansas. He ran on a solid pro-life platform.
Elsewhere in the nation, religious people and candidates backed by them were
elected to school boards, city councils, and state offices. There is no
doubt but that the reaction to Clinton is increasing. In order to
do this, Protestant political leaders are working closely with Catholic
bishops. Robertson's Christian Coalition is going out of its way to court
Catholic leaders. At its September meeting in Washington, D.C., the
coalition (1) bestowed its first Catholic Layman of the Year award on
Representative Henry Hyde, of Illinois, (2) held a workshop on
Catholic-Evangelical cooperation, and (3) concluded the session with a
Sunday mass as well as a Protestant church service! It was the
1993 New York School Board elections that proved to both sides what they
could do by working together. The election-winning breakthrough came in May
1993 when New York's Cardinal John O'Connor agreed to let the coalition
distribute 100,000 voter guides in Catholic churches. Those guides told
Catholics all over the city who they ought to vote for. That success
got them to working closely together elsewhere. This month the coalition
is mailing 2 million voter guides to Californians--including 400 to
Catholic pastors in the hope that the clergy will support Proposition 174
(which would date school vouchers) from the pulpit. In Atlanta last week, a
spokesman for Catholic Archbishop John Donoghe reported that the church
shares many common goals with the Christian Coalition. Newsweek,
November 8, 1993. This is good
political sense, for one-fourth of American voters identify themselves as
Evangelicals, while another fourth say they are Catholics. We expect to
top out with 1 million Protestant members, says Ralph Reed. With
Catholics, we can double that. With that in mind, Robertson recently
transferred Marlene Elwill from a Midwest campaign direction to a new post,
as liaison to U.S. Catholic cardinals, bishops, and their political
organizations. In the
latest issue of his magazine, Christian American, Robertson excused
the fact of the new alliance with the remark, I feel I have a lot more in
common with this pope than with liberal Protestants. But,
although it may make good political sense, what does it wind up with?
Obviously, the end result can only be legislation upon which both the
Evangelicals and Catholics could agree. And the book, Great Controversy,
clearly states what that single unifying point would be. When it passes
Congress, the final crisis will begin. Martin
Mawyer is president of the Christian Action Network, another major Religious
Right organization in America. He is incensed at Robertson's
sell-out, especially in regard to his blatant willingness to set aside the
abortion issue and consider approving a pro-gay platform. Mawyer says
Robertson is charting his course by opinion polls, instead of standing for
the right because it is right. We would agree with Mawyer. A lot of
leaders place hobnobbing above the issues. They feel the best strategy to
getting their agenda across to the nation is by making friends with very
powerful people, Mawyer said in an interview with Karen Augustine, of Rutherford
magazine (March 1994). The problem is that if you use hobnob politicking,
you end up compromising too much. Continuing
on, he says, Because they [Christian Coalition] are so locked into
Republican politics, they are continually forced to re-define themselves
based on the current political climate and who's in charge of the
Republican Party. That disturbs me. I've seen several flip-flops on issues
just this year. When asked
what kind of flip-flops, Mawyer replied, Some
Republicans last summer said, We need to have a larger tent, a more
diverse set of views on the religious, social, and moral issues.
Christian Coalition said that, if the Republican Party tried to enlarge its
circle, it would become nothing more than a pup tent. However, several
months later, Christian Coalition began to apply the enlarged tent
policy to their own organization and downplayed the importance of [opposing]
abortion, homosexuality, and [supporting] school prayer. They tried to
re-define themselves as more interested in tax reform, health care, and
NAFTA mainstream issues. Mawyer
concluded with this remark: Ralph Reed can take whatever surveys he wants
and get the answers he wants in his public opinion poll, but we also take a
poll twice a month and get different results. For his
part, when Ralph Reed, head of the Christian Coalition, was asked to define
the goals of his organization, he said this: Our role
is much like that of the AFL-CIO in regard to union work. We want to
mobilize people. We want to get millions of people involved and get them
registered to vote. Rutherford, March 1994. Many,
including Mawyer, have been disturbed at the way Christian Coalition keeps
changing its positions, in an effort to please everyone. But all the while
it keeps moving closer to Rome. Jerome Himmelstein, author of To the
Right: The Transformation of American Conservatism, says the Christian
Right continually moves back and forth in this unstable fashion.
They've always tried to appeal to that broad range of people with a
broad conservative agenda. Its just a tactical question of which issues
to emphasize at any given moment. Secularists
and religion haters, in general, declare that the Religious Right are
vicious people who use stealth tactics of deception and subterfuge to win
elections. Holly
Gunner, head of the Lighthouse Institute for Public Policy, writing in Freedom
Writer (April 1994) quotes Ralph Reed as saying, It is just good
strategy. Its like guerrilla warfare . . Its better to move quietly,
with stealth, under cover of night . . It comes down to whether you want to
be the British Army in the Revolutionary War or the Viet Cong. Gunner
comments: At a Religious Right conference in Denver last year,
participants were instructed in tactics that include: Hide your affiliation
and true agenda; use the gay issue to raise funds for the cause; always
cover your tracks with local front men; appeal to peoples fears of
society and change; appeal to Americas worst [most fearful and angry]
impulses; remember that tension will provide the winning edge for
candidates. Her article
continues: If voter
turnout is low, and they [the Rightists] can work behind the scenes without
being visible for most voters, they can win by getting enough votes through
their own networks. Religious
Right candidates . . have often attempted to hide their religious or
educational views and organizational affiliations from public scrutiny.
In the words of Clay Mankameyer, at the South Weymouth, Massachusetts
Christian Coalition leadership school for potential Religious Right
candidates, You're not obligated to say all things to all people . .
You don't have to answer every question; and, if you do so, you're going
to get yourself in trouble. Church
and State magazine
declares: Reeds new and improved Christian Coalition is the same bunch
of theocrats with a new disguise. GOP party moderates fear that its
objective is to take over the Republican Party. And, of course, that is
exactly what the coalition is determined to do. It is significant that,
within recent months, coalition agents have succeeded in gaining control of
GOP state organizations in Virginia, Iowa, Kansas, Texas, and Washington
State. For his
part, Mawyer says that the Coalitions mainstreaming policy is based on
deceiving the American public as to their real intentions. Georgia
Senator Paul Coverdale benefited from this compromise method. He is a
pro-choicer who happened to also be against the Freedom of choice Act (FOCA),
as it is presently worded. So the coalition helped him to success at the
ballot box. Ann Stone, head of an organization, who determined to make the
Republican Party pro-choice, was delighted. She commented that the next step
will be for the coalition to support any pro-choice candidate--as long as
they are against federally-funded abortions. And the next step after
that? The
Christian Coalition should keep in mind that a survey, conducted by the
Family Research Council in December 1993, revealed that more than half of
the respondents who identified themselves as Bush voters--said they would
be less likely to vote Republican if the presidential candidate is for
abortion and homosexual rights. In September
1993, the Christian Coalition held a Road to Victory 93 conference
in Washington, D.C. At that session, former education secretary and
presidential hopeful William Bennett warned the group against losing its
identity: Its
fine for you to expand your focus, but don't forget who you are. You are
not the Lower Taxes Coalition, not the Free Trade and Full Employment
Coalition, not even the American Empowerment Coalition. You are the
Christian Coalition. It was clear
from the response at that meeting, that the majority of those in attendance
agreed more fully with Bennett than with Ralph Reeds mainstreaming ideas.
Indeed, which is more important: winning elections or standing for
principles? Charles
Colson recently said: Some even think of political defeat as spiritual
defeat. It is not. Spiritual defeat would come only if we were to abandon
our moral principles in order to seek political victory. Yet it was Chuck Colson who recently led out in linking Evangelical and Catholic leaders in a joint compact to work together in the future in a variety of ways to improve the position of the Religious Right and their objectives. The
following text is transcribed from a presentation by Max C. Karrer, M.D., at
the Christian Coalitions Road to Victory Conference in Washington, D.C.,
last September. Dr. Karrer is the north Florida coordinator for the
Christian Coalition of Florida and the chairman of the finance committee to
the board of trustees for Regent University. He also serves on the executive
board of the Republican Party of Duvall County, Florida. Titled, Using
Computers at the Grass Roots, the presentation attracted a
standing-room-only crowd. First you
select your churches. There are some churches where you would not
necessarily find what I call Christians in the church, your charismatic
churches. You don't select your liberal, mainline denominations. If
you select your churches right, you'll have a ninety percent match on
voters who will be with us. That's what we do. As an
example of how this works, we had a legislative race where we had a female
Jewish lawyer liberal feminist endorsed by now, who had knocked out,
three year ago, a pro-life Christian. We didn't know what we were
doing they poured NARAL money in and managed to beat him by 200 votes. And
it was all because we didn't know what we were doing. By this
time she was the darling of the Democrats in the Florida legislature. They
gave her all the choice committee assignments; they had bigger and better
plans for her, and so on. And we had a fellow who was running for his first
political office named Jim Fuller who jumped into the race. This
time we
had our Christian voter data base. We had our church liaison
committees. We had our voter guides going. And we could quietly we were
not allowed to give them away, so we charged him five dollars but we
printed labels, for him, of the Christian voters, which enabled him to put
out directed mailings to the Christian voter, that he would not necessarily
do to the general public. To make a
long story short, he beat her by 65% to 35% it was a landslide. And they
didn't know what hit them, because you want to talk about stealth
campaigns it was quietly done, and they didn't realize they were in
trouble until it was too late. This also convinced the state Republican
Party that they better deal with the Christian Coalition, at least in Duvall
County, because every candidate we got behind won [emphasis added],
in Duvall in the 92 elections. This was the method we used. We don't give our list to anybody. What we will do is print labels for
some people. That we will do I sold him the labels, I didn't give them to him. Its legal then, see. For five dollars! The thing
I want to say about building up a Christian data voter base is: Political
candidates, or politicians, only understand two things, and that's money
and votes. And if they think you control a lot of votes, you suddenly become
very powerful in their eyes. Politicians in our section think we have a bigger data voter base than we do. But we don't change that perception, we don't tell them. They come to us now. When someone wants to run for office, they come to Christian Coalition; they want to talk to us. It gives you and not just for elections lobbying power with the legislator, because they think you have this huge bloc of voters that you can swing though you cant necessarily. |