Mission Statement

[TheGeneral]

We are seriously concerned about, deeply grieved by and lament the fact that far too many of today's so-called "Christian leaders" are a sinful embarrassment and are responsible for the cause of Christ being mocked and ridiculed. By being, first, cheerleaders for the Republican Party, they have dishonored their Lord and sold their Christian birthright for a mess of partisan political pottage. These individuals and organizations are Christian in name only, "Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof." From such, it is added, we must turn away.

Link to full article:
http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=2

[Alan]

Dear American View,

I appreciate your mission statement. It is nice to see that you plainly state that you are Christian and are not ashamed of following God's command "to observe all things He has commanded." I want to encourage you all to continue on the straight and narrow road REGARDLESS of the results. It may not be popular with mankind to stand for and to do that which is right, but it is always popular with GOD. Please keep your eyes on the Lord and His Word and He will continue to guide and bless you.

Your friend,

Alan

P.S. Your final verse has a typo. There is no Jude 1:33. It is Jude 1:3 or simply Jude 3. :)

[Will]

We are seriously concerned about, deeply grieved by and lament the fact that far too many of today's so-called "Christian leaders" are a sinful embarrassment and are responsible for the cause of Christ being mocked and ridiculed.

Last year I was ridiculed by a Baptist minister for holding the Constitution and Bill of Rights in as high a regard as I hold the Bible. I am convinced that he reported me to my employer and because of the influence of the Baptist Church in the town, I was laid off from my position. After neaarly four years of George W. Bushes deceptions and outright dishonesty, there is no way I could support him. I could only support a man who has the conviction of his faith to stand up against the half hearted "Christians" who are in control of this country. Bush doesn't have the courage to do what a true Christian would do. He is afraid that he might be "crucified" and that makes him totally unfit to be president. They value their lives more than principal. They go to Washington and do the Judas thing. I hope their forty pieces of silver are a comfort to them when they try to explain to the Great Spirit of the universe why they didn't stand up for what they purport to believe in.

[Areopagus]

These leaders have compromised the right for the reward of might, hoping that Republicans might do something right. Christian conservative leaders, supposedly part of the Bride of Christ, are having an adulterous affair with their true love, the Republican Party. No member of that party is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent. And I have yet to hear of any Republican, with the exception of Roy Moore, ex-Chief Justice of Alabama, offering to suffer even figurative crucifixion in order to restore this lost Republic. (The public service of the representatives listed @ http://www.thelibertycommittee.org/ is commendable. The public service of those in the U.S. House not on that list is most probably lamentable. )


Decades of decadence, and cultural disenfranchisement allied with a secular federal judicial tyranny hostile to life, and religious freedom have played no small part in this illegitimate affair with the lesser evil party. Despite a quarter century of evangelical political activism Roe v Wade/Casey remains the “settled law of the land,” according to disciple of Christ, and Republican ex-Attorney General of the U.S., John Ashcroft.

The following comments by John Ashcroft are typical of politically correct speech that has become acceptable to most Christian conservatives who exercise their right to vote for the lesser evil: http://www.issues2000.org/Celeb/John_Ashcroft_Abortion.htm

“I believe Roe v. Wade as an original matter was wrongly decided. I am personally opposed to abortion. But I well understand that the role of attorney general is to enforce the law as it is, not as I would have it. I accept Roe and Casey as the settled law of the land….The Supreme Court’s decisions on this have been multiple, they have been recent and they have been emphatic.
….As a man of faith I take my word and my integrity seriously. So when I swear to uphold the law I will keep my oath, so help me God.”


It would have been just as easy for a Christian official in Nazi Germany to say: I believe The Final Solution as an original matter was wrongly decided. I am personally opposed to the Jewish Holocaust. But I well understand that my role is to enforce the law as it is, not as I would have it. (To those that doubt abortion is murder, see http://www.nrlc.org/Unborn_victims/Statheomicidelaws092302.html )

Article 6, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution John Ashcroft took an oath to support states,” This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof…shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby…." The majority opinion of a federal court isn’t listed here, or anywhere else in the Constitution, as being equivalent with, or superior to the written Constitution. Congress is the law making branch, not the federal courts! In paragraph 3 we find, "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution…."

John Ashcroft took no oath to the United States Supreme Court, much less the unconstitutional opinion found in Roe and progeny. Roe and Casey were not acts of congress and bore no signature of any president. SCOTUS isn’t the law making branch, for those interested in separation of powers, and the Constitution contains no mandate that the President, or his cabinet enforce unconstitutional edicts of SCOTUS.


Let the following facts be submitted to Christian conservatives who consistently vote for the party of lesser evil:


"The Virginia Declaration of Rights strongly influenced Thomas Jefferson in writing the first part of the Declaration of Independence. It later provided the foundation for the Bill of Rights." The Foundation for the National Archives

"I - That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety." Virginia Declaration of Rights

Thomas Jefferson, in the Declaration of Independence, acknowledged the source of Rights and expressed the fundamental purpose of government: "....all Men are created equal...endowed by their Creator with...unalienable Rights, that among these are Life....to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted...."

Preamble to the U.S. Constitution," We the People of the United States, in Order to....secure the Blessings of Liberty to...our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution...."

"No person shall be...deprived of life...without due process of law...."Amendment V

The National Lawyers Association takes the position that the practical effect of the legal connection or relationship between the Declaration and the Constitution is that the Constitution is to be interpreted in the light of the principles set forth in the Declaration.[...] " http://www.nla.org/library/winter96/pg9.html

The Bible confirms that human life begins in the womb. http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/abortion/whatexod.htm & http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-bibleandabortion.html & T http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-abortioninthebible.html The Bible demonstrates that God values life before birth and states that anyone who induces an abortion or miscarriage is to be punished. http://covenantnews.com/cspa990830.htm Jesus often quoted from Deuteronomy. In fact, it is almost invariably from this book that He quotes." http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=1402 Jesus, in Matthew 19:18 reiterated Deuteronomy 5:17 "You must not murder." http://www.bible.org/netbible/deu5.htm "Abortion is murder, plain and simple." http://www.jewsformorality.org/israel_abortion.htm "The source most often cited by the Founding Fathers in their political writings(1760-1805) was the Bible, which accounted for 34% of all citations. Deuteronomy was the most frequently cited book of the Bible. http://www.libertyfund.org/details.asp?displayID=1588

In Romans Chapter 13, verses 3, and 4 the terms ‘good,’ and ‘evil’ are used three times. Verse 9 describes "evil" by repeating the second half of the Decalogue found in Exodus 20:13-17, and Deuteronomy 5:17-21. The latter part of verse 9, and verse 10 describes "good." Is murder good, or evil? Genesis 9:6 "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man." If murder is evil, then mass murder(abortion) isn’t good. Proverbs 6:16-17 "These six things the Lord hates, Yes, seven are an abomination to Him...hands that shed innocent blood…." The "rulers" are "ordained" "ministers of God" to be a "terror to evil" by "executing wrath upon those that do evil."

America has Christian conservative leaders persuading their contributors to vote for Christian politicians who don’t understand the Bible, or Constitution and even lack common moral sense that some atheists have:
http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html

[TimV]

It would have been just as easy for a Christian official in Nazi Germany to say: I believe The Final Solution as an original matter was wrongly decided. I am personally opposed to the Jewish Holocaust. But I well understand that my role is to enforce the law as it is, not as I would have it.

Just a point of order, only ten percent of the people killed during WW2 were Jews, the vast majority were Christians. And besides, what law would a nazi official have had to sworn to uphold that would have lead to genocide? There aren't even any recorded acts of retaliation/punishment against ordinary German soldiers who refused to kill civilians. Not one case.

We're no longer at the place that we can look down on nazis as being morally inferior to us as a nation.

[Areopagus]

Just a point of order, only ten percent of the people killed during WW2 were Jews, the vast majority were Christians.
We're no longer at the place that we can look down on nazis as being morally inferior to us as a nation.


R.J. Rummel made the following comment in a speech given to the ABA National Security Conference on "The Rule of Law in United States Foreign Policy and the New World Order. Washington, D.C., October 10-11, 1991: http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/ABA.SPEECH.HTM

Today, we can extend the idea of peace through democracy to cover freedom from government genocide and mass murder. But to do so requires overcoming incredible mass ignorance even about the megamurders for which authoritarian and totalitarian governments have been responsible. Of course, everyone knows about the Nazi genocide. And most consider the near 6,000,000 Jews murdered as a monstrous crime against humanity by Hitler and his Nazi gang of racists. Few know that they also murdered in cold blood an additional near 14,000,000 Poles, Gypsies, Byelorussians, Ukrainians, Russians, Yugoslavs, Czechs, Frenchmen, and others. Few outside of the Soviet Union know about Stalin's horrors, that he killed people by the tens of millions (I calculate about 43,000,000). Even fewer realize that under the communists regime in China more tens of millions were killed (as shown in Table 1). And virtually no one except Armenians seems to remember the Armenian genocide; except Bengalis the Pakistan genocide and mass murder; except Indonesians, Chinese and Koreans the Japanese atrocities during the Sino-Japanese and Pacific Wars. Who knows anymore about mass murder by the Chinese Nationalist? It is understandable, then, that the global magnitude of murder by governments in this century is almost universally unknown, that it might exceed an absolutely incredible 150,944,000 men, women, and children killed, or more than four times all this century's battle deaths in all its domestic and international wars. Of course, it must then be unknown that virtually no democratic citizens are among this utterly fantastic number.

R.J. Rummel has defined and classified various exterminations by government @ http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/DBG.CHAP2.HTM :

Genocide : among other things, the killing of people by a government because of their indelible group membership (race, ethnicity, religion, language).

Politicide : the murder of any person or people by a government because of their politics or for political purposes.

Mass Murder : the indiscriminate killing of any person or people by a government.

Democide : The murder of any person or people by a government, including genocide, politicide, and mass murder.
Jefferson, in the Declaration of Independence, stated:
"....all Men are created equal...endowed by their Creator with...unalienable Rights, that among these are Life....to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted...."

The fundamental purpose of government is to protect innocent human life!

R.J. Rummel:
“Democide is meant to define the killing by government as the concept of murder does individual killing in domestic society. Here intentionality (premeditation) is critical. This also includes practical intentionality. If a government causes deaths through a reckless and depraved indifference to human life, the deaths were as though intended. If through neglect a mother lets her baby die of malnutrition, this is murder. If we imprison a girl in our home, force her to do exhausting work throughout the day, not even minimally feed and clothe her, and watch her gradually die a little each day without helping her, then her inevitable death is not only our fault, but our practical intention. It is murder. Similarly, for example, as the Soviet government forcibly transported political prisoners to labor camps hundreds of thousands of them died at the hands of criminals or guards, or from heat, cold, and inadequate food and water. Although not intended (indeed, this deprived the regime of their labor), the deaths were still public murder. It was democide.”

Rummel's conclusion: Power, Genocide, And Mass Murder http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/POWER.ART.HTM

The empirical and theoretical conclusion from these and other results is clear. The way to virtually eliminate genocide and mass murder appears to be through restricting and checking power. This means to foster democratic freedom.

The Federalist #48: "It will not be denied, that power is of an encroaching nature, and that it ought to be effectually restrained from passing the limits assigned to it."

In Federalist #51, James Madison stated, "But it is not possible to give to each department an equal power of self-defense. In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates."

Using the articles, sections, clauses and amendments of revenue of the Constitution- the predominating socialist legislature has become obsessed with redistributing wealth, while abdicating their responsibility to check and balance an unconstitutionally predominating judicial oligarchy that is obsessed with removing rights, even the right to life itself!

[exmarine]

I am in full agreement with the mission statement. I would like to add that I observe that many pastors and Christians have used a PRAGMATIC approach in their voting life. PRAGMATISM is a secular-humanist methodology not a Christian one. PRAGMATISM is an attempt to manipulate the future in order to get a desired result, or a result that "works." But, when we read scripture, we find examples of men who did the most righteous thing in spite of the seemingly impossible odds -- men like Gideon, David, and Jehoshaphat. These men trusted God not their own human PRAGMATIC reason. And it was God who delivered the victory.

In the last two elections, I believe many Christians voted for the "lesser of two evils" (choose your poison!) or for the candidate who "will do the least harm," or for the candidate who will deliver "some future result," (e.g. to prevent a Democrat from taking office, so that a pro-life judge will be appointed to the Supreme Court, to win California for he Republican Party in the next election, etc.). Voting on such a basis is an attempt to manipulate the future, which in essence is an attempt to play god, since God is the only one who can control the future. I believe such Christians have lost sight of their worshipful obligation to "do the most righteous thing" regardless of what they perceive as the future consequences. For example, how can any Christian vote for a ticket that supports gay civil unions which both Bush and Cheney came out in support of? How can such a candidate be considered to align with biblical moral principles (and that is the ultimate standard)?

I believe that other Christians have erected a wall of separation between their church life and political life. Francis Schaeffer nailed the problem when he observed:

"True spirituality covers all of reality. There are things that the bible tells us are sinful - which do not conform to the character of God. But aside from these, the Lordship of Christ covers all of life and all of life equally. In this sense, there is nothing concerning reality that is not spiritual. Related to this, it seems to me, is the fact that many Christians do not mean what I mean when I say Christianity is True, or Truth. They are Christians and they believe in , let's say, the truth of creation, the truth of the virgin birth, the truth of Christ's morcales, Christ's substitutionary death, and His coming again. But they stop there with these and other individual truths." [from "How Should We Then Live"]

I was virtually the ONLY person in my former church (and otherwise awesome church) who did not vote for Bush. I sent numerous e-mails to the pastor trying to show him that Bush was not the most righteous candidate. I also spoke to some of the members on a personal basis. What I encountered ranged from hostility to indifference to ignorance of the issues.

Founding father John Jay said we should prefer and elect Christians as our representatives, and we must look at their fruit in order to determine if they are true Christians. God gave Americans the privilege of choosing their leaders, and when a bad leader is elected, it is a direct reflection on the character of the American people.

[bluebird]

I absolutely AGREE with the ex-Marine, and I thank him for explaining Pragmatism from a christian viewpoint.

One of the things I struggled the most with last election while I converted to the Constitution Party, were Republicans telling me that it was better to vote for the lesser of two evils.

I could see that the vast majority of them were on the edge of voting what was truly in their hearts and sided with the framers view of the U.S. Constitution and its protection for innocent human life, secure borders and fair trade practices. YET, being saturated by the Media, including christian stations, pointing out that it was better to vote for the lesser of two evils swayed them to vote Republican. And now look at the mess we're in.

I did hear one priest on Catholic Radio, and forgive me I can't remember his name, but he said that he thought it was Catholic doctrine to vote for the MOST pro-life candidate, EVEN if it APPEARED the candidate might not win. He stated what I've always felt, God expects us to vote our hearts and conscience and be true to them. We must Leave the RESULTS to God.

Think how different things could be right now if Michael Peroutka were in charge of picking these Supreme Court nominees.

What a sad, sad wasted opportunity. But I am the eternal optimist and I believe that if conservatives repent and cast their votes in favor of their honest consciences, God will still act to change this country and correct its path.

[Areopagus]

I could see that the vast majority of them were on the edge of voting what was truly in their hearts and sided with the framers view of the U.S. Constitution and its protection for innocent human life, secure borders and fair trade practices. YET, being saturated by the Media, including christian stations, pointing out that it was better to vote for the lesser of two evils swayed them to vote Republican. And now look at the mess we're in.

I did hear one priest on Catholic Radio, and forgive me I can't remember his name, but he said that he thought it was Catholic doctrine to vote for the MOST pro-life candidate, EVEN if it APPEARED the candidate might not win. He stated what I've always felt, God expects us to vote our hearts and conscience and be true to them. We must Leave the RESULTS to God.



I recall reading this article prior to the last election:
Should Catholics Vote For 'Dubya'?
http://www.michnews.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/164/4413

I thought the comments made by Janet M. Thompson, of the Fides Foundation, were noteworthy, so I clicked on the link in the article and found one of the most outstanding arguments for voting against the greater, and lesser evils.

It appears that the link http://www.fidesfoundation.org/ is no longer functional, but the lengthy article remains in Google’s cache.
Some excerpts from The Voter and Catholic Morality:Voting and the "Abortion Touchstone"

http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:b7qSrCcWVwkJ:www.fidesfoundation.or g/voter.html+Janet+M+Thompson++%22Fides+Foundation%2 2&hl=en

Why are our governments filled with morally compromised politicians in the first place? The answer is truly straightforward: Because voters have been repeatedly led (often by organizations and individuals who profess orthodoxy or an "uncompromising" pro-life stance) away from voting for candidates who publicly vow to protect life from conception to natural death; since such candidates are not considered "viable".

Why, indeed, do we Christians act as if we are on the losing side of this battle for life, making compromises and concessions in our efforts to gain ground? Any saint could testify to the fact that following Christ without compromise brings about supreme victory; yet, almost without exception, the Christian community lives as if true fidelity will be the cause of our defeat. Let us recall the Holy Father's exhortation regarding obedience to God: "It is the strength and the courage of those prepared even to be imprisoned or put to the sword, in the certainty that this is what makes for 'the endurance and faith of the saints' (Rev 13:10)." (Evangelium Vitae, Section 73, paragraph 1)

In a nutshell, and when taken in this properly-formed context, the criteria of a proportionally grave reason to allow the evil is conclusively not met. Why is it not met? Quite simply, because the practice of electing compromised candidates over the decades in the interest of eliminating the evil of abortion has proven itself to be erroneous; an outright failure of protracted and hideous measure. By persistently espousing this approach, we, as Christians, have materially failed to meet abortion "special interest" with reciprocal civic and organizational opposition. Further, the ongoing promotion of compromised candidates has absolutely wreaked a havoc of confusion amongst the voting populace. Abortion advocates tolerate no compromise in the politicians they support. Why should Christians, who have a far greater cause (and who have recourse to the very Author of Life Himself), tolerate compromise amongst supposedly "pro-life" candidates?
the presently popular notion of "choosing the lesser evil" is simply invalid – one may NEVER licitly choose evil. As Pope Paul VI stated, "although it is true that it is at times lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater or in order to promote a greater good, it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it…" (Paul VI, Encyclical Letter Humanae vitae [25 July 1968], n. 14)

I asked a few devout Catholics, who have been activists in the pro-life movement for years, to read and carefully consider the argument.

They were almost persuaded to vote Constitution Party. The persistent power of their favorite political pundits, and religious leaders was too great. Their fear of Democrats far outweighed their faith in God. Protestants were no different.

[endangered]

As for these so-called "Christian leaders", I am wondering if anyone here has done any research into the Council for National Policy? What little I have been able to dig up on the Internet is very disturbing to me.

One article says that Mr. Peroutka gave a speech to one of their meetings last year.

What exactly is the CNP all about? Why all the strict confidentiality?

John 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

[Will]

I am wondering if anyone here has done any research into the Council for National Policy? What little I have been able to dig up on the Internet is very disturbing to me.

Endangered:

I just Googled "Council National Policy" and a website came up for them. I just scanned it for a few minutes, but it seems to explain that they are some kind of cult that believes that space aliens are in our midst. Google it and you can take the time to read about them if you want. If you have the strength of conviction in your faith, nothing should be "very disturbing" to you.

I think the internet is inspired by the Great Spirit of the universe. Isn't i it wonderful how you can find out just about anything you want to know on the internet. I know that "Evangelical Christians" believe that everything you would ever want to know is in the Bible. I disagree! The Bible may be an inspired work of the Great Spirit but there are a lot of other writings that you might like to know. The Bible is silent about such modern miracles as airplanes, television, electric generators etc, ad infinitum.

[endangered]

There are a lot of hits that come up in a search. I have read some of them. I don’t know how much is true except they don’t seem to want anybody to know what they do. At least CFR has a web site and they publish what they are about. All these so-called Christian leaders may be just misinformation agents planted to deceive. That is disturbing if that is what’s happening.

Everything you need to know is certainly not in the Bible, but it all starts there and it must continue on from there with out contradicting anything that is in it.

“Airplanes, television, electric generators etc” do not fit the definition of ‘miracle’. They do not compare to miracles of the Bible. They are merely extensions of mechanical devises that have been known to man from the beginning. Marvels, perhaps, but not miracles.

And the Bible may not be as silent as you think about modern stuff. Joel 2:30-31 could be referring to nuclear war. Or Job 38:35 could be referring to radio and television.

[Will]

“Airplanes, television, electric generators etc” do not fit the definition of ‘miracle’. They do not compare to miracles of the Bible. They are merely extensions of mechanical devises that have been known to man from the beginning. Marvels, perhaps, but not miracles.

If you define "miracle" as something that does not obey the natural law then I don't believe in them. "Magic" more fits your definition and I don't believe in magic. Those who claim to be using magic or performing your definition of miracles are tricksters. Everything that happens is in accordance with God's natural law. If you define "miracle" as something that re-enforces your faith in God then they are "miracles."

[Vine&FigTree]

Nearly every edition of the radio show has so far begun with a succint statement of "the American View."

Where is that statement on this website? I'd like to link to it from my own website.

Thanks! :)

[JLofton]

Here's "TAV" which is not on our site -- an oversight.


1. There is an Almighty, Everlasting, Omniscient, God — the God of the Bible — Who is active in the affairs of men.

2. Our rights, including our right to life, liberty and property come from Him.

3. It is the duty of civil government to secure, protect and defend these God given rights, to acknowledge our Creator, glorify Him and make Him known; and when civil government becomes destructive of these God given purposes, it is our duty to alter or abolish such Godless government.