← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · friedrich braun

Bush’s Global War on Christians

Thread ID: 15498 | Posts: 5 | Started: 2004-10-30

Wayback Archive

friedrich braun [OP]

2004-10-30 23:00 | User Profile

Bush’s Global War on Christians by Glen Chancy

[url]http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/chancy5.html[/url]

As we approach the 2004 Presidential elections, many Christian conservatives are lamenting various aspects of the current president’s policies. The list of gripes is long and familiar to anyone active in conservative politics: out of control spending, the PATRIOT Act, No Child Left Behind, lax border security, and on it goes. In fact, a meeting of die-hard Republicans, held behind closed doors, is likely to devolve into a Bush-basing session the like of which Democrats could only dream. Give that there are alternatives to voting for either George Bush or John Kerry, one would expect that disgusted religious conservatives would look elsewhere for a candidate to support. After all, there is even an explicitly Christian party for which to cast a ballot.

Yet, despite their manifest anger towards him, most Christian conservatives will turn out in force to support President Bush on November 2nd. They will do so for a mixture of reasons, but above all what keeps so many Christian conservatives on the Republican reservation is the ‘War on Terror.’ There is a belief, widespread among Christian conservatives, that the ‘War on Terror’ is really a ‘Clash of Civilizations.’ Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, although himself a conservative Jew, summed up the views of many Christian conservatives quite succintly in one of his articles posted on the Internet. He wrote, "It is time that I said in print what I have long felt in my heart: I not only support President Bush, I revere him. At a time when so many other world leaders want to paint Sept. 11 as a terror attack, President Bush saw it for what it was: a clash of civilizations, a war to the death between two systems – one open, democratic and respectful of human life, the other oppressive, tyrannical and deeply contemptible of human life."

The ‘War on Terror’ then is not just about keeping the borders of the United States secure. It is not simply about preventing future terrorist attacks. Rather, the ‘War on Terror’ is the ultimate showdown of Christianity (and Judaism) versus Islam. It is a fight to the finish, and George W. Bush is our Richard the Lionhearted, leading the armies of the Cross, allied with those of the Star of David, to glorious victory.

In this apocalyptic setting, the vast majority of Christian conservatives are backing President George Bush because they sincerely believe that, "Something must be done about the Muslim threat!" To these religious conservatives, George Bush is willing to go on the offensive and strike back in the name of God and country. They fear that John Kerry will surrender to the Muslims, and allow Western Civilization to be overrun a la Constantinople in 1453.

"Forget all of Bush’s flaws," Christian conservatives bellow, "At least he’s willing to fight!"

So, is our glorious president leading the Christian World in a great struggle against the Muslim hordes? If he were, then a reasonable outcome of this ‘Clash’ would be that the position of Christian (and Jewish) populations worldwide would be in the process of becoming more secure.

This is, alas, absolutely not happening. In fact, the current policies of the Bush administration are threatening to absolutely devastate ancient and pious Christian communities whose blood will be on all our heads. To deal with the subject honestly, it must be acknowledged that it almost appears as if President George Walker Bush were waging a global war against Christians.

There are a tremendous number of facts that could be marshaled to support such a counterintuitive statement, and at least some will be surveyed in this article. However, the primary thrust of this article will be to analyze the policies of the Bush Administration that have placed us on the road to destroying one of the oldest Christian communities in the entire world – the Assyrians of Iraq.

Iraq – Before the Liberation

To understand the situation in Iraq today, in proper context, let’s first review some basic facts about Iraq as it was under Saddam Hussein’s regime.

Saddam Hussein was a bad Muslim, and everybody knew it. A secular dictator, he ruthlessly suppressed radical religious sentiment, and tried to build a modern state. Saddam was bitterly hated and reviled by Muslim radicals as diverse as Osama Bin Laden and the Shi’ite Ayatollahs of Iran. In a tape released by Osama bin Laden in February 2003, Saddam Hussein is referred to as an 'ignorant infidel.’ The Iranian clerics hated Saddam so much that they repeatedly spurned peace initiatives to end the Iran-Iraq War, in the hopes continued fighting could topple his government. They intended to replace it with a Shi’ite dominated state modeled after their own. Eventually, they got smart enough to hire Ahmed Chalabi to convince the U.S. to topple Saddam for them.

Saddam had inherited the Ba’ath Party ideology of secular pan-Arab socialism, and hewed to many of its tenets throughout his brutal rule. Iraqi women enjoyed more rights than women in the surrounding Arab countries. Women could hold jobs and attend higher education, all with uncovered faces. In fact, women comprised 20% of the professional workforce.

Under Saddam, alcohol merchants plied their wares freely in their shops. The lack of enforcement of the Sharia made Iraq the party spot of the region. David Younan Oro, a 70-year-old patriarch of a Christian family in Ramadi, ran casinos and nightclubs during the heyday of Saddam’s regime. He described the glory days like this, "They drink like donkeys here. Business was good. I had a lot of restaurants and shops." If you stayed out of politics, life and business were good.

Among the primary tenets of Ba’athist ideology was a dedication to religious tolerance. This is not surprising, since the intellectual father of Ba’athism was Michel Aflaq, himself an Orthodox Christian. In keeping with Ba’athist ideology, Saddam did not interfere with the rights of the Assyrian Christians in Iraq to practice their faith. Comprising somewhere between one and two million Iraqis, the Aramaic-speaking Assyrians are the original inhabitants of the modern-day state of Iraq.

The Assyrians did suffer repression under Saddam Hussein, who suppressed their ethnic and linguistic distinctiveness while trying to meld the hodgepodge of peoples in Iraq into a unified state. At no time, however, were the Assyrians ever denied the free practice of their religion, nor did they fear for their lives simply because of their faith.

One measure of the relative religious freedom of the Assyrians under Saddam was the exuberant and public celebration of Christmas. As one writer described it, "Christmas decorations, including nativity scenes, were seen in shops, restaurants and hotels. And Saddam reportedly sometimes attended services at Christian churches in Baghdad and even delivered an annual Christmas address."

As for the United States, Saddam seems to have pined for better relations. He had been a de-facto ally of the U.S. during his war against Iran, and appears to have wanted to recapture that status. According to the Duelfer Report, compiled by the Iraq Survey Group (ISG), beginning already in 1991, "very senior Iraqis close to the president made proposals through intermediaries for dialogue with Washington," even offering to be Washington's "best friend in the region bar none."

Apparently, Saddam never did understand why he couldn’t just work a deal with the U.S. In his beffuddlement, Saddam is not alone. Many other observers of the region still can’t grasp why this secular dictator made it to the top of the U.S. hitlist in a war supposedly directed at Muslim extermists.

Iraq – After the Liberation

To say the least, since being liberated from Saddam, things have gone badly for a great many Iraqis. However, the time has been especially harsh for the Assyrian Christians. Large areas of Iraq are now under the control of Muslim religious leaders whose militias have been enforcing Muslim law. Based on locally issued fatwas, these armed fanatics have killed Christians for engaging in prohibited businesses such as selling alcohol or other formerly legal products. Many Christian business men have seen their shops, restaurants, and other business either forcibly closed or confiscated.

David Younan Oro’s casino, the flagship of his family business, was taken over by armed men who converted it to a Mosque. "We had a very good situation until the fundamentalists began to appear and we were affected," said Roger William, Oro’s son-in-law. "Because America and Britain are Christian countries, they blame us for the war. We are terrified. We really don't know what the future will hold."

Even Christian homes and private land are being appropriated. The Kurds, America’s erstwhile allies, are among the worst offenders. Writing about the situation in Dara, his home village, an Assyrian Christian living in London reported that, "The Kurdish people are building homes on our village’s land, without our permission. It is sad to say, our own neighbors are stealing it from us."

Christians have reported rapes, kidnappings, and assaults. The situation is so bad, that Christian children have been gunned down in their own homes. This little girl, Raphid was gunned down in her home along with her sister in July. She was only six years old. Her sister, Raad, was only sixteen. They belonged to a well-known Assyrian Christian family that had been threatened. While the family was out, terrorists entered and shot the two children at point blank range.

These two little girls died simply because they were Christians in a country increasingly slipping into Muslim rule.

Armed groups of men have stopped cars on the street and harangued women whose heads are uncovered, accusing them of violating Islamic law. Even Christians have started wearing headscarves out of fear, something that never happened under Saddam Hussein’s regime.

As Christians have retreated into the shadows, the compromise Transitional Administrative Law in force in Iraq today has actually gone far towards officially establishing Islamic rule in what was once a secular country. Article 7 states, in part, that "Islam is the official religion of the State and is to be considered a source of legislation. No law that contradicts the universally agreed tenets of Islam, the principles of democracy, or the rights cited in Chapter Two of this Law may be enacted during the transitional period." It further complicates the problem for Christians in Iraq that they are under represented in the interim government when compared with their percentage of the population. It is almost as if the U.S. intentionally excluded them in the lead up to the ‘handover’ of power.

Nor do the promised elections in January appear likely to improve the situation. According to a recent poll released by the International Republican Institute (an organization allied with the U.S. Republican Party), the highest level of support among Iraqis for any politician belongs to Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, leader of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq. The name of his organization probably speaks for itself.

It is bitterly ironic that far from bringing Western secularism, the U.S.-invasion has instead opened the door for an Islamic Republic. Out of fear, an estimated 40,000 to 45,000 Assyrians have already fled Iraq. Most have found shelter in Syria next door, a nation that the U.S. may be targeting next in its drive to spread ‘freedom’ in the Middle East. Had President George W. Bush set out with the intentional goal of destroying the Christian population in Iraq, it is hard to see how he could have been more effective than he has been to date.

More Fronts in the War

President Bush has continued the NATO occupation of Kosovo. Since the end of the war against Serbia, Kosovo has been the scene of anti-Christian ethnic cleansing on a massive scale. More than 120 churches have been destroyed, some dating to the 14th century. 240,000 Christian Serbs have fled the province. Periodic anti-Christian pogroms such as the one that erupted from March 17th – March 18th kill dozens, wound hundreds, and cause more Serbian Christians to flee for their lives. While the U.N. administers the province, NATO troops, some 60,000, are the actual force on the ground. This means that, ultimately, the Bush Administration bears the responsibility for failing to protect the Christians in Kosovo from Muslim fanatics.

Elsewhere in the Balkans, the Bush Administration has continued the status quo in Bosnia, which allows Muslim terrorists to use it as a safe-haven for recruiting and training. According to European intelligence sources, Bosnia has become a "one-stop shop" for Islamic militants heading from terrorist battlegrounds in Chechnya and Afghanistan to Iraq. In addition, the U.S. under Bush has continued to try and dismember the nation of Macedonia by forcing it to make ever larger concessions to its Muslim Albanian minority.

The Bush Administration has made Turkish entry into the European Union a number one priority on its international agenda. Despite Turkey’s horrendous record of mass murder and abuse of its Christian minorities, President Bush has been intervening personally to try and convince skeptical Europeans that, "Including Turkey in the EU would prove that Europe is not the exclusive club of a single religion, and it would expose the 'clash of civilizations' as a passing myth of history." President Bush’s single-minded determination to see Turkey in the EU even drove him to try and force a bad settlement of the Cyprus queston on unwilling Greek Cypriots, who ultimately rejected it.

Ironically, even as his Christian supporters in the U.S. bemoan the increasing Islamization of Europe, President Bush is doing everything he can to make sure that 70 million more Turkish Muslims will have the opportunity to settle there. While the possibility that this massive migration could destroy the very heart of Christendom seems to be lost on President Bush, certain European leaders have become quite alarmed. Addressing the issue of Turkey joining the EU, former French President Valery Giscard d'Estaing said, "In my opinion, it would be the end of Europe."

Both d’Estaing and Jacques Chirac, current president of France and a favorite target of American Christian conservatives, have positively emerged as defenders of the faith as they fight against Turkish accession to the EU. If only President Bush had as much dedication to Europe’s Christian heritage as the heroic French.

In Chechnya, a region much in the news since the Beslan massacres, the U.S. has inserted itself on the side of the Muslims opposed to Russian rule. Foremost among the American agitators against Russia is The American Committee for Peace in Chechnya, a front group of Bush-connected neoconservatives such as Richard Perle, James Woolsey, Michael Ledeen and Kenneth Adelman. The ACPC wants Putin to negotiate with the Chechens rebels, and favors a NATO presence in Chechnya along the lines of the NATO missions in Bosnia and Kosovo. President Putin seems to be relatively uninterested in listening to their ideas. If only the American president were half as wise.

Conclusion

Whatever President Bush and his coterie are doing globally, one thing is abundantly clear. They are not fighting a global war on any kind of Islam, radical or otherwise. On the other hand, they are making tremendous progress towards crippling or completely destroying large segments of the world’s Christian population. And in this slaughter, the American people have become his accomplices.

Despite all of the negative impacts of his foreign policy on Christians globally, the Christian conservatives in America have been deafeningly silent. Two reasons account for this. First is their overwhelming pre-occupation with Israel. The State of Israel and its security were mentioned by both presidential candidates in their debates. The need to protect Israel is the subject of daily articles in conservative publications, both online and dead tree. Pat Robertson even threatened to form a third party, if the Republicans ever waiver in their full-throated support of the State of Israel. Such concern for the plight of Christians abroad is non-existent.

Perhaps if the Assyrians and others renounced Christ and embraced the Talmud, American Christians would care what happens to them?

The second reason is the fear that criticizing Bush will hurt his chances of re-election. For this reason, many Christians have kept their silence, all the while knowing the truth of what is happening. This is not a Christian attitude. Christ stood for the truth at all times, not only when it was expedient. Standing silent in the face of suffering, simply to prevent inconvenience to a favored politician, is not following the way of Christ.

It is time for Christian conservatives to end the silence. We must speak out, and we must let the President, whether it be Bush or Kerry, know that a continuation of these disastrous policies will absolutely not be tolerated.

October 30, 2004

Glen Chancy [send him mail] is a graduate of the University of Florida with a degree in Political Science, and a certificate in Eastern European Studies. A former University lecturer in Poland, he currently holds an MBA in Finance and works in Orlando, Florida as a business analyst for an international software developer.

Copyright © 2004 LewRockwell.com

Faust

2004-10-30 23:38 | User Profile

friedrich braun,

All too true.

LlenLleawc

2004-11-01 00:48 | User Profile

Excellent article - Bush is not confronting Islam, he is importing cosumerism and materialism into these societies so that radical elements will be watered down and our former enemies can be intergrated into western society and be one happy global village. :yucky:

Basically we will keep Muslims weak and divided long enough to build so many wal-marts, macdonalds and cell-phone towers that we effectively inject the same kind of collective attention deficeit disorder into their society that keeps Americans so docile in ours. If Christian traditions get in the way, they will be eliminated one way or another.

Once modern values water down the self-sufficiency of these traditional societies, Bush is obviously more than happy to let Islam continue to spread in a more tame form.

Quantrill

2004-11-01 01:22 | User Profile

Excellent article. I scandalized a liberal (but Christian) friend of mine a few weeks back when I told him that the US never intervenes on behalf of Christians, ever. He wanted to disagree, but he had to concede the point. Currently, there is no force on earth more anti-Christian than the US government.

Blond Knight

2004-11-01 02:09 | User Profile

FB - Thanks for posting this article.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Vision Forum Ministries / [url]www.visionforumministries.org[/url]

The Conservative Christian Concern Must Always Be To Act Christianly In Every Area Of Life Including Politics A Reply To Dr. Ken Gentry

By John Lofton Posted: October 26, 2004
...

n a recent article titled “A Conservative Christian Concern,” Dr. Kenneth L. Gentry, arguing against third parties, says, at the beginning: “Knowledgeable, conservative Christians are suffering a severe worldview crisis. In fact, we have it every four years in America. It is called the Presidential Election. And by some quirk of the calendar it always occurs not long after Halloween!”

Well, this may be true. I say this may be true because I do not know exactly who Dr. Gentry is talking about. I think I know even though he names no names. But, certainly what he says is true when it comes to himself. He is a “knowledgeable, conservative Christian” whose worldview, in this political context, is definitely suffering “a severe...crisis.”

In my rebuttal here, I will quote from Dr. Gentry’s article and follow what he says with my comments which are labeled “Comment.” I have tried hard not to take him out-of-context in the sense of altering his meaning though I have, obviously, not quoted everything he wrote.

Dr. Gentry says: “This year’s election is particularly significant because we are at war.” He notes, evidently approvingly, that we are at war, in among other places, “Saddam’s Iraq.”

Comment: But, can a Bible-believing Christian who also believes in our Constitution approve of our war against Iraq? I think not. This war is un-Biblical because it is not truly a war of self-defense. It also seeks to spread “democracy,” which is un-Biblical. It is un-Biblical in that it allies us with unbelieving, non-Christian nations. And it is un-Constitutional because President Bush did not seek a declaration of war, nor did Congress give him one, as the Constitution requires.

Dr. Gentry: “As a free and (relatively) Christian nation we must soon choose a President, the most powerful office in the world. What are our options? How shall we select a sinful man for such a high office?”

Comment: I’m not sure what “relatively Christian” means but I am sure this is not a Biblical concept. Our Lord says one is either for or against Him. “Relatively Christian” sounds like being a little bit pregnant — an oxymoron. In any event, the question before the house is not so much are we a Christian nation but rather: Who should Christians vote for in this year’s Presidential election?

Dr. Gentry: “I have had a number of Christian friends mention that they are considering voting for a third party candidate because of a strongly, Christian-valued presidential platform. They understand that no man is worthy of the office, but that they must vote on someone, since they are Christian citizens who want to make their impact felt on our culture.”

Comment: Excellent! Since Christians can vote only for Christians to rule, and since a ruler is “the minister of God” (Romans 13:4), these friends are leaning in the right, which is to say Biblical, direction. And I would add that Christians must vote for only Christian rulers even if our culture is not impacted.

Dr. Gentry: “Is such a move wise in this year’s election? Though I have read several remarkable platforms from a variety of Christian candidates, I believe that voting for a third party Christian candidate this year would actually be destructive of our longed-for Christian influence on America. I will explain why I believe such. For space considerations I will have to do so succinctly, but I hope tellingly.”

Comment: What Dr. Gentry goes on to say is, indeed, “telling.” But, alas, what is “telling” is what his arguments reveal about him in the political realm — that he has no real Christian/Biblical worldview.

Dr. Gentry: “This is not an ordinary election with two run-of-the-mill, left-of-center candidates. Regardless of what we think of President George W. Bush (who is nowhere near a perfect candidate), he is running against an extremely liberal Massachusetts Senator. Let me cite a few facts before I state my conviction based on these facts. First, Kerry’s voting record as Senator is horrible.”

Comment: But, the first question regarding who Christians should vote for for President is not who is or is not “left-of-center.” This begins the debate at the horizontal, political, bread-alone level. For Christians, the first question must be: Is there a Christian candidate in the Presidential race who understands how to apply the Biblical faith in the political realm? If the answer is yes — and the answer this year is yes; his name is Michael Anthony Peroutka of the Constitution Party — then the Christian must vote for him!

Incidentally, one of the things Dr. Gentry says is “horrible” about John Kerry is that he is “a United Nations politician, who would out-source our defense to the UN and other parties who have little interest in us.” Though no fan of Kerry’s, I think this assertion is over-blown. I do not think Kerry would do this. And if he tried to do it, Republicans in Congress would block any such attempt.

Remember: On a purely pragmatic, political level, Republicans are always more conservative when they are out of power. Thus, if you want the most conservative President possible, keep Republicans out of the White House.

As for Dr. Gentry’s fear of a President who would be “a United Nations politician,” George Bush has given the UN more credibility than any President in modern times. One of his often-repeated reasons for going to war against Iraq was that Saddam Hussein repeatedly ignored UN resolutions.

Dr. Gentry: “Kerry has a twenty-two year political career wholly lacking any achievements or distinction. He has sponsored no noteworthy legislation and has generated no commendable ideas.”

Comment: This criticism makes no sense whatsoever. If, as Dr. Gentry says, Kerry is left-of-center and has a “horrible” record, then the less he did while in Congress the better from a Christian/conservative perspective! Had he sponsored “noteworthy legislation” and/or had “commendable ideas,” virtually all of these things would have been, without a doubt, anti-Christian and un-Constitutional!

Dr. Gentry: “If elected, [Kerry] will be appointing judges throughout the nation, and almost certainly will appoint at least one U. S. Supreme Court Justice.”

Comment: Once again, on a purely pragmatic, political level, Republicans are at their best when a Democrat is in the White House. Thus, Senate Republicans, when a Democrat is President, will, most likely, block bad judges put forth by a President Kerry. In fact, in recent history, some of the worst Supreme Court Justices were put forth by a Republican, supposedly conservative President and confirmed by a Republican Senate.

Dr. Gentry: “Now why would I urge Christians NOT to vote for a third party Christian candidate with a commendable platform? First, a third-party vote is unrealistic.”

Comment: But, what is meant here by the word “unrealistic?” How is “reality” being defined here? Is it not, for Christians, always “realistic” to vote for the Presidential candidate who is a Christian and knows how to apply the faith to his job? Is it not always “realistic” to vote for such a person rather than one of two candidates who claim to be Christian but have demonstrated that they have no idea whatsoever what their faith demands of them in their job of President? Of course it’s “realistic” to do the former rather than the latter.

Dr. Gentry: “Excellent third party candidates fare miserably and embarrassingly in presidential elections. They have absolutely no chance of winning. None. Nada. Zip. They project the appearance of an ineffectual, back-water Christianity with little or no clout.”

Comment: This argument, implicit in which is the worldly view that winning-is-everything, is the most corrupt argument of all. In Christian terms, it is utterly faithless. So, a truly Christian candidate such as Michael Anthony Peroutka runs for President and he “fares miserably” and “embarrassingly.” So what?! If Peroutka, in his campaign, honors and acknowledges God, as he has done repeatedly, and he loses the vote count badly, does God view him as having “fared miserably?” Has Michael “embarrassed” God? Not at all.

As for losing and projecting “the appearance of an ineffectual, back-water Christianity with little or no clout,” does this really matter when most of those who would construe a lost election this way would be unbelievers? I think not. Are we as Christians called to be man-pleasers? No way. And our Lord Himself commands us not to judge according to “appearance” but rather to “judge righteous judgment” (John 7:24).

Who cares how we as Christians “appear” to the world? The world hates us because the world hates Christ. Scripture and Christian history are full of prophets/martyrs who faithfully preached God’s Word yet, in worldly terms, were “miserable” failures and projected, to the world, “the appearance of an ineffectual, back-water Christianity with little or no clout.” But these Godly men had clout because they were, by God’s grace, faithful to God and preached His Word, a Word which never returns to God void (Isaiah 55:11).

As for Michael Anthony Peroutka having “absolutely no chance of winning,” sez who? “Absolutely” no “chance?” Well, yes, sort of — because there is no such thing as “chance.” God is sovereign. If He wants Michael to win, Michael will win!

Dr. Gentry: “A third-party vote is risky. We learned from the 2000 election that a disparity of a few votes can make a catastrophic difference. You must understand: YOUR vote counts - - for good or ill.”

Comment: Well, yes. Getting out of bed in the morning is “risky.” Staying in bed is “risky.” Just living and doing whatever ones does is “risky.” What’s the point here? As the old saying goes: Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

What, exactly, is the “risk” of voting for Michael Anthony Peroutka? God knows. Nobody else knows for sure. But, calculating the “risk,” trying to predict, with certainty, the consequences of being faithful to God and His Word is not the job of a Christian. St. Paul tells us in I Corinthians 3:5ff that we as Christians can only plant and water. If there is to be an increase, this is from God! In his campaign, Michael Anthony Peroutka has planted and watered. The consequences of his faithfulness will be determined by God. St. Paul adds: “Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour. For we are labourers together with God: ye are God’s husbandry, ye are God’s building.” Amen!

Dr. Gentry: “A third-party vote is inherently non-Constitutional. The very existence of the Electoral College undercuts the notion of a three party system. A candidate MUST actually come in first in enough states to win the election. Suppose a third-party candidate does well by coming in second in every state in the union, while the other two candidates place either first or third in all the states. The third-party candidate, despite a high vote count and remarkable showing will not receive the electoral votes....Our American system favors a two party system, unlike the British parliamentary system. The British system creates instability in government, with governments being voted in and out on an irregular basis.”

Comment: While technically a “third party,” the Constitution Party is, in reality, a true second party. The two so-called major parties are, in reality, in principle, one party. They provide no real choice for a true Christian — none.

Dr. Gentry: “A third-party vote contradicts biblical methodology. In Scripture we find the principle of gradualism embodied in the actions of God in history. God normally works on the principle of “here a little; there a little” gradualism (Isa. 28:10). Even the creation of the universe proceeds upon a gradualistic principle — an accelerated gradualism, to be sure, but gradual nonetheless. God creates the world over a period of six days (Gen. 1; Exo. 20:11). God promised redemption just after the entry of sin into the human race in Eden (Gen. 3:15). Yet its accomplishment follows thousands of years after Adam with the coming of Christ (Gal. 4:4; Eph. 1:10). Rather than giving His total special revelation of Himself and His will at once, He gradually unfolds His Word to men over a period of 1,500 years (Heb. 1:1, 2; 1 Pet. 1:10-12). Even in salvation, justification, a once-for-all act (Rom. 4:2-3; 5:1), gives rise to sanctification, which comes by process (Phil. 2:12-13; 1 Pet. 2:2).”

Comment: Well, yes and no. Sometimes God moves gradually and sometimes He does not. Deuteronomy 7:4 says of those who served other gods that the anger of the LORD was kindled against them and they were destroyed “suddenly.” Psalm 64:7 tells of those shot at by God with an arrow and how they were wounded “suddenly.” Proverbs 6:12ff tells of a bad person who would suffer a calamity that would come “suddenly” and that bad person would be “suddenly...broken without remedy.” Ditto, Proverbs 29:1. Jeremiah 51:8 tells how Babylon “is suddenly fallen and destroyed.” The light from heaven shined on Saul “suddenly” on his way to Damascus (Acts 9:3). And I Thessalonians 5:3 speaks of those who say peace and safety, “then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.”

God’s ways are not our ways! We must never attempt to put Him in a box and confine Him to one methodology.

Dr. Gentry: “But third party candidates often try to leap to the top of the heap in one swoop. Rather than operating on the local level and working their way up in the political system, they attempt to win the grand prize: the presidency.”

Comment: True. This does, sometimes, happen. But this is no argument against third parties. This is an argument only against third party people who try this.

Dr. Gentry: “I believe this election will decide whether or not the homosexual revolution will win. Kerry is supportive of homosexual marriage and various other “rights,” whereas Bush is opposed to them (though not perfectly so). If Kerry is elected we might as well brace for homosexual marriages (as well as polygamy, which can argue its case on the same basis).”

Comment: Again, God is sovereign, not elections. We are commanded to walk by faith, not by sight, not according to what politics appears to be determining.

Dr. Gentry: “Actually, logic would inform us that it should be easier to win a party than it is to win the nation. We should be working gradually, over time in the more conservative of the two major parties.”

Comment: Been there, done that. For 40 years, since Barry Goldwater in 1964, I’ve heard this “Trojan horse” argument. It has, for the most part, been mindlessly followed by conservatives, most of whom claim to be some kind of Christian. The result after four decades: Three Republican Presidents (Bush 1, Reagan, Bush 2) have given us the largest, most intrusive, most fiscally irresponsible, debt-ridden, un-Constitutional, un-Godly national civil government in history!

Dr. Gentry: “Friends have approached me saying: “But this or that party provides a dream platform.” My response: “But we have to wake up on November 3 and recognize the dream is over. Why live in a dream world? We need to live in the real world. And hopefully a real world without the most liberal Senator in the nation overseeing our government as our newly elected President.”

Comment: One more time, please. God is sovereign, not whoever is elected President. And I’m not advocating a “dream platform” or living in a “dream world.” I’m saying it is God’s world. He rules. There’s a truly Christian candidate for President — Michael Anthony Peroutka — and Christians must vote for him.

Dr. Gentry: “Others have complained: “Why vote for the lesser of two evils?” My response: “Because it is better than taking action that supports the GREATER of two evils. Why would I want to do that? At least we can buy some time by slowing down liberal erosion while we attempt to work within the system that we actually have.”

Comment: A straw man. Here we see the fallacy of the false alternative. There are not just “two evils” running for President. There is a greater good — Michael Anthony Peroutka! As for voting for Republicans to “slow down liberal erosion,” wake up, please. As I say, Three Republican Presidents (Bush 1, Reagan, Bush 2) have given us the most liberal, largest, most intrusive, most fiscally irresponsible, debt-ridden, un-Constitutional, un-Godly national civil government in history!

Dr. Gentry: “Some have challenged me: “Why prefer slow poison over fast poison?” My response: “So I can buy some time to work on a cure. Which kind of poison would you choose, if you were twenty minutes from a hospital?”

Comment: Again, a phony choice. The choice for President this year is not limited to fast poison versus slow poison. This false assertion is itself poison. Michael Anthony Peroutka is the antidote to the two poisons in that he wants to restore Godly, Constitutional government!

Dr. Gentry: Others have asked: “Why do we keep voting the same way (for centrist Republican candidates) but expect different results (Christian-principled leaders)?” My response: “Why do some keep voting third party and watching their candidate be demolished (receiving less than 1% of the vote), while allowing their votes effectively to be siphoned off to the more liberal candidate? This year we are facing a particularly bad Democratic candidate. Beating our head against the wall in small numbers is not a good game plan. In fact, it does not even cause a loud sound, no matter how hollow our heads.”

Comment: For Christians, voting for what’s righteous, what’s Godly, what’s Biblical, is never beating your head against a wall — never! Oh, ye of little faith! Our Lord commands us to seek, first, the Kingdom of God and His Righteousness. We must do this in politics and every area of life. And in this year’s Presidential election this means voting for Michael Anthony Peroutka. God bless you all. And He does when we obey Him.

John Lofton is Communications Director for Constitution Party Presidential candidate Michael Anthony Peroutka. He calls himself “a recovering Republican with a lot to recover from.” He once worked at the Republican National Committee as the Editor of the GOP’s official weekly publication “Monday.” His bosses there were George H.W. Bush and Bob Dole. He wrote a column for 11 years for Dr. R.J. Rushdoony’s “Chalcedon Report.” He is a member in good standing of the Harvester Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Springfield, Virginia. His email address is [email]JLof@aol.com[/email].

Copyright © 2004 Vision Forum Ministries