web analytics
≡ Menu

A God-acknowledging party- if we strive to build it, will you come?

The Christian Federalist #2

24 If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. 25 And if a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand. 26 And if Satan has risen up against himself and is divided, he cannot stand, but is coming to an end. 27 But no one can enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man. Then indeed he may plunder his house. (Mark 3:24-27)

To make sure that it serves its intended purpose (which is the overthrow of Constitutional self-government, of, by and for the people) the elitist faction’s script for the 2012 election included a post-script.  No matter how the election turned out, the moral of the story was always going to be the same- in order to win American politicians must embrace elitist socialism.  Of course, this lesson especially targets the GOP.

This is so because the GOP’s role in the elitist faction’s orchestration of the political process is to befuddle and demoralize the conservatives with results that

…move the government toward greater consolidation of socialist politics.  In the process the term “conservative” gets progressively (pun intended) redefined to encompass more and more of the features of socialism.  What is more important, those who articulate and insist upon approaches that actually correspond to conservative principles and institutional goals (like respecting unalienable rights, preserving the natural family, encouraging morally responsible individual  entrepreneurship and competitive free enterprise) are put in the false position of being unrealistic “purists” and rigid opponents of “the possible”. (Is Romney to lead conservatives to self-extinction?)

Had Romney won the election, conservative principles would have been abandoned in order to “reach across the aisle” in a bipartisan spirit of unity.  Such was the theme of Romney’s speeches in the closing days of the campaign.  But Obama won. So, like a teenager on prom night, GOP Speaker of the House John Boehner can’t wait to drop his abstinence only conservative date at her outdated home. He’s ready to shed the formal wear put on for the campaign season.  He’s almost frantically eager to cast off the GOP’s façade of phony conservative inhibitions (against tax and spend government policies,)  and get down with the newly elected Prom King in an orgy of bipartisan socialist relations, aimed at proving that a lame duck still has one leg to paddle with.

Such is “the culmination of more than twenty years of…stupidly destructive…”conservative pragmatism.”  In terms of politics it “represents the successful “transvaluation of values” (as the Nazi’s muse, Friedrich Nietzsche called it. That’s the political equivalent of a sex-change operation.)

Many GOP leaders dutifully played their role in the elitist faction’s election farce.  They were the supposedly conservative chorus,  luridly portraying Obama as the last act of America’s play, and “reluctantly”(?) touting Romney as the “less evil” (because somewhat longer?) alternate version of the same ending.  As the elitist faction media launches into the post-script phase, these leaders are coming forward to react against the notion that conservatism had anything to do with Romney’s defeat.  This requires, of course, implicitly contradicting the notion that Romney is a conservative, making all their actual or implied statements to the contrary during the campaign seem rather like, well, lies.

That’s the problem with making expediency your political standard.  It’s especially a problem for self-professed conservatives in the GOP who want people to believe that they still embrace the “self-evident truths” on which the U.S. was founded.  People who show no respect for factually observable truths have little or no credibility when they claim to respect truths that require sound reasoning as well as observation.  After all, reason ultimately derives its force from a moral commitment to its discipline, i.e., a willingness to acknowledge, the truth, in principle, and to follow its logic, whether or not it serves our passionate interests.

By encouraging people to let their fear of Obama drive them to Romney, these supposedly conservative prophets of “lesser evil” lent themselves to corrupting the mind and character of the electorate.  Such corruption is the definitive cause of the destruction of Constitutional self-government in the U.S.  Uninformed by principle, passionate self-interest can no more provide a basis for human self-government than the random interaction of uninformed matter provides for the orderly relations of material things. I made this point back in February (Santorum’s Ave Maria U. Speech “off message”? ), in a discussion of the “divided against itself” passage quoted from Scripture at the opening of this post:

A rational thinker as renowned as Immanuel Kant thought it reasonable, by exploring the limits of purely human understanding, to preserve a basis for moral reasoning that secures the salutary effects (especially in the political sphere) of acknowledging this Being of beings, beyond the limits of our self-conscious knowledge, which we must nonetheless assume in order to exist, no matter what conviction we hold with respect to its reality.

In a way the inevitability of this acknowledgement is evident even in the “scientific” theory that most adamantly insists on pretending that it rejects the premise of an intrinsic, intelligent, and superintendent being for the world as we know it. In his book The Signature in the Cell (Chapter 1) former geophysicist and college professor Dr. Stephen C. Meyer notes that, despite their dogmatic adherence to the theory of evolution, “modern biologists can scarcely describe living organisms without resorting to language that seems to imply the very thing they implicitly deny: intentional and purposive design.”

Advances in our scientific knowledge of living organisms more and more confirm that our bodies are sophisticated information processing units.  This insight in turn confirms the wisdom of America’s Founders.  They resisted the notion that the random activity of mindless matter could somehow be construed to explain away the rational need for a superintendent being, whose will and intention inform the nature, and perpetuate the existence, of our humanity.

Could it be that the form of government based on the Founders’ wisdom is now failing (instead of rising from strength to strength, as in the past) because we have turned our back on the insight it depends on?  Could it be that the elitist controlled Democrat and Republican parties now work together to destroy the nation because they have rejected this insight?  Could it be that there is no way to avoid our decline and fall until and unless Americans who still acknowledge the existence and authority of God reject the Godless politics of mindless materialism both these parties now practice?  In truth, there is but one division of the house that does not set America against itself- the one that separates the self-worshiping elitist minority that denies God from the God-acknowledging majority that refuses to deny Him.  Where is the Party that represents this majority? If we strive to build it will you come?  If we do not build it, the worst is yet to come.

Series NavigationFor America’s God-acknowledging creed, what political home?Secessionist or Federalist- which reclaims the Providential wisdom of America’s founding?
StumbleUponLinkedInFacebookDeliciousRedditDiggEvernoteTwitterTumblrShare
{ 37 comments }

Comments on this entry are closed.

  • http://www.facebook.com/tim.marriott.54 Tim Marriott

    I have been thinking about this possibility for awhile. My concept would be to use the name “Epiphany Party” . It would appeal to God fearing men and women everywhere. Belief in God, the Bible, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution would be the foundation. The 10 Commandments would be the party platform. It would not promote Theocracy but would be based on the founding principles of our nation. The wall of seperation of Church and State was intended to keep the State out of the Churches business. Such as the legal fiction redefining marriage. President Obama has established an Atheocracy here in the United States that needs to be restrained. I have started a petition calling upon Pres. Obama to resign and release his Electoral College votes for dereliction of duty in the Benghazi incident. This is the link. http://www.wh.gov/XrfA

    The mascot could be either the “Lamb of God” or the “Lion of Judah”.

  • Paula Dagnel

    Ready and waiting, Alan!

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Blake-Helgoth/521347499 Blake Helgoth

    I for one, am in favor of a new party. However, I fear that many who would join the ranks of such a party would not be truly in favor of the radical liberty proffessed by the founders of our nation, but would, instead, attempt to use government power to dictate their views. I fear it would become a sort of ‘Christian’ facism type thing. This would not be true liberty anymore than it would be true Christianity. If however, we can agree about the proper limits of government and the true nature of the liberty that we pursue, I’m in. What is the next step?

  • Zaphenath_Paneah_II

    Thank you Mr Keyes.

  • http://www.facebook.com/aaronsgreene Aaron Greene

    I am in!

  • Joanne Sharr

    I’m so in!

  • Zachary Harris

    A nation that has been given over to such unbridled lust for pleasure, convenience, comfort, and prosperity that it would voluntarily kill off over 3000 of its own children per day in reckless pursuit of such things will naturally reap the consequences of the all the truly insane decisions that it willfully inflicts upon itself.

  • Nell Bowen

    count me in.

  • http://twitter.com/BlessedCause Jen Shroder

    I named Dr. Keyes in this, I hope he considers it http://www.blessedcause.org/Patriots/Secede.htm

    • ken

      Followed your link. It seems to be herding people that have “lost the election” together. What we truly lost was a choice. Wouldn’t it be easier to establish a choice besides the GOP than to establish a whole new government through bloody secession?

  • Rob

    Why is it the God-haters unify so effectively? What is it that has kept us from doing the same? We must answer that question in clear terms and take action. Dr. Keyes issues a call to unity at a time when the unity of Christians in America is America’s best and only hope. It is time we not only did, but outdid, what the far-left anti-God liberals have consistently done on their way to “fundamentally transforming” America.

    • Simpleton

      Have you ever wondered what the Godly did while the tower of Babel was being built. They didn’t try to tear it down. Should they have?

  • http://twitter.com/BlessedCause Jen Shroder

    How do you feel about the Constitution Party? I agree with you but we need to unite. Thanks for any answer

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Doc-Kimble/100001742531811 Doc Kimble

    I like the idea of “othercotts,” where you choose a date to send a message, and on that date, you support an institution of your choice that supports your rights of conscience. Then, you e-mail the retailer you didn’t spend your money with, informing the retailer why you chose not to support his business. It’s best to build these “othercotts” around the indestructible passage of time, and pick dates that are Christian-oriented, like Christmas and Easter.
    As it stands, retailers are being “herded” by political correctness to do the bidding of leftists, and thus they are being forced to be complicit in building the Culture of Death. Be “wise as serpents, and harmless as doves;” we all spend money on somethings at some times; focusing the money and time sends a “conscience-oriented” message to the culture, and may “bring the ship around,” because, well, “money makes the world go ’round.”

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Diane-Crouse/100000265688038 Diane Crouse

    Thank you Dr. Keyes for expressing the true condition that our Nation is in. Except the LORD build the house, they labor in vein that build it: except the LORD keep the City, the watchman waketh but in vein. Only the believers in this LORD can accept His providence and plan. He says in v.2 It is vein for you to rise up early, to sit up late, to eat the bread of sorrows: for so He giveth His beloved sleep. Our Nation is greatly divided, and I for can not go along with those in this Godless condition. And I am a watchman, therefore I must not.
    I will be sharing your message on all my blog sites, it is so timely and true. Gods blessings and His peace be unto you. In Jesus, Amen.

  • Ramona

    I know church-attending, self-professing Christians who support the homosexual agenda and abortion and voted their convictions in this election. Some of them are even very politically active. So, while the majority of Americans may still profess Christianity and acknowledge God, it is a far different version from that of generations past. Christians have always seemed to be more adept at segregating themselves under differing theological banners than at unifying. I would love to be part of a party that actually espoused the ideals you mention, but, admittedly, I’m not very hopeful….

    • Simpleton

      I promise you that those Christians believe that the baby in a mother’s womb is merely a lump of chemicals and that homosexuality is genetic and natural and thus can’t be a sin.

      Those types of folks need gentle,self-controlled, kind teaching in the way of righteousness.

      • Ramona

        I agree. But with regard to having a party for the God-acknowledging majority: realistically, it will not attract ALL people who acknowledge God, so can we still say it will be a party representing the majority of Americans? Are those of us who understand homosexuality as sin and abortion as murder even the majority in the God-acknowledging group anymore? I just don’t know if we are. It deeply saddens me to think we are not. I don’t mean to be a wet blanket; I’m just very discouraged right now. But this too shall pass! I will eventually be able to lift my eyes to the hills from whence cometh my help! I’m just one of God’s slow-to-rebound children! Onward Christian soldiers!

        • Simpleton

          We don’t have to be in a majority as long as we have more votes then anyone else. In a three party system, you can win with 33%. Won’t it be nice when He comes back, though? I can’t wait!

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000756901996 June Burnett

            21% of evangelicals voted for Obama, 70% of Jews, 50% of Catholics. I voted for you in 2008 and would have again this year. I believe in everything you are saying and know that probably less than 10% of voting Americans will even understand the vocabulary you use or even know what the Federalist papers are. I know that God + 1 is a majority, but don’t have faith in Americans. Only in Him. So yes, I would join you, but am convinced the republic is lost. Keeping my eyes on Jesus.

          • alkeyes

            I think we must be wary of putting too much emphasis on the figures from this sham election. Between Obama and Romney people who profess to follow Christ had no choice consonant with their profession of faith. Many just stayed home. Though the GOP wants votes from people of faith, the GOP is in the hands of leaders who refuse to keep the faith when they act.

            I also distrust the notion that Americans lack understanding, etc. I think the temptation to think so is the result of elitist brainwashing. If Americans can’t or won’t understand, why does the elitist faction take such pains to suppress people (myself included) who strive competently to articulate and apply the principles of the American founding?

            When people are allowed to hear, they understand and are moved to act. They understand because the founding principles correspond to human common sense; what God has inscribed upon the human heart to inform us of the rules of justice and righteousness that apply to all people, even though many refuse to act accordingly.

            We can’t know what political strength there is among the faithful until we show enough trust in God to appeal to people boldly and unashamedly in God’s name, and with words and reasoning that draw on His word and reflect His will. This is precisely what today’s politicians refuse to do.

            Yet during the early days of what came to be called the Tea Party, I met grassroots people all over the country who acted unashamedly from faith. They were very successful until the ‘Freedomworks’ co-opters from the GOP insisted that the focus had to be strictly materialistic, not moral and spiritual. Romney’s one note mammon obsessed campaign reflected this rejection of God’s priorities. Tragically , such GOP leadership is now an insidious influence pushing toward the abandonment of moral and spiritual principle.

            Finally, I don’t, per se, put my faith in Americans. I trust in the power of God to inspire Americans, if and when people of faith are willing to trust in Him. Until they come together specifically to give priority to God’s concerns, there will be no test of what God is still willing to do for America on account of those who trust in His Name and in His word. The key is not the strength of our faith, but the strength of God’s wisdom and power released by our trust in Him,though it be as little as a mustard seed. (As you know, the Greek word for faith also means trust, a fact we should always keep in mind. Think of Peter walking on water at Christ’s behest.)

            A boldly identified Christian political party would be an act of faith. We would have to put our mammon calculators aside. Not altogether out of reach, though. For they would subsequently come in handy, to count the resulting blessings for our country.

          • Simpleton

            Creating a self-identified Christian party would require unprecedented ecumenical support. The temptation would be to call upon all those who are called by His name. Unfortunately, many Christians are at the forefront of progressive thought and action and, just as unfortunately, many Christians on the right don’t understand the complex relationship between the left, the left-leaning denominations, and their own faith. If you allow all self-proclaiming Christians into the fold, you inevitably get wolves, if you put up a fence, you run the risk of appearing to be cultish, exclusionist, or un-Christlike (and the media will make sure that happens).

            My faith is in God and my loyalty is not to the American people, but to the Constitution. Therefore, I believe one ought to seek out those for government positions who can defend it intellectually, morally, and spiritually. As a born again Christian, I struggle with wether I should be yoked with unbelievers politically. However, I do know that those who created our Nation were of both persuasions and that those Godly men felt it was appropriate to make a government with unbelievers. What they believed in common was not theological doctrine but the existence of certain inalienable rights, to include liberty and self-governance. If you exclude those men, you are encouraging a theocracy.

          • alkeyes

            The doctrine of unalienable rights makes no sense without the existence and authority of the Creator. The silly belief that it does is what has caused the mess we’re in. The word theology literally refers to what one says about God, the account of the Deity from which we begin the account of nature and ourselves. The Declaration clearly relies on such an account, so pretending the the doctrine of unalienable rights is “non-theological” also makes no sense. Without the Declaration the provisions for self-government in the Constitution makes no sense either. The Doctrine of rights as the founders articulated it requires the acknowledging the authority of God as the standard for human justice and political decision.

          • Simpleton

            I agree: acknowledging the existence of God is merely what a rational person must do if he honestly considers the universe, and certain rights logically flow from the assumption that He exists. Plus, it is logically impossible for an atheist to conceive of inalienable rights from first principles without first assuming a higher power. However, there are many who believe in God, virtue, and inalienable rights, but that have no desire to associate themselves with the term “Christian”.

            My question is, are you willing to accept a modern day theist into the party -- one who is honest and virtuous, believes in objective morality, but has no affinity for Jesus Christ?

            My contention is that if you are not willing to accept theists, then the party will run the risk of devolving into a theocracy, just as our constitutional republic is devolving into a people’s republic.

          • alkeyes

            A people that practices constitutional self-government is led by their conscientious respect for the indwelling principle of God’s rule. In this sense they are governed by “the strength or power of God” (the literal meaning of the word theocracy). But they are themselves the agents of its implementation. And they are bound by their good faith to respect, in the use of government power, limitations and constraints derived from respect for God-endowed unalienable right. That’s the beauty of republican self-government. The primordial “public thing” (‘res publica’ or thing belonging to each and all the people) is God’s permission for people to act according to right, and therefore to be free of forceful interference or opposition from others, to whom they do and have done no wrong.

            The phrase “devolving into a theocracy” conveys a prejudice, but is otherwise unclear. Do you mean the tyrannical use of government power by people claiming to act on God’s authority? If so, where constitutional self-government is derived from the authority of God-endowed right, this source of governmental authority denies legitimacy to the systematic practice of tyranny on any excuse. People seeking to tyrannize in the name of God would thus violate the principle of lawful government derived from the primordial authority of God, and so reveal themselves to be evil doers, not practitioners of His righteousness.

            Sometimes we forget that many of America’s founders were pious people, but they had imbibed the hard lessons of Europe’s vicious sectarian wars. They knew that specious claims of piety can be used to mask hellish violations of God’s loving will. By reason of Christ’s teaching they gave priority to the great and first command of law of love (Matthew 22:37-40, cp. Luke 10:27) wholly to love the Lord God; and its near corollary, to love our true neighbor (our savior) as we love ourselves. Translated by way of the common sense of right available to all people, this becomes the rule of righteous action toward others- “And as you wish that others would do to you, do so to them.”

            This is a rule that constrains people from tyrannizing over others (for which of us wishes to be the subject of such tyranny?). John Locke (a thinker whose work had a great influence on America’s founders) (in Chapter II of his Second Treatise of Government) recognizes this rule in the form of an obligation that ultimately gives rise to the power of law enforcement. “Everyone, as he is bound to preserve himself…so by the like reason, when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he, as much as
            he can, to preserve the rest of mankind.” People who come together to form a civil society then delegate the just power arising from this obligation (the executive power of government) to the institution they establish to govern it.

            This is the understanding of the legitimate source and character of government’s law enforcement power to which America’s God-acknowledging principles of conscientious self-government give rise. Unless it is forgotten or ignored, this understanding of government cannot lead to tyrannical so-called theocracy (I say ‘so-called’ because such tyranny is not the strength or power of God but of vicious, domineering human fear and other passions, abusing God’s name) or any other form of tyranny. Anyone conscientiously determined never to forget or ignore it would, in my opinion, be at home in the company of Christian Federalists.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Doc-Kimble/100001742531811 Doc Kimble

    It wasn’t raining when Noah built the ark.

  • Jess Keller

    Are there enough “we’s” in the first place? My husband and I are raising a couple of “we’s” – we’re homeschooling our children. If “we” insist on sending our kids to “their” school, “we” will have a hard time getting anywhere.

  • Bradford Hager

    How about, “The Christian Constitutional Conservative Party” ?

    • Bradford Hager

      The symbol CCCP would be very popular with our liberal friends.

      • http://twitter.com/BlessedCause Jen Shroder

        There are dozens of minor parties, the Constitution Party is major already, have you considered it?

    • Cindy

      I like that idea!

    • alkeyes

      The Constitution is an instrument of government. But if you let go of the fundamental understanding of government the instrument exists to serve, you cannot successfully defend the form of government it is meant to establish, from changes that destroy it in principle.

      We need to build a vehicle that focuses on preserving and applying the understanding which starts from the acknowledgement of the Creator, God, as the source and standard for justice and right. I am convinced that in order to accomplish this the name of the Party must reflect its dependence on the name and authority of God. It must boldly proclaim the understanding of both that appears in the heritage of self-government in the United States. In form and substance that heritage is Christian.

      Part of the reason America is failing right now is that Christians have been brainwashed (by the secularists’ falsely disjunctive version of the relationship between faith and politics) into accepting the notion that we can sustain liberty without respecting the premise in terms of which liberty is properly defined- i.e., the Creator’s authority over the standard of justice in human affairs.

      First and foremost, therefore, the Party’s name should boldly assert that the people building it are not ashamed of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, but trust in the power of His name; and mean to raise the banner of His good news as a rallying point in America’s political affairs, a rallying point for all people of goodwill.

      Have you noticed how many non-Christian people send their children to Christian schools? Have the people of God who are called by His name lost confidence in its power, even though, in America’s past and present, the evidence of that power is continually before their eyes?

      • Rob

        Indeed, adopting a name that does not boldly proclaim our identity as followers of Jesus Christ can become a way of obscuring who we really are and thus rob our cause of the power so readily available to it.

      • Simpleton

        We would alienate a large group of good, rational people who aren’t Christian if we have a name that is too “Christiany”. In fact, we would lose a lot of “Christians” too. These truths are self-evident, and rational, honest people will flock towards truth. We should have a name that honors God while appealing to the hearts of honest men, without shunning those who think rightly and might one day make a decision for Christ. Maybe something that appeals to our desire for a golden age, or a renaissance of reason, or honesty in the marketplace of ideas.

  • http://www.facebook.com/daniel.greenleaf Daniel Greenleaf

    Are you speaking of re building the GOP, or a completely new party?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Carl-R-Gottstein-Jr/507404060 Carl R Gottstein Jr

    I stand ready to help “build it” with you Dr.Keyes!

  • MikeFromNC

    Let’s build it Alan, Count me in!

Copyright Regulations

All original material on Loyal To Liberty is copyrighted and you will need to observe these regulations when you plan to distribute or use content from this blog. Copyright Regulations for Content on Loyal To Liberty You are free to share, distribute or transmit any work on this blog under the following conditions: * Attribution: You must attribute any content you use to Loyal To Liberty by including a link back to the specific content page. You must not suggest that Loyal To Liberty endorses you or your use of the content on this blog. Even with attribution, you do not have permission to republish the entire blog post on a website. Only excerpts of less than 500 words from each blog post may be published on other websites. A link back to the specific blog post must be included. * Noncommercial Usage: You may not use this work for commercial purposes unless authorized to do so by Alan Keyes. * Derivative Works:Within the limits heretofore specified, you may build upon the contents of Loyal To Liberty as long as proper attribution (see above) is made. If you want to syndicate or distribute the full blog post on your website, permission must be obtained before you do so. For permission, please email alan@loyaltoliberty.com.
%d bloggers like this:
Google Analytics Alternative