PREPARING US FOR 

A PROTESTANT-CATHOLIC GOVERNMENTAL TAKEOVER

In small wide-margin study booklets, we have been gradually releasing the most in-depth series of final events Spirit of Prophecy studies ever researched out (our “End Time Series”).

Those of you who have been obtaining them, as they are released, well-know that the event which will trigger a cavalcade of final events, leading directly to the general close of probation and the Second Coming of Christ, will be an organized Protestant drive in the political field—which will lead them ultimately to coerce Congress into enacting a nationwide Sunday Law with iron teeth.

In this present article, we will observe that the Religious Right is fast learning how to become political experts at manipulating the public, winning support for its positions, and getting the votes to place its men into office on all levels in America—from local school boards to the U.S. Senate.

As America becomes more decadent, many are aroused to try to stop it—if possible—by legislative enactments. But it quickly becomes obvious that success in stacking political committees and legislatures is crucial.

In 1980, the Religious Right worked hard to sweep Ronald Reagan into office. But there were many others in America who also wanted to see him elected: pro-gun advocates, hard-line anti-Communists, etc.

But the situation became confused when the national economy showed strong signs of collapsing in 1992. A large proportion of the public decided that keeping their jobs was more important than moralism. The result was the election of William J. Clinton, that strange one from Arkansas, who quickly revealed that he loved homosexuals, promoted hard-core pornography, and seemed anxious to encourage every imaginable type of secular and immoral takeover.

Every passing month since Clinton’s election has revealed some new favored vice or family scandal. And people across the land are becoming desperate.

Enter the Religious Right. It consists of a variety of Evangelical leaders, from James Dobson to Pat Robertson. And it also includes Roman Catholic bishops and cardinals.

But, in 1992, the Religious Right failed—although by a small margin—to win the presidential election. At the 1992 Republican Convention in Houston, it was reported that church leaders, such as Robertson, drafted major portions of the political platform. Strong speeches were given, which spoke of imposing moral values and eliminating the secular opposition.

Many reacted unfavorably to such strident language, including many key Republican leaders who were secular.

“Our job is to win elections, not cling to intolerances that zealots call principles,” said GOP National Committee Chairman Rich Bond,  as he left office in 1993. He added: “We cannot confuse principle with intolerance. We’re not going to be exclusionary.”

That was the attitude. Yet, as the months passed and the Clinton administration backed what Christians saw to be one abomination after another, the concern intensified.

It has become obvious that—right now—is the golden opportunity for the Religious Right to come to the forefront of American politics—and take over local and federal governments across the land. People are getting fed up with the scandals, cover-ups, and trashy living that people in high office are encouraging.

Indeed, developments of each year since the 1990 Democratic victory seem to intensify the determination of people with morals to get rid of the immorality once and for all.

But, within the past six months, a majority of Religious Right organizations have swung over to the position that they must compromise on basic principles, if they are going to win the elections. The decision is being made that getting votes is more important than upholding standards and family values.

The underlying tactics appear to be: (1) Gain control of the Republican nominations on all levels. (2) Run for political seats on compromise platforms that please as many as possible. (3) Win the key elected offices in the nation. (4) Use those positions to bring a return to national morality and Christianity. (5) Enact legislation which will focus on commonalities which all the churches can agree upon.

A 32-year-old former political consultant, Ralph Reed, Jr., is a key man in this. As head of Pat Robertson’s Christian Coalition, he is in charge of making the policy decisions which will ensure big wins in elections throughout the United States.

And what is the Christian Coalition? It is the largest single Christian political action group in America. It was founded on the mailing lists of Pat Robertson when, in 1988, he unsuccessfully tried to run for the presidency. It is now the leading Religious Right organization in the country, with 450,000 members in 50 states and an annual budget of $8-10 million.

Reed outlined the new strategy in the summer 1993 issue of Policy Review, a magazine published by a conservative organization, the Heritage Foundation. In an article entitled, Casting a Wider Net,—he outlined the plans for doing just that: reaching more voters in order to win more elected offices. Reed said that the problem was that the conservatives needed to tone down their message, so they could get more worldlings on their side at election time. He said the Religious Right was weakening its effectiveness “by concentrating disproportionately on issues such as abortion and homosexuality.” In support of this viewpoint, he cited polls showing that only 12 percent of the public favored elimination of abortion.

What did Reed recommend in place of that key conservative plank? such things as “taxes, crime, government waste, health care, and financial security.”

This was exactly what key Republican leaders had been urging them to do. Republican leadership, including National Committee Chairman Haley Barbour, applauds this willingness to compromise principles for the sake of votes. It is politics as usual.

In the months after the 1992 election, many were blaming the Religious Right for the loss of the White House. It was felt that the strong pro-Christian and anti-abortion speeches at the GOP Houston Convention (such as those by Pat Robertson and Pat Buchanan) turned the tide against the Bush re-election campaign. To some, Houston seemed like letting Christian fundamentalists take over the grand old party.

Progressives on both sides—in the Christian Right and in the main party itself—decided they must get together, settle their differences, and find ways to work together. They must tear down the walls which separated them. Such things as “anti-abortion” must be toned down or, if necessary, eliminated entirely from party speeches. The term that used to describe their newfound alliance they called “the big tent.” There was room, they said, for both Christians, secularists, and even abortionists in the party!

And, believe it or not, it was even agreed upon that anti-homosexual talk must be toned down or cease.

Pro-choice Republicans now say the flight from anti-abortion is becoming a stampede. The desperate frenzy to win, win, win, is draining the Religious Right of its declared moral fiber. If you will not stand for anything, what will you stand for? only what the majority want?

Massachusetts Governor William Weld is thought by some to exemplify the ideal successful Republican candidate: pro-choice and pro-gay rights. Some Republicans want to move him on up to the presidency.

Listen to Ann Stone, chairperson of the Republicans for Choice: “Our party should be pro-choice, not because we’re pro-abortion, but because we’re against government being involved in the decision process.” After failing to get pro-life off the platform in 1992, she says, “Next time around I think there’s a good chance we’ll either get pro-life dropped or the language radically changed.”

But it should not be forgotten that, in November 1993, Mike Farris won 46 percent of the Virginia votes (although he lost the race for lieutenant governor and openly campaigned against abortion). At the same time, George Allen, Jr., won the governorship of Virginia—the first Republican governor of that state in 16 years—with the full backing of what his Democratic opponent (a judge) called “extremist right-wing groups”—such as Concerned Women for America. Allen did not make an issue of being against abortion, but did stand for other family values.

So what was the political mainstream in Virginia, and who were the losers? This fact came as a shock to many in politics and the media. Shortly afterward on Nightline, Ted Koppel admitted, “Maybe the Religious Right isn’t always wrong. That may be a bitter pill for some to swallow, but it’s the way things are. All across the country, there are people of faith who consider their values to be under siege.”

In that last part, Koppel surely spoke the truth. But what he meant by saying “not always wrong” was that the Christian Right was able to get its candidate elected. And “elected” meant “right,” which is the crazy world of politics and worldlings in general: The majority is right, and nothing else matters.

On that same telecast, Pat Robertson was interviewed. In response to the remark that “a subtle change, not in his beliefs, but certainly in his packaging” had occurred, Robertson said this:

“I would urge people, as a matter of private choice [private opinion to keep to yourself], not to choose abortion—because I think it’s wrong. It’s something else, though, in the political arena, to go on a quixotic crusade when you know that you will be beaten continuously.”

Not so subtle packaging. Robertson said, in effect, “It’s time to throw out the pro-life plank. It’s time to work together with the abortionists and fellow travelers, with anyone who will help us get our candidates elected.”

It was not a change in packaging, but in product.

Just as Robertson’s “Christian Broadcasting Network” has had its name changed to “Family Channel,” so Ralph Reed, head of Christian Coalition, has been hard at work to change its appearance and objectives.

The aim is simple enough: Take in enough non-Christians to win the ballot boxes of America. According to the new view, “born-againers” are simply not enough to do the job. Their unique goals need to be tabled for a time.

The Christian Coalition used to be mostly white and mostly Protestant. But now it is trying to take in minorities (Hispanics and Blacks), Catholics, and Jews. What do the people want? Give it to them. Later, in office, we can make the needed changes in legislation.

The 1993 New York City School Board elections were a classic. The Christian Coalition got together with the Catholic cardinal and plotted out political strategy. Then they brought in the Jews, Hispanics, and Blacks. This ecumenical coalition was able to win school board seats throughout the city. That same November, a Republican Baptist preacher, Mike Huckabee, became lieutenant governor of Clinton’s home state of Arkansas. He ran on a solid pro-life platform. Elsewhere in the nation, religious people and candidates backed by them were elected to school boards, city councils, and state offices. There is no doubt but that the reaction to Clinton is increasing.

In order to do this, Protestant political leaders are working closely with Catholic bishops. Robertson’s Christian Coalition is going out of its way to court Catholic leaders. At its September meeting in Washington, D.C., the coalition (1) bestowed its first Catholic Layman of the Year award on Representative Henry Hyde, of Illinois, (2) held a workshop on Catholic-Evangelical cooperation, and (3) concluded the session with a Sunday mass as well as a Protestant church service!

It was the 1993 New York School Board elections that proved to both sides what they could do by working together. The election-winning breakthrough came in May 1993 when New york’s Cardinal John O’Connor agreed to let the coalition distribute 100,000 voter guides in Catholic churches. Those guides told Catholics all over the city who they ought to vote for.

That success got them to working closely together elsewhere. “This month the coalition is mailing 2 million voter guides to Californians—including 400 to Catholic pastors in the hope that the clergy will support Proposition 174 (which would date school vouchers) from the pulpit. In Atlanta last week, a spokesman for Catholic Archbishop John Donoghe reported that the church shares ‘many common goals’ with the Christian Coalition.”—Newsweek, November 8, 1993.

This is good political sense, for one-fourth of American voters identify themselves as Evangelicals, while another fourth say they are Catholics. “We expect to top out with 1 million Protestant members,” says Ralph Reed. “With Catholics, we can double that.” With that in mind, Robertson recently transferred Marlene Elwill from a Midwest campaign direction to a new post, as liaison to U.S. Catholic cardinals, bishops, and their political organizations.

In the latest issue of his magazine, Christian American, Robertson excused the fact of the new alliance with the remark, “I feel I have a lot more in common with this pope than with liberal Protestants.”

But, although it may make good political sense, what does it wind up with? Obviously, the end result can only be legislation upon which both the Evangelicals and Catholics could agree. And the book, Great Controversy, clearly states what that single unifying point would be. When it passes Congress, the final crisis will begin.

Martin Mawyer is president of the Christian Action Network, another major Religious Right organization in America. He is incensed at Robertson’s sell-out,—especially in regard to his blatant willingness to set aside the abortion issue and consider approving a pro-gay platform. Mawyer says Robertson is charting his course by opinion polls, instead of standing for the right because it is right. We would agree with Mawyer.

“A lot of leaders place hobnobbing above the issues. They feel the best strategy to getting their agenda across to the nation is by making friends with very powerful people,” Mawyer said in an interview with Karen Augustine, of Rutherford magazine (March 1994). “The problem is that if you use hobnob politicking, you end up compromising too much.”

Continuing on, he says, “Because they [Christian Coalition] are so locked into Republican politics, they are continually forced to re-define themselves based on the current political climate and who’s in charge of the Republican Party. That disturbs me. I’ve seen several flip-flops on issues just this year.”

When asked what kind of “flip-flops,” Mawyer replied,

“Some Republicans last summer said, ‘We need to have a larger tent, a more diverse set of views on the religious, social, and moral issues.’ Christian Coalition said that, if the Republican Party tried to enlarge its circle, it would become nothing more than a pup tent. However, several months later, Christian Coalition began to apply the ‘enlarged tent’ policy to their own organization and downplayed the importance of [opposing] abortion, homosexuality, and [supporting] school prayer. They tried to re-define themselves as more interested in tax reform, health care, and NAFTA—mainstream issues.”

Mawyer concluded with this remark: “Ralph Reed can take whatever surveys he wants and get the answers he wants in his public opinion poll, but we also take a poll twice a month and get different results.”

For his part, when Ralph Reed, head of the Christian Coalition, was asked to define the goals of his organization, he said this:

“Our role is much like that of the AFL-CIO in regard to union work. We want to mobilize people. We want to get millions of people involved and get them registered to vote.”—Rutherford, March 1994.

Many, including Mawyer, have been disturbed at the way Christian Coalition keeps changing its positions, in an effort to please everyone. But all the while it keeps moving closer to Rome. Jerome Himmelstein, author of To the Right: The Transformation of American Conservatism, says the Christian Right continually moves back and forth in this unstable fashion. “They’ve always tried to appeal to that broad range of people with a broad conservative agenda. It’s just a tactical question of which issues to emphasize at any given moment.”

Secularists and religion haters, in general, declare that the Religious Right are vicious people who use stealth tactics of deception and subterfuge to win elections.

Holly Gunner, head of the Lighthouse Institute for Public Policy, writing in Freedom Writer (April 1994) quotes Ralph Reed as saying, “It is just good strategy. It’s like guerrilla warfare . . It’s better to move quietly, with stealth, under cover of night . . It comes down to whether you want to be the British Army in the Revolutionary War or the Viet Cong.”

Gunner comments: “At a Religious Right conference in Denver last year, participants were instructed in tactics that include: Hide your affiliation and true agenda; use the gay issue to raise funds for the cause; always cover your tracks with local front men; appeal to people’s fears of society and change; appeal to America’s worst [most fearful and angry] impulses; remember that tension will provide the winning edge for candidates.”

Her article continues:

“If voter turnout is low, and they [the Rightists] can work behind the scenes without being visible for most voters, they can win by getting enough votes through their own networks.”

“Religious Right candidates . . have often attempted to hide their religious or educational views and organizational affiliations from public scrutiny.   In the words of Clay Mankameyer, at the South Weymouth, Massachusetts Christian Coalition leadership school for potential Religious Right candidates, ‘You’re not obligated to say all things to all people . . You don’t have to answer every question; and, if you do so, you’re going to get yourself in trouble.’ ”

Church and State magazine declares: “Reed’s new and improved Christian Coalition is the same bunch of theocrats with a new disguise.” GOP party moderates fear that its objective is to take over the Republican Party. And, of course, that is exactly what the coalition is determined to do. It is significant that, within recent months, coalition agents have succeeded in gaining control of GOP state organizations in Virginia, Iowa, Kansas, Texas, and Washington State.

For his part, Mawyer says that the Coalition’s mainstreaming policy is based on “deceiving the American public” as to their real intentions.

Georgia Senator Paul Coverdale benefited from this compromise method. He is a pro-choicer who happened to also be against the Freedom of choice Act (FOCA), as it is presently worded. So the coalition helped him to success at the ballot box. Ann Stone, head of an organization, who determined to make the Republican Party pro-choice, was delighted. She commented that the next step will be for the coalition to support any pro-choice candidate—as long as they are against federally-funded abortions. And the next step after that—?

The Christian Coalition should keep in mind that a survey, conducted by the Family Research Council in December 1993, revealed that more than half of the respondents who identified themselves as Bush voters—said they would be less likely to vote Republican if the presidential candidate “is for abortion and homosexual rights.”

In September 1993, the Christian Coalition held a “Road to Victory ’93” conference in Washington, D.C. At that session, former education secretary and presidential hopeful William Bennett warned the group against losing its identity:

“It’s fine for you to expand your focus, but don’t forget who you are. You are not the Lower Taxes Coalition, not the Free Trade and Full Employment Coalition, not even the American Empowerment Coalition. You are the Christian Coalition.”

It was clear from the response at that meeting, that the majority of those in attendance agreed more fully with Bennett than with Ralph Reed’s mainstreaming ideas. Indeed, which is more important: winning elections or standing for principles?

Charles Colson recently said: “Some even think of political defeat as spiritual defeat. It is not. Spiritual defeat would come only if we were to abandon our moral principles in order to seek political victory.”

Yet it was Chuck Colson who recently led out in linking Evangelical and Catholic leaders in a joint compact to work together in the future in a variety of ways to improve the position of the Religious Right and their objectives.

The following text is transcribed from a presentation by Max C. Karrer, M.D., at the Christian Coalition’s Road to Victory Conference in Washington, D.C., last September. Dr. Karrer is the north Florida coordinator for the Christian Coalition of Florida and the chairman of the finance committee to the board of trustees for Regent University. He also serves on the executive board of the Republican Party of Duvall County, Florida. Titled, “Using Computers at the Grass Roots,” the presentation attracted a standing-room-only crowd.

“First you select your churches. There are some churches where you would not necessarily find what I call Christians in the church, your charismatic  churches. You don’t select your liberal, mainline denominations. If you select your churches right, you’ll have a ninety percent match on voters who will be with us. That’s what we do.

“As an example of how this works, we had a legislative race where we had a female Jewish lawyer—liberal feminist—endorsed by now, who had knocked out, three year ago, a pro-life Christian. We didn’t know what we were doing—they poured NARAL money in and managed to beat him by 200 votes. And it was all because we didn’t know what we were doing.

“By this time she was the darling of the Democrats in the Florida legislature. They gave her all the choice committee assignments; they had bigger and better plans for her, and so on. And we had a fellow who was running for his first political office—named Jim Fuller—who jumped into the race.

“This  time  we  had our Christian voter data base. We had our church liaison committees. We had our voter guides going. And we could quietly—we were not allowed to give them away, so we charged him five dollars—but we printed labels, for him, of the Christian voters, which enabled him to put out directed mailings to the Christian voter, that he would not necessarily do to the general public.

“To make a long story short, he beat her by 65% to 35%—it was a landslide. And they didn’t know what hit them, because—you want to talk about stealth campaigns—it was quietly done, and they didn’t realize they were in trouble until it was too late. This also convinced the state Republican Party that they better deal with the Christian Coalition, at least in Duvall County, because every candidate we got behind won [emphasis added], in Duvall in the ’92 elections. This was the method we used.

“We don’t give our list to anybody. What we will do is print labels for some people. That we will do—I sold him the labels, I didn’t give them to him. It’s legal then, see. For five dollars!

“The thing I want to say about building up a Christian data voter base is: Political candidates, or politicians, only understand two things, and that’s money and votes. And if they think you control a lot of votes, you suddenly become very powerful in their eyes.

“Politicians in our section think we have a bigger data voter base than we do. But we don’t change that perception, we don’t tell them. They come to us now. When someone wants to run for office, they come to Christian Coalition; they want to talk to us. It gives you—and not just for elections—lobbying power with the legislator, because they think you have this huge bloc of voters that you can swing—though you can’t necessarily.”

RETURN TO WORLD WATCH