Chapter Nine
HOW THE NEW REVOLUTION OCCURRED
Today, the will of the majority, or what is commonly known as public opinion, is generally conceded to be the operative god, the real ruler, in most of the developed nations of the world. It is that power, the power of public opinion, that will lead to the formation of the New World Order. It is not generally conceded that the real ruler of public opinion is the fact.
While elected officials appear to rule, the appearance is deceiving. Successful politicians pay lipservice to Principles and Ethics but it is clear that only one Principle rules their lives: the law of political survival.
Political survival requires election followed by reelection. Since it is impossible to get elected or reelected unless a majority of constituents vote for the politician, the successful politician will always represent the point of view of the majority of his constituents. To fail to do so removes the politician from the successful column. While the constituents may make their decisions based on many Principles and Ethical considerations, the successful politician will base his/her decisions on One Principle: Public opinion.
Once elected, successful politicians operate as the actual rulers in the nation imposing the will of the majority on those who for whatever reason disagree with the will of the majority. In this way the will of the majority becomes synonymous with the concept of the will of god in the nation.
The New American Revolution occurred because the majority of citizens in the United States--the real rulers--had little clear insight into the role the idea of the Creator played in the system of government designed by the Founding Fathers. With the majority ignorant of the Principles that provided the foundation for this form of government, political leaders, whether in the legislative, executive or judicial branches of government, could impose their private Principles with impunity. Even when those Principles were in direct contradiction with the Principles upon which this government was founded, the private Principles of politicians could rule as long as public opinion was untroubled by the decisions made by politicians.
The reason the majority lacked insight into the foundational nature of the idea of the Creator in this government is because nobody accurately explained the Principles upon which this government was built.
All one has to do is survey the history textbooks, the sociology textbooks, the political science textbooks that have been used in public schools to teach the last two generations of United States citizens and the omission is clear. Nowhere is an explanation like the one outlined here concerning the role and the significance of the idea of the Creator in our system of government to be found. Whether the text be designed for first grade or graduate school, an investigation produces the same results: virtually no textbook used in public schools has identified the foundational nature of the idea of the Creator in this nation.
Of course the same cannot be said of books found in parochial or church schools that have proliferated throughout the nation in the last twenty years. Every textbook designed for those schools tries to explain everything in relation to the idea of god. But those textbooks and the teachers who taught from them had little effect on public opinion because only a small minority of citizens was educated in those schools, and those who were educated were not taught an accurate explanation of the role the idea of god was to play in this nation.
While it is easy to understand how secular teachers could have failed to grasp the fact that the authority of the United States government was erected upon an idea about the Will of the Creator, it is eerily ironic but true that the people who would be supposed to have the greatest vested interest in maintaining the idea of god in this nation--religious leaders and teachers--have done at least as much as secular teachers to eliminate the idea of the Creator from serious consideration as a necessary and foundational aspect of government thought. Not only did religious leaders and teachers, whatever their denominational affiliation, fail to accurately define the ideas which formed the consensus participated in by the Founders of the United States of America, but the explanations and attitudes they did offer resulted in a hardening of public opinion toward the influence of the idea of the Creator in government decisions.
At first glance it would appear that religious people, especially Christians, have done everything in their power to hold on to the idea of God. From pulpits and pews all across the nation countless prayers have been issued heavenward beseeching help for what is perceived to be a godless nation.
One Christian writer after another has documented the fundamental changes that have occurred in this nation since the Second World War. Before the War a firm Christian consensus ruled this nation, a consensus that had ruled with few interruptions for one hundred and fifty years. Tim LaHaye in his book, Faith of Our Founding Fathers, summarizes this consensus: "When they (political leaders) spoke of religion they meant the Christian religion. When they mentioned morality it was what we know as the Judeo-Christian moral code. When they referred to education they meant learning from a God-centered base that made ample use of the Bible. Christianity was welcome in the schools and textbooks in 1787 and for one hundred years thereafter. The Christian consensus was so strong when this nation was founded that it is no wonder that many erroneously call this 'a Christian nation.' Nowhere is that Christian consensus more prevalent than in the field of law..."
The reason Tim LaHaye wrote his book, the reason literally hundreds of Christian leaders have written books bemoaning the current political situation in the United States of America, is because every Christian in the United States of America understands clearly that the Christian consensus has collapsed. In its place a new consensus rules this land. While the new consensus is difficult to define, its consequences are easy to see. Public institutions are now out-of-bounds for the rituals of religion: no school prayer, no manger scenes, no proselytizing on public property. Public and private Rights are being redefined in accordance with the new consensus in ways that leave many Christians gasping for breath as if oxygen was being sucked out of the atmosphere.
Thoughtful Christians have gone through tons of ink trying to explain what went wrong. To date, none of the learned teachers has effectively brought our present context into clear focus. This is not surprising since an accurate evaluation would require the Christian leaders to face the fact that Christians themselves are primarily responsible for the destruction of the idea of the Creator that opened the door to the New American Revolution. Christian leaders who publicly communicated such an idea would not long remain Christian leaders.
The response of the Christian community in the United States provided the greatest impetus for the erosion of the idea of the Creator because the Christian response convinced the great majority of citizens that Christians had a hidden agenda. As religious leaders, especially Christian leaders, reacted to the redefinition of the relationship between Church and State, the general public perceived the response of the Christian community as evidence that the Church still believes it has the Right to define God, and the will of God, for the citizens of this nation. People who do not belong to a prevailing Christian consensus have always known, but few Christians in the majority have ever understood, that the Founders of this nation designed the government with the understanding in mind that some type of Christian consensus would constitute the ruling majority opinion in the United States for the foreseeable future and DESIGNED THE GOVERNMENT TO PREVENT THE CHRISTIAN CONSENSUS FROM ABROGATING THE RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS IN THIS NATION.
It was clear to the Founders that the new nation would be a Christian nation because the great majority of citizens were Christians. But the Founders did not trust Christians. In fact, this nation came into being at a time when virtually no one, not even Christians, trusted Christians.
Christians throughout history have tended to seize the reins of civil government in order to use the power of the sword to accomplish what the Christians in power defined as the will of God. The Founders of the United States of America lived at a time in history when centuries of horrific bloody warfare had recently concluded. In virtually all of those wars, one group of Christians used the power of the State, the power of the sword, to impose their comprehensive definition of the will of god on another group of Christians who held a different definition. The Founders of the United States of America were in agreement that they would do everything in their power to prevent a similar scenario from occurring in this nation.
For this reason they defined the plan of the Creator, which in turn defined the purpose of this government, in the broadest general terms; terms so broad that anyone who actually believed there was a Creator out-there with a will and plan of his own, and who agreed with the plan as defined by the Founders, could be a citizen in good standing in the United States of America. The idea about the Creator defined by the Founders of this nation was a concept with which Christians could agree, but the idea was so broad and the plan so vague that virtually any religious person on earth who did not support the Doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings could in good conscience support the ideas upon which this nation was built. The United States of America was a Christian nation, and a Jewish Nation, and a Deist nation, and a Muslim nation, and a nation embracing every religion on earth whose Creator agreed with the purpose of government defined in the Declaration of Independence.
The plan of the Creator defined by the Founding Fathers included limits beyond which government authority could not be allowed to go. Christians have always had a difficult time communicating to the world that they understood that concept.
The response of a huge portion of the vocal Christian community to the change in the ruling consensus in the United States since the Second World War has hardened public opinion to the idea of the Creator because the Christians have presumed that everyone in this nation is obligated to believe in the Christian definition of God. While few Christian leaders have candidly stated the issue in precisely those terms, everything from body language to inference has made it clear to the general public that Christians find tolerance intolerable.
The problem with that Christian response is it is patently false. Christians might be obligated to believe in the Christian definition of God and God's will, but United States citizens are not so obligated. According to the authority that defines Right and Wrong for the citizens of the United States of America--the Constitution founded on the Principles defined in the Declaration of Independence--a citizen of this country is obligated to believe only what those documents define about the Creator and the plan of the Creator. Anything believed beyond that is a matter of individual liberty that cannot be presumed to be an obligation of any citizen of this nation.
The First Amendment to the Constitution was designed to ensure that no single Christian Consensus could usurp the power of the State and use it to force people to agree with their definition of the plan of God. The Idea of the Creator as it was defined in the Declaration of Independence gives every citizen of this nation the Right to pursue God without restraint or punitive conditioning from any majority or individual.
Christians, instead of loyally upholding the plan of God defined by the Founders and building upon that foundation any further truths they might have to offer mankind about the plan of God, have covered the foundational idea of the Creator with layer upon layer of ideas about god that are utterly beside the point. By attempting to ram their definition of God's will down the public's throat, Christians created a backlash against the idea of god itself, making it much easier for the idea of god to be removed from the thought process of millions of people in this nation--from legal authorities, government officials, and the politicians who represent them. In so doing, Christians have defeated their own purpose of leading people to Christ. Christians have failed to grasp the fact that they cannot lead anyone to Jesus, any more readily than Muslims can lead people to Mohammed, unless people first believe there is a Creator out there with a mind and a will of his/her own.
If that's not bad enough, there's more to come. The most damning indictment that can be leveled at the Christian response to modern problems concerns the message the Christian community has sent to the world as the world moved closer to Armageddon. A Newsweek article of March 18, 1991 reviewed the recent spate of Christian books on Biblical prophesy written in the wake of the Gulf War. The article noted, "...evangelical Christian publishers have rushed more than a dozen prophesy volumes into print, and at least a dozen more are on the way." The caption beneath a picture of books written by Pat Robertson and John F. Walvoord read, "Gleeful Tomes: Welcoming the apocalypse".
The Newsweek article is only one example of reams of easily accessible evidence to the fact that Christians have given the public in the United States of America and other developed nations the impression that Christians are individuals who take a perverse pleasure in the disintegration of modern life. The article reports, "The self-annointed prophets are gleeful about their gloomy tidings (the coming of Armageddon). One reason is theological: their predictions rest on the belief that the Bible is literally true in what it says about the end of the world as well as about its genesis. Thus any event that seems to confirm the fundamentalists' interpretation of the last days is welcomed as proof of Biblical authority. But Christians like Walvoord and Robertson have another reason as well. The next great event on their end-timetable is 'the rapture,' in which all true believers like themselves will be instantly plucked up into heaven--leaving apostate Christians and other unbelievers to perish at the hands of an avenging Jesus. 'We will not be here for Armageddon,' boasts a confident Jerry Falwell..."
Anyone who cannot sense the negative impact on non-Christians of such an attitude being expressed by Christians is probably a follower of Falwell, Robertson, Walfoord, Graham or any of the hundreds of other Christian leaders who have been busy communicating the Christian consensus to non-Christians around the globe. The Christian doctrine of the rapture and the sense of joyful expectation the doctrine engenders in those who believe it seems to totally overlook the fact that, if the doctrine is true, those good Christians are going to be leaving behind BILLIONS of men, women and children burned to a crisp in the fires of the Tribulation. Non-Christians naturally see the glee of Christian believers as evidence that the Christians have all along despised those who will be left behind. What else could explain Christians who exhibit smug satisfaction at the prospect of world-wide apocalypse? Christian selfishness and egocentrism? Either answer suffices to explain the public's rejection of the Christian message and the God they represent.
At the very core of the reason the idea of the Creator has been destroyed in the United States of America is the fact that Christians have convinced non-Christians that the God Christians believe in is a God who cares only about Christians. That is not the idea of the Creator defined in the Declaration of Independence. The Creator defined there endowed all men with inalienable Rights, Rights that could never be removed by any Body on earth, Rights that would never be removed even by the Creator, because the Creator had willed those Rights to be inalienable. That Creator cared about everybody; not just Christians.
It has not always been easy to see that the Creator whose will was responsible for the creation of the United States of America actually cared about everybody in the nation. Women, African-Americans, native Americans, and all males who did not own land were not included in the Founder's original interpretation of the "all men" phrase in the Declaration of Independence.
In order to develop an accurate picture of the formation of the government of the United States of America, it is necessary to point out that the Founding Fathers and those who followed them were sinful, imperfect people who, while trying to do the will of the Creator as they understood it, erred horribly in many ways. The errors have been made clear by history. But the reason those errors are explained today in what are known as United States History courses is because a structure of government was erected upon the foundation laid by the Declaration of Independence that allowed for changes in the propositions to which we, the people, give our assent.
For instance, the original Constitution of the United States interpreted the phrase "all men are created equal" to mean that male, Caucasian, land-holders were equal under the law. "We, the people," referred to those people. Other people in this country were not understood to be included in the ideas expounded in the Declaration of Independence. Obviously those people would have found it difficult to believe that the Creator cared about them; after all, the Creator had apparently failed to endow them with inalienable rights.
History shows that generations who followed the Founding Fathers judged the original interpretation of "all men" to be anything other than self-evident. In fact, subsequent generations redefined the original interpretation of the proposition to mean that all men and women above the age of eighteen who are born or naturalized in this country are endowed by the Creator with equal Rights. In every instance of redefinition, the new generation's consensus definition was added to the Constitution as an amendment to the original document.
Now it should be understood that this interpretation process did not come without difficulty. Never has the process been anything but stressful and dangerous. Literally millions of gallons of blood have soaked into the soil of the United States of America during the interpretation process.
Once that fact is grasped, would prudence not dictate avoiding anything to do with interpreting foundational propositions? Certainly that is an option available to any generation. That generation could easily see themselves as prudent. And prudence is a virtue in any self-image. But that generation would also have to incorporate the understanding that they had abandoned the responsibility to govern. That generation would have to realize they had defined their reason for being, not as an opportunity to participate in government, but as an opportunity to exercise prudence. Deep in their heart such a generation would know it is self-evident that sometimes cowardice masquerades as prudence. Sustaining a positive self-image in the face of such knowledge is impossible. Self-destructive behavior becomes inevitable.
Instances of individuals involved in self-destructive behavior are daily and numerous. If we look closely at nations, it is possible to see self-destructive behavior at the corporate level also. Take the United States Civil War for example. Since the war was anything but civil, it is the most graphic example of self-destructive behavior in the history of this nation. The purpose of one side in that war was to destroy the Union among the States and from that destruction force the One to become Two. The Civil War was the time the people in the South decided to draw the line between "them" and "us."
It can be said that those who fought to preserve the Union were not involved in self-destructive behavior but were, instead, resisting those who desired to destroy the Union. At the corporate level, that would be true; but, regardless of which side they fought on, it was scant comfort to those who lost their lives. At the individual level, everyone who lost their lives was involved in self-destructive behavior.
As with individual instances of self-destructive behavior, the only way that any national event like the Civil War can be interpreted as evidence of anything other than the utter insanity of mankind is if the lessons learned from the event give succeeding generations hope that such events can be avoided in the future. Have the lessons learned from the Civil War prepared us to avoid similar conflict today?
It is impossible to ignore the fact that there are similarities between the argument over legalized slavery and the argument over legalized abortion. Both issues involve the same fundamental questions: What is a person? Who is a person? What is the purpose of the Law? What is Right? Who decides what is Right? How is Right decided?
And there is similarity in that opposing viewpoints assume their answers to the above questions are readily understandable to any reasonable person. The final similarity is that in both instances neither side understands what happens when people disagree on self-evident truth.
The Founding Fathers of the United States were endowed with the grace to see that they were imperfect vessels and that the structure of government they were erecting would reflect their imperfections. In light of that wisdom, they built into the structure of government a mechanism for altering the government from top to bottom. Through amending the Constitution, any change, even foundational change, could be accomplished by we, the people; and those changes, no matter how radical, would never be Revolution as long as the changes occurred according to the directions included within the Constitution.
For generations, the changes made in the Constitution of the United States that related to individual Rights all went in one direction: rights were extended to more and more categories of people who had been excluded in the Founder's original interpretation of the "all men" phrase in the Declaration of Independence. The movement of history in the United States of America made it appear that inalienable Rights endowed by the Creator were to be extended to all the people in the United States created by that Creator.
In 1973, that movement was reversed. A group of people, unborn, but destined to be people, was refused access to the Rights endowed by the Creator on every other citizen of the United States. As I have pointed out, that refusal could only have occurred if the idea of the Creator was eliminated from the reasoning process of the legal authorities in this nation. The removal of the idea of the Creator from the reasoning of legal authorities of the United States of America was a Revolutionary act. In effect, the Supreme Court of the United States of America, speaking in the name of we, the people, declared war on the unwanted unborn, drafting the mothers of the land into armed warfare. Once again, the lesson of history repeated itself: when Rights are no longer seen to be an inalienable gift of the Creator to all people, people begin to perish--by the millions. If unchecked, a bloodbath is unleashed that threatens to drown all in its crimson torrent.
The form of government in the United States of America is based on a contract willingly entered into by we, the people. When that contract is altered without the people's consent, a new form of government is established, one based not on the consent of the people but on the manipulative prowess of the ones altering the contract.
Now as in the past governments are instruments of power created by people to defend what is seen as self-evident truth. From Pharaoh to Caesar to Pope to King to President to Chairman, governments justify their authority by appeal to self-evident truth. Governments survive and thrive in direct proportion to the consent and agreement of the people with the self-evident truth held by the government.
A foundational change has occurred in the government of the United States of America without a Constitutional Amendment. The self-evident truths declared by our Founding Fathers which provided the bedrock foundation of mutual assent among the people of this nation for over two hundred years have now been abandoned by Governing Authorities in this nation. Based solely upon Judicial Decree, a new definition of person has been forced upon the people of this nation, and a new statement of the Will of God has been defined, which definition we, the people, are legally obligated to accept, respect, and serve. Such is the nature of the New American Revolution.
Now in a context where the dangers of nuclear proliferation make the establishment of a New World Order merely a matter of time, the United States of America approaches this New World Order having been transformed. With the removal of the ideas upon which the United States of America was originally founded, whatever influence the United States might have on the form the government of the New World Order will take has been radically altered.
Only one things appears to be clear: Rights of the individual will not be declared to be an inalienable Gift of the Creator. Government in Service to the People will not reflect the American Distinctive. The nation that would rightfully be expected to insist on that role for the idea of god--the United States of America--has undergone a Revolution and the plan of the Creator has been removed as the foundation upon which the government of the United States of America exercises its authority.
Go To The Creator's Rights Party Website
You Can Mail A Donation To: Neal Horsley, PO Box 1081, Carrollton, Ga 30116,
Or If You Can't Donate Now, Click Below and Join The We Choose Life Network.
Use Your Internet Connection Fee To Help Deter People From Butchering God's Children
|