Family Court Violates the Purpose of Courts and Fathers’ Unalienable Rights! The purpose of court is to reveal truth so as to administer justice to maintain liberty of the innocent, punish the guilty proportionately to his offense and compensate for damage done if possible to the aggrieved. The court’s process for accomplishing this must be recognized as a fair process. Family court ignores all of this. This process requires exposing the truth in order to administer appropriate justice. That’s because liberty is impossible without justice; and justice is impossible without truth. Truth and Justice are inseparable and support each other.

Establishing truth invokes the maxim that ‘the certainty of a thing arises only by making it a thing certain’. This implies that the court should seek clear proof of allegations made against someone and not rule on just the allegations or weakly supported ones. The importance of discerning the truth directly relates to the deprivation of rights and punishment that the court may order. Any court that ignores the ‘due process’ that would bring out the truth and punish falsehood is a kangaroo court.

A court action requires a justifiable cause to impose its orders:

Courts are in the business of resolving a dispute or a ‘wrong’ done – civilly or criminally. In order for people to know that they are in trouble, laws must be clear – not vague – so a case can be decided fairly ‘for or against’ one of the litigants. The cause that justifies a court action must be clear. A criminal complaint must allege all ‘elements’ that must be present for it to be considered a crime of a particular sort like theft, or murder. Severe deprivation of rights are at stake so the burden of proof is ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’. Civil actions (i.e. not criminal) which can deny or simply reduce any fundamental right of a litigant must require a burden of proof that’s ‘clear and convincing’ and also must have a clear constitutional criteria that must be met before any denial can be imposed.

Civil torts (i.e. wrongs) also, have characteristic ‘elements’ that must have occurred for the case to continue and not be dismissed. Implied or actual contracts are often at issue. Since only money is at stake the burden of proof is ‘preponderance of evidence’ – 51% or more of the evidence must be on the winner’s side. All these requirements are necessary to assure that people are not punished or deprived of rights at the whim of some judge or plaintiff. Otherwise, we wouldn’t have any rights -which, in fact, we do because we are a Republic with guaranteed constitutional rights.

Family Court: Elements of the Complaints:

Though all courts have previously required certain characteristic elements in all complaints be present to justify the court’s action and, if proved, its ordered deprivations, punishments, or awards among the litigants, the family court complaints make deprivations, punishments and award under no-fault divorce! This is anti-law. It’s the mark of state tyranny. No wrong need be committed for one litigant to be punished, denied his rights, and virtually enslaved while the other is rewarded at the expense of the first.

The judgment of complaint for a no-fault divorce severely deprives the unalienable rights of a fit father to parent his children, to use his property as he sees fit, and to earn income as he sees fit. These very deprivations work to benefit and award the mother. Parental unfitness is an unnecessary criteria for allocating the ‘noncustodial’ status – most often to fathers. To repeat, for a father to be denied physical custody of his child, he doesn’t have to be found unfit or commit any wrong. The judge invokes a completely arbitrary criteria to what he thinks is ‘the best interests of the child’ to determine what judgments he’ll issue. The state uses this ‘excuse’ to deprive a father of all his unalienable rights. That constitutes a tyranny.

Most all the father’s property can be transferred to the mother including his children. She receives child support payments from him which supports her, the children, and often much more while leaving the father destitute, if not nearly so. A complaint for modification of a no-fault divorce judgment generally requires a material change in the relevant circumstances that the previous judgment was based upon.

When there is no marriage but there is a child, then a complaint for paternity can be filed. The state allows this since it claims that it has an interest in the child. At issue is the same as for divorce accept there is no distribution of (marital) assets. The father will still be deprived and punished.

How the family court ignores due process in divorce and paternity-related actions:

First, family court deals exclusively with fundamental rights of litigants. At stake is your right to parent your child, to control and choose your income and profession, your right to maintain your professional and driver’s licenses, your right to have or maintain your passport and travel as you see fit. And of course there is jail waiting for you if you don’t comply. So you would think that the highest level of ‘due process’ should be operating to protect the rights of each litigant. Wrong! There is virtually no due process to assure truth and preserve rights. Family court makes no adherence to the constitutionally required due process when fundamental rights are at stake. Violations of maxims and all higher laws abound and all judgments have no burden of proof.

There is no jury trial in family court. There is only a ‘bench’ trial which means that the judge is both judge and jury for you. Determination of the issues of divorce (except the distribution of assets) is assigned at a temporary order hearing without benefit of a trial and evidence.  Under such scenarios, lawyer and judge-threatened agreements are common place experiences for fathers without the protection of a jury. Absent an agreement by the parents, judges generally assign only one parent as the custodial (having full physical custody) parent.  The other – noncustodial – parent has virtually or operationally no parental rights as we all understand what parenting implies. You should recognize that such a setup will necessarily lead to injustice! With all protections gone, special interest groups will take over how certain judgment outcomes will prevail. In fact a whole divorce and domestic violence industry has done just that. And that’s the tyranny that fathers face.

Special interest groups and their influence in court financial interests:

First, they have interest in setting larger child support orders. The court coffers and DOR (Department of Revenue)/CSE (Child Support Enforcement) receive federal incentive payments and there are Court-DOR agreements for DOR money that goes to the court systems. County jails make money by more inmates – alleged to deadbeat dads. Women and lawyers love this.

Second, VAWA has made abuse allegations more easily allowed and prosecuted.  Visitation centers and lawyers benefit by this as well as do battered women shelters and batterer’s groups – for men only. Incidentally, battering is relatively rare; accusations are very common.

Third, they foster aggravating parental exchanges and unequal allotment of rights – as the court imposes. This makes a lot of money and job security for lawyers, family services officers, psychologists, GALS, parenting class coordinators, women’s groups, and affiliated VAWA organizations who receive some $5 Billion over 5 years  – and mothers too.

—————————————————-

No-fault divorce sets up a legal tyranny against a father because it assigns punishment to him and rewards the mother without allowing him the due process required to protect his rights. Paternity suits do much the same. Here’s how and why it happens. Before no-fault divorce, a person seeking divorce (the complainant) had to demonstrate cause on the part of his or her spouse that justified a breaking of the marriage contract before dissolving the marriage, dividing family assets, and destroying the two-parent structure essential for children. Such cause constituted a legally recognized offense against the complainant. Otherwise, the state was limited in its actions and intrusion into the private affairs of the family.

Under no-fault divorce, that state has claimed unprecedented authority and access into the affairs of family which was previously considered sacrosanct – i.e. off-limits to government. It completely usurps the defendant’s constitutional right to due process.

Now, no regard is given to the constitutional right of due process for either party which secures the right of an individual to be heard when issues of life, liberty, or property are at stake as is paramount in divorce and paternity suits. Constitutionally, no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, property, or any right granted him by statue unless the matter involved is first adjudicated or ruled against him at trial.

No crime and all punishment:

So, for the most important contractual obligation in society, no-fault divorce allows the plaintiff mother to break her contractual obligation without the right of due process being given to the father. His life can be ruined, his liberty restrained in countless ways, and his property taken away by the courts. His children will suffer the loss of him and his legacy. He’s deprived of the right to his family and property.

The family court generally never proves unfitness much less any fault in a father yet deprives him of physical custody of his children and perhaps allows him shared legal custody with the ex-wife. Unfortunately it will generally not enforce those meager legal rights and often deny them to him at the whim of the mother.

Beyond depriving him of his parental rights to his children, the court orders him to make weekly payments to the mother for up to 22 years in some states. These payments can amount to as much as, and often more, than 30% of his gross income and can be used for whatever the mother chooses. Nevertheless, they’re euphemistically called ‘child support’ payments for political correct purposes. The payments almost ensure his impoverishment but are extorted from him through threat of loss of driver’s license, state workers licenses, and immediate jailing without a jury trial under contempt charges for not paying it all.

Some constitutional due process violations associated with no-fault divorce:

Using a court to complain for rewards from another without proving a wrong done by him has never been an acceptable complaint in any court. It’s against the maxims of law.

But the family court process fosters such pleadings and unjustly rewards such complainants while maliciously punishing defendants who are never proven to have done harm. Here are some violations that family court processes rests upon.

1. Most often, a mother wishes to break the marriage contract at her whim citing irreconcilable differences.

But she will ask the court for benefits granted at the expense of the father. The violation is that you do not have a right to approach the court to ask from something without showing and proving a harm by him which requires a balanced or proportional remedy.

2. The father is deprived of his right to argue that he has committed no criminal act which would warrant benefits to be taken from him. Nor is he allowed to argue that an unconstitutional act is taking place against him. He’s forced to argue not that he’s a fit parent but only that he’s the better parent with no objective standards prescribed by law. This violates his right to be heard in his defense when rights are at stake.

3. The punishment of denying him his parental rights and exacting almost endless payments from him without proving any wrong doing on his part and which were once reserved only for proved criminal acts is a constitutional violation – essentially establishing an unlawful peonage and slavery of him as father.

The no-fault court process follows the same procedure when a paternity suit is filed absent a divorce. The mother is rewarded while the father’s rights are denied and he is punished for no proven – or even alleged- wrong doing.

Though the violations can go either way according to the perverted family court process, feminists’ influence and complicity in maintaining the abuse of women excuse and the best interest of the child excuse assure the women-favored court outcomes.

—————————————————-

Shane Flait gives you the capability you need to fight for your rights.

Get his FREE Downloads at

http://www.FathersRightsLegalAid.com

Long ago in the early annals of the history of humanity, mankind collectively (with little exception), violated the Divine Laws of God that were imprinted upon his own conscience.  For some 1600 years, God put up with this rebellion, but as wickedness increased in the earth so the destruction of His beloved human race became imminent and inevitable.  A loving God was forced to take desperate and horrible action: He was forced to destroy a planet to save a man…a man named Noah.  The conclusion of a loving and just God was this:  if judgment is not carried out swiftly to preserve this one righteous man, Noah, and his family, wickedness will inevitably swallow him up and destroy his family line as well.

So God sends the flood.  Cruel judgment?  No.  Unfathomable mercy and love.  But God says to Noah, “I don’t EVER want to have to do this again…so here’s what I want mankind to do: govern YOURSELF in accordance with My laws and keep wickedness in check so I don’t have to destroy the planet like this ever again!  I destroyed a planet to save a man, now I give human government the responsibility to save the planet!”

So God instituted human government for the purpose of enforcing Divine Law on a smaller scale.  Man was given the responsibility to be self-governing (which he enjoyed), until that self-government became detached from Divine Law.

Within a few hundred years, mankind degenerated towards evil again.  A man named Nimrod becomes a prominent character in the human drama.  This man was a bold leader and hero of the people, who believed in human liberty and self-government.  The problem was, he took his self-governing liberties too far and became proud and rebellious against God.  His greatest obstacle was Divine Law itself, so he became an apostate.  He turned the hearts of the people from trusting in God to trusting in themselves and ignoring God.  He founded the kingdom of Shinar, with four great cities, including the famous city of Babel.  He founded the Babylonian cult, which is the first great apostate religion.  He built the city of Babel with a great tower, where men practiced idolatry to worship the stars in the heavens.  AT LAST!  They had created a “god” to worship that would not tell them what to do!  Of course, you probably know the rest of the story.  The city of Babel was left incomplete.  Nimrod’s hedonist, idolatrous followers were scattered having had their languages confused, and “Operation Ignore Divine Law” fails.

Mankind became a scattered group of rebels and idol worshippers.  Mankind, as a whole, had forsaken God.  So God looks for a righteous man whom He can trust and enter a covenant with to bless.  He finds Abram.

God says of Abram in Genesis 18:19:“For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord, to do justice and judgment; that the Lord may bring upon Abraham that which He has spoken of him.”

Like Nimrod, Abram (or Abraham) believed in and was quite capable of self-government.  But God saw something more in Abraham.  He found a man who practiced self-government in accordance with Divine Law…a man who honored family government, who knew the boundaries of liberty and the key to liberty’s continuance, and a model whom God looked at and said, “I want to build a nation of people just like him!”

A little over 200 years ago, our founding fathers had the same dream.  Let’s build a country of people of faith, who govern themselves in accordance with God’s Laws.  Let’s write a Constitution based on the principles of Divine (or Natural) Law as we see in the Bible.  Let’s create a check-and-balance system of government since we see man is prone to wickedness and shirking Divine Law.  The founders saw the importance of limited government; but more importantly, they saw that if they were to truly be ONE NATION UNDER GOD, then they must be governed by a higher standard.

As George Washington declared: “It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible.”

John Adams warned Americans as well: “Statesmen…may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone, which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand.  The only foundation of a free Constitution, is pure virtue, and if this cannot be inspired in our people, in a greater measure, than what we have now, they may change their rulers, and the forms of government, but they will not obtain a lasting liberty…We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion…Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.  It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

Today in America, there are candidates running for President that care nothing for liberty…only themselves.  There are also candidates who, in the name of liberty, seek to unshackle man from the restraints of Divine Law.  There are those who think a strong economy is what makes a nation great…but what really makes a nation great is the character of its people, the strength of its families, the courage of its leaders, and its uncompromising devotion to the laws of God as supreme.

So shall we follow the Abraham model of government or the Nimrod model?  If we want Nimrod, then let us throw off all self-constraint in the name of liberty, become lawless and shirk as much government as we can!  But if we want the Abraham model, let us not fully dispose of government, but reduce its size and influence by becoming self-governed citizens in accordance with the laws of God.  Let us elect a man who honors God first, who understands the importance of family, and who will pass this legacy of obedience and faith in God on to future generations.

There are no Abrahams running for president, but there are arguably a few Nimrods.   Choose a candidate who respects Divine Law and who is most capable of leading our nation to prosperity through the time-tested American way:  “In GOD we trust!”

Unfortunately, Bible literacy in America is no longer the norm, even among those who regularly attend church. Correcting the problem is directly tethered to whether or not America can be restored. Rev. Cary Gordon addresses the subject of Mosaic Law and its proper relation to modern government, in the light of the work of Christ at Calvary and the significance of the Mount of Transfiguration. Enjoy this rare sermon on the true anchor of good government – the harmonious relationship between the Old Testament law of God and the New Testament law of Christ. Brace yourself as the sacred cows of popular Marcionism are slaughtered, and the real meaning of Paul’s writing in Colossians 2:13-14 is demonstrated in a reenactment of Moses’ “Law of Jealousy” prescribed in Numbers 5:23.

Watch: Were Moses and Jesus Fascists?

When Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas appealed to Natural Law theory in some of his legal opinions and writings, there were those on the Senate Judiciary Committee during his confirmation hearings in September 1991 who took exception. The most vocal critic was former Senator and now Vice President Joseph Biden.

William Blackstone

As long as Thomas defined Natural Law as Biden did, Thomas’ appeal to it was acceptable. But if he defined it as “Higher Law,” the belief that God was its author as eighteenth-century jurist William Blackstone (1723–1780) did, then his view of Natural Law would not be tolerated. Biden wrote an article that appeared in the September 8, 2001 issue of the Washington Post[1]in which he claimed the following for his version of natural law:

• It does not “function as being a specific moral code regulating individual behavior.”
• It is not “a static set of unchanging principles.”
• It is “an evolving body of ideals.”

Basically, law is whatever the courts say it is. “In our system,” Biden wrote, “the sole obligation of a Supreme Court justice is to the Constitution. Natural justice can supply one of the important means of understanding the Constitution, but natural law can never be used to reach a decision contrary to a fair reading of the Constitution itself.” This is why the Left wants to be the gatekeepers to the Supreme Court by mandating a liberal litmus test to all prospective judges. Biden’s article does not tell us anything about how we determine what’s right or wrong. Morality is a matter of “individual choice,” and if you can get enough justices to agree with you, then it’s the law, and they are the ones who determine what “individual choice” means. But no matter the form of government, authority and law are foundational.

Every system of government exists to produce or enforce certain laws, and every law necessarily entails a set of moral assumptions. All morality—even that which is usually supposed to be, or touted as being, based upon an “irreligious” or anti-religious” philosophical foundation—is ultimately religious in its nature, since it is founded upon . . . fundamental assumptions about the nature of reality, about God, man, and things, which are taken on (a usually unacknowledged) faith. In this deepest sense, then, the question for every legal system is not whether it will be based upon “religion” but rather which religion or religious philosophy will be its foundation?[2]

The modern conception of law is a far cry from the moral principles on which America was founded. Critics point out that America had its forms of injustice, for example, slavery. True enough, but it was because there was a “Higher Law” ethic based on biblical moral values that slavery was overturned. President Harry S. Truman voiced the common and prevailing sentiment of his day:

The fundamental basis of this nation’s laws was given to Moses on the Mount. The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings which we get from Exodus and St. Matthew, from Isaiah and St. Paul. I don’t think we comprehend that enough these days.

If we don’t have the proper fundamental moral background, we will finally wind up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in rights for anybody.[3]

We cannot live within the fluid boundaries of legal relativism. There must be a definitive and final legal standard of appeal to justify moral decisions at the personal and governmental levels. If not, then one judge’s opinion is as good (or as bad) as another.

There is a long history in the United States where

John Quincy Adams (1767–1848) stated, “The law given from Sinai was a civil and municipal as well as a moral and religious code; it contained many statutes adapted to that time only, and to the particular circumstances of the nation to whom it was given; they could of course be binding upon them, and only upon them, until abrogated by the same authority which enacted them, as they afterward were by the Christian dispensation: but many others were of universal application – laws essential to the existence of men in society, and most of which have been enacted by every nation, which professed any code of laws.” He added that: “Vain indeed would be the search among the writings of [secular history] . . . to find so broad, so complete and so solid a basis of morality as this Decalogue lays down.”[4]

John Witherspoon (1723–1794), the president of what later came to be known as Princeton and a signer of the Declaration of Independence, wrote that “moral law published upon Mount Sinai [is] the publication or summary of that immutable law of righteousness , which is the duty of creatures, and must accompany the administration of every covenant which God makes with man.”[5]

John Jay (1745–1829), one of the authors of The Federalist Papers and served as the first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, wrote the following in a letter dated April 15, 1818 to his friend John Murray: “[T]he law was given by Moses, not however in his individual or private capacity, but as the agent or instrument, and by the authority of the Almighty. The law demanded exact obedience, and proclaimed: ‘Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.’”[6] In that same letter, he wrote:

The inspired prophets, on the contrary, express the most exalted ideas of the law. They declare that the law of the Lord is perfect, that the statutes of the Lord are right; and that the commandment of the Lord is pure; that God would magnify the law and make it honorable, etc.

Our Savior himself assures us that he came not to destroy the law and the prophets, but to fulfill; that whoever shall do and teach the commandments, shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven; that it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail [Matt. 5:17–18]. This certainly amounts to a full approbation of it. Even after the resurrection of our Lord, and after the descent of the Holy Spirit, and after the miraculous conversion of Paul, and after the direct revelation of the Christian dispensation to him, he pronounced this memorable encomium on the law, viz.: “The law is holy, and the commandments holy, just, and good” [Rom. 7:12; also see 1 Tim. 1:8].

There are a number of theologians who are trying to resurrect natural law as a secular alternative to specially revealed law, that is, laws that are found in the Bible. General revelation and its moral compatriot natural law can never stand on their own when it comes to moral particulars. I suspect that advocates of natural law are cheating when they claim that they can build an ethical system independent of special revelation and then further claim that this can be done by moral rebels. They seem to maintain that their moon (natural law) is an independent light not in need of the reflective light from the sun (special revelation). While they try to establish the independency of natural law, they are secretly using the sun’s rays (the whole Bible) to give light to their moon. Natural law advocates “are like the Irishman who preferred the moon to the sun, because the sun shines in the day-time when there is no need of it, while the moon shines in the night time; so these moralists, shining by the borrowed, reflected light of Christianity, think they have no need of the sun, from whose radiance they get their pale moonlight.”[7]

A whole‑Bible ethic is the light by which all social theories gain their reflected light. The further we move away from the light of Scripture, the darker our world becomes. With man’s “cauterized and traumatized” sinful nature, there is no possible way that we can move in the direction of natural law for the development of a comprehensive ethical social theory. “Such has been the deteriorating influence of sin that ‘the [work of the] law written on the heart’ and ‘the light of nature,’ although these remain, no longer suffice as the organ of signifying God’s will to man. A supernatural revelation has been necessary to reveal the law of duty, as well as to reveal the method of salvation through redemption.”[9]

Prior to Darwin, “the law of nature,” as English jurist William Blackstone put it, was “dictated by God himself” and “binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are in validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original. . . . Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these.”[1) Joseph R. Biden, Jr., “Law and Natural Law: Questions for Judge Thomas,” The Washington Post (September 8, 1991), C-1. [↩]

2) Archie P. Jones, “Christianity and the First Amendment: The Truth about the Religion Clauses of the Constitution,” (unpublished manuscript), 3. [↩]

3) Harry S. Truman, Harry S. Truman: Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States Containing the Public Messages, Speeches, and Statements of the President—January 1 to December 31, 1950 (Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office, 1965), 197. [↩]

4) John Quincy Adams, Letters of John Quincy Adams, to His Son, on the Bible and Its Teachings (Auburn, NY: Derby Miller & Co., 1848), 61, 70. [↩]

5) John Witherspoon, The Works of Rev. John Witherspoon, 4 vols., 2^nd rev. ed. (Philadelphia: William W. Woodward, 1802), 4:117–118. [↩]

6) John Jay, The Life of John Jay with Selections from His Correspondence and Miscellaneous Papers, 2 vols. (New York: J & J. Harper, 1833), 2:385. [↩]

7) A. T. Pierson, The Second Coming of Christ (Philadelphia, PA: Henry Altemus, 1896), 35. [↩]

8) A.A. Hodge, Evangelical Theology: Lectures on Doctrine (Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, [1890] 1990), 279. [↩]

9) Gary North, Political Polytheism (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1989), xxii. [↩]

10) William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, 4 vols. (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, [1765–1769] 1979), 1:38, 41, 42. [↩]

For example, the purists accuse the incrementalists of “having no intention of stopping the evil, because their profitable organizations are raising so much money supporting the ongoing battle.” Therefore, if the battle were to be finally won, the money would stop coming in by the millions, and the professional regulator of abortion would be unemployed. This accusation is very similar to that made by some concerning the medical community. Doctors, they say, “secretly hide the cure for chronic diseases for the purpose of guaranteeing daily revenue earned by the never-ending treatment of its victims.” The incrementalists accuse the purists of being character assassins, conspiracy theorists, and unhinged bomb-throwers oozing with the vomitous varnish of puritanical self-righteousness. Verbal grenades are thrown, and the shrapnel painfully lodges itself in the flesh of them both. Meanwhile, the abortionist sits perched on the highest plain of the battlefield chortling at the sight of his sworn enemies’ infighting.

In this regard, I am inclined to explain a way forward based upon my own analysis of the situation. My goal is to prescribe the proverbial medicine of mutual understanding that is evidently as lacking as it is necessary if festering wounds on both sides of the argument can be healed. Point of fact: neither side is without merit. Both sides operate within a particular paradigm that limits their understanding of the lay of the battlefield and misses the chortling target. If the wounds on both sides can be allowed to begin to heal and the sick on both sides can refrain from the temptation to pick at their own sores, these two warring factions may be brought together once again around what should be a common goal – the victorious end of a satanic, government-endorsed American holocaust.

While this article will uncover the issues of this dispute in a way that will certainly have national implications for the Christian political movement as a whole, I wish to focus specifically and primarily upon the recent situation concerning abortion regulation that broke out this past year among Christian conservatives in the state of Iowa. The animus surrounded the single question of whether or not abortion should be outlawed wholesale or regulated incrementally.

The root of our political divides within the church family of Iowa and elsewhere is ultimately theological. I would be remiss if I did not also point out that the political rifts that exist exclusively without the church, among the ranks of the unchurched biblically illiterate, are also equally theological. (Think “atheist” or “secularist” or “humanist” as competitive theologies, but I digress. In this article, we will focus on the mind of the churched population within Iowa, with obvious implications upon the state of our national abortion strategy.)

I believe the present Christian disharmony specifically stems from the activist’s views of free-will and what he or she believes is meant by the common Christian phrase, “the sovereignty of God.” There are three general categories within which most Christian activists eventually fit, and this writing will attempt to simplify the subject by drawing a broad three-way distinction. It is my hope that each reader might better understand himself, but more importantly, the differing paradigm of his brother-at-arms.

With that said, I acknowledge that human beings are often as individually unique in their appearance and personal theology as are snow-flakes and their geometric patterns. So, while I will use this writing to categorize believers into three general groups, I also wish to concede, right at the onset, that many variations, flavors, and hybridized versions of each division certainly exist on a case by case basis. While a hundred groups at odds with most others could be described and contrasted, for the sake of time and efficiency we must resist the temptation to unnecessarily complicate our subject by adding more than three layers to a review of the problems now faced by those who wish to end abortion in Iowa and America. It is true that some Catholics embrace Pelagian or semi-Pelagian theology[i], but others do not.[ii] It is true that Dutch Reformed, a growing number of Southern Baptist[iii], and Presbyterian believers tend to Calvinist theology, but some do not. It is true that Methodist, Free-Will Baptist, Wesleyan and Pentecostal believers are usually associated with Arminian theology, but some are not. So it is also best that we not attempt to describe the Body of Christ merely in terms of sectarian denominational brandings, lest the paradigm problem Christians create within the political world become far too complex to explore.

The Calvinist

The first group where many Christian activists fit in the state of Iowa is entitled “Calvinist.” The Calvinist generally teaches that sin was universally imputed upon the entire human race through Adam’s sin.

John Calvin 1560 AD

Every human being is believed to be born in sin and naturally evil until and unless the person is transformed by the power of God’s grace through repentance.

As a result of Adam’s transgression, he further believes man’s free moral agency was and is so totally depraved he cannot use his human will to “choose” to obey God unless God first sovereignly manipulates his human will to do so. In short, it is alleged by the Calvinist that the human will was so corrupted by the fall of Adam it ceased to be capable of any other choice than evil. It is further assumed that God chose who would go to heaven and who would go to hell, long ago, before the foundations of the world, according to Ephesians 1:4-8. Thus, Christ Jesus’ sacrificial atonement made on the cross at Calvary is believed to have only been made for those pre-chosen for eternal salvation. To be clear, the Calvinist often does not believe that Christ’s death was substitutionary and universal on behalf of the whole human race. He generally believes that God is in total control of both evil and good at all times.[iv] Every political decision made by the Calvinist will be filtered through his or her theological assumptions.

The Arminian

The second group where many other Christian activists fit in Iowa is called by the name “Arminian.”

The Arminianist believes that man’s free moral agency is inherent in his corporeal design as demonstrated in the Garden of Eden. He trusts that since God is “sovereign,” He must also, by the very definition of the word, possess the power to create other “sovereign” creatures. He further contends that such is precisely what God demonstrated in the Genesis story, when Adam was created “after His likeness and in His image.” Therefore, the Arminianist believes it is God’s sovereign will and design that mankind be completely capable of using free will, and thus, is directly responsible for his own actions.

Jacobus Arminius 1600 AD

In short, the Arminianist believes it was God’s sovereign choice that man be made sovereignly responsible for the results of his own dominion of earth. He further believes that sin was totally imputed upon the entire human race through Adam’s transgression of God’s law. Like the Calvinist, he, too, believes every human being was born in sin and remains naturally evil until and unless the person is transformed by the power of God’s grace through repentance. Therefore, man is inarguably depraved, but not so “totally depraved” (as the Calvinist describes) that he is somehow disabled from the essential ability to choose good or evil. Thus, “depravity” to the Arminianist, correctly describes a human born into sin and destined for hell, but it does not necessarily include the loss of his own powers of free will, as is purported by the Calvinist. Free will is argued by the Arminianist to have been part of the human design both before and after the fall to sin, so it stands to reason, he claims, that the imputation of sin does not possess the power to displace the free will of a man any more than the salvation of a lost soul could remove the free will afterwards. In other words, the depraved man can still choose to repent of his sins and yield to God before he is saved by grace, in the same way he may also improperly choose to sin after he has been saved by grace. In each case, repentance and a deliberate yielding of the human will is a prerequisite of forgiveness, according to 1 John 1:9.

To contrast the two, when the Calvinist presents John 15:16, in which Jesus states, “Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you,” as an alleged proof that God pre-determined who would or would not be redeemed from hell, the Arminianist explains the same verse, and other similar passages (like Ephesians 1:4-8), as little more than a reference to God’s prehistoric decision to universally die for the sins of the world, “before the ages were framed.” In that way, the Arminianist contends God universally chose all men long before any were ever born, according to Colossians 1:15-18, Ephesians 1:4-8 and Ephesians 3:9. In other words, had God not chosen to die for mankind, before the foundations of the ages, no man would now enjoy the opportunity to choose Him in response to the preaching of the cross. This scenario, espoused by the Arminianist, does not preclude the legitimacy and existence of a functional and free human will.[v] Every political decision made by the Arminianist is filtered through these theological assumptions.

The Pelagian

The third school of thought, as it relates to man’s possession of a free will and God’s sovereignty is called by the name Pelagian. Theopedia defines it: “Pelagianism views humanity as basically good and morally unaffected by the Fall. It denies the imputation of Adam’s sin, original sin, total depravity, and substitutionary atonement.

Pelagius the Culdee Monk 400 AD

It simultaneously views man as fundamentally good and in possession of libertarian free will. With regards to salvation, it teaches that man has the ability in and of himself (apart from divine aid) to obey God and earn eternal salvation.”[vi] The Catholic pastoral constitution Gaudium et Spes (one of the four Apostolic Constitutions resulting from the Second Vatican Council) is seen by its critics as Semipelagian. In his 1969 commentary on the document, Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) accused parts of it of using “downright Pelagian terminology” in its discussion of free will. (See Allen, John L. (2005). Pope Benedict XVI: A Biography of Joseph Ratzinger. London: Continuum. p. 81. ISBN 0826417868).

Unconventional Mormon theologian Sterling M. McMurrin stated “The theology of Mormonism is completely Pelagian”, i.e., Mormons do not believe in original sin. It is doubtful that many Latter-day Saints would think of themselves as “Pelagians,” or express their beliefs in the traditional terms used in the theological debates surrounding Pelagianism. However, McMurrin’s statement is true to the extent that they do not believe in “original sin.” However, Latter-day Saints’ belief differs from Pelagianism in that they believe that personal, individual perfection is only possible through the Atonement of Jesus Christ. (See McMurrin, Sterling M. The Theological Foundations of the Mormon Religion 1965). Every political decision made by the Pelagianist is filtered through these theological assumptions.

Three Theologies Reacted Within WW2 Germany

In order to understand how these three schools of theological thought may respond to a modern crisis of political and civic life, I propose a hypothetical review of the rise of Adolf Hitler in World War II Germany. Despite the fact that both John Calvin and Luther strongly advocated interposition against tyrants,[vii] the popular Calvinist teacher Pastor John MacArthur once publicly remarked about his own interpretation of Romans 13, “Now listen to this. It doesn’t matter whether your ruler is Caesar, Herod, Pilate, Felix, Festus, Agrippa, Stalin, Hitler, Winston Churchill, Bill Clinton, it doesn’t matter who it is, he says be subject, you teach them to be subject.”[viii]

Dietrich Bonhoeffer 1945

If adherents of the kind of teaching espoused by John MacArthur were inserted into the events of 1930s Germany, they might have believed, for example, that God had sovereignly chosen to use Hitler as a tool of judgment against the world, and, therefore, might also have voted for Hitler’s rise to power, following the death of President John Hindenburg. (All this while personally believing Hitler was evil and unworthy of public office).

The Pelagianist might just as well have thought Hitler to have good intentions, but perhaps lacking understanding on some important biblical truths, and graciously supported him choosing only to speak of his positive attributes, rather than focus upon his faults. There exists no shortage of happy photos of Adolf frolicking with both religious leaders of the Pelagian and semi-Pelagian persuasions.[ix]

The Arminianist might have determined Hitler to be purely evil, and therefore, empowered by satanic influence. This philosophy would require the Arminianist to offer Adolf absolute civil-resistance to the extent of assassination, if deemed necessary, to save human lives. In fact, participation in a conspiracy to assassinate Adolf Hitler is precisely what the Lutheran theologian, Pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer, attempted to do – an effort for which he was eventually hung upon the Nazi gallows.[x]

Gallows at Ohrdruf sub-camp of Buchenwald

Transfer your general knowledge of these three broad-stroked Christian positions on human responsibility as it relates to God’s sovereignty, and you may begin to understand the anger and frustration that has recently surfaced in the State of Iowa on the issue of outlawing abortion. Generally speaking, the Christian view of infanticide in all its forms calls for legal purity before both God and the American Constitution. It is agreed that only one kind of law could properly and righteously reflect the Divine Law of God – one that codifies the act as murder – plain and simple.

It is further argued that the Declaration plainly states the greatest purpose of our government to be the protection of life. Further still, the Declaration is the “legal organic law” of our entire nation and rationale for its existence, whilst the Constitution merely organizes the power drawn from the Declaration. Since these things are true, it is resolved that life should be protected at every level of American government – local, state and federal. Abortion should never be validated, funded, or in any way promoted by the government. As was established by force during the surrender of the south and closing of the American Civil War, state’s rights (think 10^th Amendment) should never be allowed to trump those inalienable rights promoted by our Declaration. Man-created ordinances are subordinate to God’s Law-Word. States don’t have a right to chain African natives inside their barns after a long hard day of servitude, so it stands to reason they do not either have a right to murder babies (or become a miniature North Korea, endangering us all with an inescapable radioactive cloud). The conclusion is simple: all innocent life must be completely protected by government. Since it is scientifically and intellectually clear that life begins at conception (fertilization in the womb), then no exceptions should be given in the case of rape or incest, as the child is not guilty of the crime and remains an innocent victim along with the mother.

After reading the expression of this clear and simple position on paper, is the reader hard-pressed to understand how another Christian could disagree? Not so fast. For the last 38 years since Roe v. Wade, anti-abortion activists have primarily ceded both the legal and constitutional ground, as well as the high and lofty moral ground upon which the entire movement ironically claims to stand (life begins at conception, and therefore, taking it at any point after it begins is murder), by agreeing with the enemies of life.

How could this be true?

It was first made possible by a rogue Supreme Court whose justices failed to uphold their own sworn oaths to uphold a Constitution – the supreme law of our nation – designed, according to the rationale given in the Declaration, to preserve LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, none of which can be enjoyed by the murdered human soul.

Supreme Court of Warren E. Burger 1973

Since that time, abortions continue because those activist groups allegedly devoted to defeating the evil empowered by a rogue court have come into some intellectual agreement with the very evil they seek to conquer. In the first generation of Roe v. Wade’s 1973 assertions, three things should have happened:

1) The law-making and/or executive branches of the American government could have and should have taken appropriate measures to rebuff a rogue and unconstitutional ruling from our Supreme Court. They should have done so with reference to the authority of the organic law’s stated purpose for America, following the example of President Andrew Jackson, but neither the executive branch nor the legislative branch asserted their own legal right to question the constitutionality of a decision made within the judicial branch. Why? Nearly all judges today believe their interpretation of the Constitution is binding on the other branches, and most in the legislative and executive branches have pretty much accepted that assertion. Yet, in 1832 Andrew Jackson’s Veto Message to Congress vetoing their establishment of a national bank makes this point very clear. In Jackson’s rebuffing of the Supreme Court he wrote:

“It is maintained by the advocates of the bank that its constitutionality in all its features ought to be considered as settled by precedent and by the decision of the Supreme Court. To this conclusion I cannot assent.

President Andrew Jackson 1832

Mere precedent is a dangerous source of authority, and should not be regarded as deciding questions of constitutional power except where the acquiescence of the people and the States can be considered as well settled…The Congress, the Executive, and the Court must each for itself be guided by its own opinion of the Constitution. Each public officer who takes an oath to support the Constitution swears that he will support it as he understands it, and not as it is understood by others. It is as much the duty of the House of Representatives, of the Senate, and of the President to decide upon the constitutionality of any bill or resolution which may be presented to them for passage or approval as it is of the supreme judges when it may be brought before them for judicial decision. The opinion of the judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges, and on that point the President is independent of both. The authority of the Supreme Court must not, therefore, be permitted to control the Congress or the Executive when acting in their legislative capacities, but to have only such influence as the force of their reasoning may deserve.”[xi]

By default, the inaction following the 1973 Roe V. Wade decision further enshrined an earlier historic usurpation made by the Warren court (1953-1969) which pretended the judicial branch’s “supreme court” not only to be the “supreme” of its own branch, but the alleged “supreme branch” of all three branches – a tyrannical oligarchy.

2) In reaction to the lethargy of both the sitting executive and legislative branches at that time, and in response to the unconstitutionality of the judicial branch’s 1973 violation of their own limitations (referring in their ruling to silly “penumbras and emanations”), the citizens of our Republic could have and should have reacted by strongly ejecting all elected officials guilty of indecision. They did not do so.

3) Because the illegitimate act of the Roe v. Wade oligarchical court was allowed to survive, additional court decisions acknowledging and further ensconcing a perceived legal legitimacy of that de-stabilizing 1973 decision began to pile into our entire legal system. This sullied and undermined our system of law by strengthening the illegitimate Roe v. Wade decision through case precedents cemented into our legal process known as “stare decisis.”[xii] Stare decisis helps clarify the law in borderline situations and makes justice more predictable, but it is not supposed to be an absolute. One problem today is the Canons of Professional Responsibility say a lawyer or judge should not argue or rule against an established decision unless he has a good possibility of getting the decision overruled.  As a result, if a lawyer goes to court and argues against an established precedent, his argument is likely to be judged frivolous and dilatory, and he will be assessed court costs and the other side’s attorney fees.  This is wrong; it prevents lawyers from examining established precedents and considering whether they are correct. In my opinion, regardless of the fact that many of those opportunities missed by the first-generation responders of the 1973 decision are still technically available today – because of the inescapable burden created by thirty eight years of stare decisis – a combination of good law-making in the legislative branch, along with aggressive executive interposition against further misbehavior within the judicial branch will be necessary for permanent protection of the unborn.

Thirty-eight years later, instead of simply outlawing the illicit extermination of blameless life, the extermination is…regulated. Perhaps our pro-life movement has been confused? After all, it is very true that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness each require some form of regulation. What is a self-governed individual soul if not a self-regulated man? What is a happy family if not a family ruled by loving parents? What is a civil society if not a society that abides by rules of acceptable conduct? What is a stable galaxy if not a solar system regulated by the invisible laws of physics as they relate to the divine power of gravity?

It is true that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness go hand-in-hand with the general concept of regulation. But let us deconstruct its inappropriate application in the case of abortion. Regulation – the provision of rules – is quite appropriate on a road with congested traffic. In such a case, their existence facilitates the protection of public life. Regulation – the provision of “Robert’s Rules” – is certainly appreciated during a public meeting. In such a case, their existence facilitates the protection of the workings of liberty. Regulation – the provision of rules – is something good and reasonable for those who wish to enjoy a fair game of tennis. In such a case, their existence facilitates one’s personal pursuit of happiness. The same might be said of any variety of fun-loving games created by Milton Bradley. (With respect to the actual meaning of the phrase “pursuit of happiness,” we acknowledge it is a reference to the right of private property ownership, and that neither tennis nor a Milton Bradley board game can provide much entertainment, without land upon which the tennis court must sit, or in the case of Milton Bradley games, a nice table placed upon a floor which is placed upon the property in order for the board game to be enjoyed).

But regulations, my dear reader, are not always appropriate. In many cases, they are entirely absurd. For example, suggest the provision of regulations – the provision of rules – on how to properly rape an unwilling lady, and you’ll be discarded from the room and labeled a dangerous and imbecilic pervert. Dare you suggest the provision of regulations – the provision of rules – on the particular times of the morning when bank-robbing should be considered legal, and when it might later be deemed criminal again (don’t be late!), and expect an intervention from loved-ones praying you’ll visit the psychiatrist. Yet, it is strangely now the norm, not only among those who make regulated murder a profitable business for licensed killers, but among those who tearfully desire to end it. Regulation of the murder of children is apparently the most socially acceptable path to its eventual end. The antagonist and protagonist alike argue it to be the pragmatic and politically reasonable compromise to make “if you ever wish it to end.” It is a truth to say that for some evils regulation is not enough; prohibition is required.  For example, rather than saying murder is prohibited, why don’t we just regulate murder, saying that no one may commit murder unless he has a murderer’s license, has gone through 50 hours of murderer training, uses registered guns or knives, follows approved methods, and undergoes a three-day waiting period to reflect on whether murder is really what he wants to do?

Dear reader, I mean you no offense and certainly wish to avoid reopening any wound already inflicted by any other party in this war, but the bitter medicine that must be swallowed by the mature if any wound can ever heal is just this cold hard fact: the alleged regulation of what should be a criminal act, beloved, is something tolerated only by a society of unjust fools. It is nothing more and nothing less.

Sometimes, you see, a child can be murdered one calendar day prior to the twentieth week of life. Sometimes they can’t. It just depends on the calendar-games played in the guidelines provided to the state-licensed murder mill. What could better illustrate the truth of the idiom, “compromise is not a virtue”?

As was stated at the outset of this writing. In this article we are deliberately making three simple distinctions of Christian theology. We recognize there are more than a billion variations of these three, and that exceptions must exist. Moreover, it stands to reason that the reader may find himself squarely fitting into none of our three proposed square holes, but this is beside the point. With that said, let us continue with what happens to the truths expressed about our three categories of theology on the Christian view of abortion:

1) The Calvinist position, in the specific case of those who follow the doctrines of John MacArthur, might be prone to do little or nothing to end abortion, believing it probably the sovereign will of God, or in other cases, Calvinists who reject MacArthur’s view of authority (thankfully there are those who do) might demonstrate they are righteously and inflexibly anchored to the absolute position: incrementalism is evil, and abortion should be ended without compromise.  The fallout of his justified unwillingness to sign an incremental bill (deaths of children) can be accepted as God’s jurisdiction and responsibility.  Thus, he will lose no sleep following his refusal to sign a partial birth abortion ban. Alas, I know a Calvinist who passionately supports incrementalism. (As I said earlier, theology is to individuals as geometry is to snowflakes.)

2) The Arminianist, however, feels extraordinary responsibility if he is presented with an opportunity to save some lives. He elects to place the “spirit of the law” above the “letter of the law,” according to the demonstrations of Jesus’ handling of the spirit of the law in front of the legalists of Matthew 15 and Mark 7. An Arminianist would usually sign a partial birth abortion ban, for failing to intervene would violate his conscience. He would see himself as guilty of putting Constitutional arguments above the more important issue of saving the lives of some late-term babies, the very act for which he rejects the philosophy of Ron Paul. (The Arminianist typically believes it is wrong that the libertarian candidate promotes decentralized virtues above the need for a federal abortion ban and federal marriage protection.)

3) Wedged between the Calvinist and the Arminianist resides the Pelagianist (and semi-Pelagianist). It is difficult for the Pelagianist to accept the reality that some portions of those caught within this argument are “evil persons” and that a counter-insurgent “scorched-earth” political strategy should be used against the efforts of “evil.” The Pelagianist, by definition, does not believe that man is born with an inherent sin-nature. Quite the opposite is believed – that all men are inherently good. Therefore, the Pelagianist instinctively and compassionately excuses errors in his political opponents as “fear” or “ignorance,” but rarely will acknowledge his antagonist as being truly “evil.” He is prone to support and author incrementalism more consistently than the other two.

It is certainly true that different schools of thought can read the same simple Bible command and arrive at a different conclusion. One reads “thou shalt not murder” and tearfully protests against capital punishment. Perhaps the protester has not understood God’s command in Genesis chapter nine? Without a direct discussion, we are left to presumption. Does the emotional and pious protester violate their conscience? They are not in violation of their conscience, per se, though their actions, in my opinion, are emotion-based and ill-formed upon unstable scriptural misunderstandings.

President Harry Truman Awards Desmond T. Doss the Medal of Honor on Oct. 12, 1945

Another reads “thou shalt not murder” and lives the kind of Army life of which movies are made. He refuses to hold a gun, much less fire one. He refuses to obey his commanding officers, appealing to the higher authority of “God’s Law” as justification for his refusal to obey a direct order. He gets cussed-out by layers of superior officers and treated like an enemy by his fellow soldiers throughout his military experience. He is hated until a day on a battlefield, when he miraculously rescues around seventy-five wounded infantrymen (one at a time dragging them through walls of gun fire) against impossible odds…as if he is divinely protected -  seemingly bullet-proof. He is revered as a truly great hero. He becomes an American legend. He was and is admirable to the utmost. The application of his firm and childlike faith in God shames the wisest. Yet, his childlike understanding of the command was clearly wrong. He need not necessarily repent for his ignorance. His name is Desmond T. Doss. He is a conscientious objector and the only one drafted into WW2 to receive the nation’s highest honor. The citation for his honored service reads, “His name became a symbol throughout the 77th Infantry Division for outstanding gallantry far and beyond the call of duty.”

Others read “thou shalt not murder”, and they agree to sign a partial-birth abortion ban. In their minds and consciences, they only accept responsibility for the part of the bill that saves the lives of some children and subsequently blame the rebellious men on the other side of the negotiating table for refusing to allow them to move the target of the legal protection time-line all the way back to the point of conception.

They are convinced that the sinner’s power over the negotiating process is responsible (not them) for the ugliness that remains in the final compromise which inevitably still allows innocent children to be exterminated. In his mind and heart, the Christian incrementalist fights for as many lives as he can save and only takes moral responsibility for the portion secured.

In all cases cited above, the following is true: ignorance is not malevolence until determined to be willful. An ignorant man needs instruction. A malevolent man needs rebuke. “Father forgive them, for they know NOT what they do” still resounds in the valley below Golgotha.

In the end, it is possible – even likely –  that all three paradigms we have now reviewed seek to end abortion, agree that abortion itself is evil, and desire to please God with all of their hearts. Where all sides can come together will most likely NOT be in theology; therefore, the issue of what is or is not the most legitimate and sensible STRATEGY must come to the FOREFRONT if the Christian political movement is to unite powerfully enough to dislodge government-sanctioned abortion. It is possible for an Arminianist, Calvinist, and a Pelagianist to concur on strategy, if it can be explained clearly and the three can agree to employ the objective use of deductive reasoning.

From these three main theological divisions within the Christian community, two generally accepted political strategies have evolved. Though the purist approach and incremental approach are at variance with one another, each prescribes a plan to end abortion in America. My observation has been that both the Arminianist and Pelagianist have demonstrated a proclivity toward the concept of what is called “political incrementalism,” whereas some Calvinists have demonstrated an inclination toward the letter of the law both biblically and constitutionally. I acknowledge there are exceptions to what I have described, yet the inclinations remain clear.

Although I am Arminian with regard to free moral agency, it just so happens, so far as strategy is concerned, that I personally agree with the Calvinist proclivity demonstrated by some who approach the politics of abortion with unbending puritanical truth. Why? Besides the most obvious point already made – that it is logically, theologically, morally, legally, and constitutionally inconsistent to “provide rules for proper murder.” Someone MUST champion the ROOT of the moral argument upon which we are standing…that all abortion is evil and all abortions are acts of murder. Truth without confusion and contradiction is precisely what society needs – not only from its religious leaders, for God requires it of His civil rulers. God still demands that Caesar render unto Him due reverence.

I’m not entirely sure what must be done to heal the pain between these frustrated sides, but healed they must become before they will likely embrace a unified and effective political strategy.

Naturally, there also exists a fourth group – a political subset of the three we are discussing in this article – consisting of every stripe of believer-in-Christ and non-believer-in-Christ. Their existence, stirred into the three categories we have discussed, creates confusion and animosity within the anti-abortion movement. We will call them “defeatists.” In their hearts, they DO NOT BELIEVE it is possible to outlaw abortion, and they are content to play “calendar games” on the issue, using it as a political football. When the date that prohibits murder moves closer toward conception, they cheer a victory and raise money. When the date moves further away from conception, they decry it and raise money.  The bottom line is they do not believe it can be won, and they are not willing to stake their political career on a pipe-dream.

This group is made up of apathetic unbelievers who don’t care and defeatist Christians who don’t care enough. They are all sinners who deserve to be publicly repudiated. The trouble with repudiating them is that, in most cases, only God knows the motivation of their heart. Unless they reveal their motivation outright, on our best day, with few exceptions, we can only guess. Our recognition of corrupt men among us must not cause us to alienate those who possess sincerity; though we may believe they are mistaken to continue a failed strategy of incrementalism. We must not alienate the sincere people spoken of in the previous remarks, because alienation, ironically, guarantees that abortionists will continue to win.

The first and foremost problem with the incremental strategy is simple. The past 38 years serve as the proof that it doesn’t work. In response to this fact, I have personally witnessed advocates of pro-life incrementalism argue a few fleeting examples where it has “saved lives.” Ironically, that very argument is precisely the proof necessary to solidify my previous hypothesis. It did not save the overwhelming majority of lives. Thus, the fair and non-emotional charge is re-stated and proven to be true by the antagonist and protagonist alike: “Incrementalism does NOT work! Period!”

The second problem with the incremental strategy is also simple. It empowers the pro-abortion candidates, who aggressively and willfully resist our efforts to end the holocaust, to remain in office by pretending they are NOT pro-abortion candidates (think “Bart Stupak”)![xiii] How? We provide them with opportunities to vote in favor of extremely weak incremental bills that statistically save few, if any, babies. They vote in favor of the bill because they know the bill will do little, if anything, to hinder the ongoing abortion industry. Afterward, the pro-abortionist representative purposely confuses both sides of their electorate as a means to guarantee re-election.

How is this done? This is also quite simple: if the bill is toothless and does not really “take away a woman’s right to choose,” the leftist can argue he is “pro-choice” when he finds it expedient. This is particularly helpful when speaking to an audience representing the pro-choice voting block. If the “toothless” bill is also an emotion-based attempt to press the women in question to re-consider their decision, then the leftist can argue that the same bill is also “pro-life.” Again, this will be blissfully helpful when he speaks to constituents representing the pro-life voting block. When caught telling two audiences completely different things, the disingenuous politician replies, “Not so! I am personally against abortion, but I don’t want the government interfering in personal decisions! I have told the truth to both audiences!”

In review, incrementalism has been employed by well-meaning Calvinists, Arminianists, and Pelagianists alike over the last 38 years. It has failed. Abortions continue every day across our land. Incrementalism has also provided re-election cover for wicked men who, rather than ending it, have perfected the art of pretending, pacifying two opposing sides of a life and death battle. Therefore, a new strategy must be adopted post-haste. This strategy is very simple and has five steps:

1)  Reject the poor politics of incrementalism and refuse to provide cover for chameleons.

2)  Propose a “purist” bill which recovers the moral position upon which the entire movement has claimed to stand, stating the truth – abortion is murder and must be outlawed, with no exceptions for rape and incest, because the baby didn’t commit the crime.

3)  Bring the bill to a simple up or down vote. If it passes, Christians may celebrate. If it does not pass into law, proceed to step 4.

4)  Expose every pro-abortionist voting record to his or her constituents, and let the informed and not-so-easily fooled electorate replace them with a pro-life representative.

5)  Repeat the previous four steps until the battle is won.

Many state-level gun-lobby groups have made great progress using the very method proposed above. Purist bills expose who the true enemies of an issue are and make it much more likely they can be defeated in future elections. The pro-life movement could learn a great deal from single-issue second-amendment groups. Until they do, the pro-life movement will continue to underwhelm with a lack of progress. On the day Christian conservatives come together around the simple and honest strategy outlined above, progress toward legitimately outlawing abortion will finally begin, and abortion will be defeated within a few years, and in some cases, only a few months.

Whether you be a Calvinist, Pelagianist, or Arminian Christian, I pray you will join me in an effort to stand once again upon the legal, constitutional, moral, and divine truth we claim to believe.  Let us abort all agreements with our enemies that end with the words, “and then you can still kill the child,” and give birth to a restored American republic, where LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are hallowed once again.

Senator Rick Santorum

The Iowa Faith & Freedom Coalition Fall Banquet, held on the Iowa State Fairgrounds in Des Moines last night, was anything but a debate. But, it was another opportunity to separate the wheat from the chaff in the 2012 Republican presidential nomination field.

I did not attend the event, which appeared to draw approximately 1,000 people, but I did watch the televised portion on C-SPAN, which included approximately 40 minutes of remarks from the organizers and speeches by IFFC president Steve Scheffler and American Faith & Freedom Coalition founder Ralph Reed Jr.

In fact, I watched a replay of it just to make sure I didn’t miss something.

The remaining three hours were focused solely on the six candidates who RSVP’d for the opportunity to state their case to what was once the only representative of perhaps the biggest caucus voting bloc: Christian evangelicals. A lot has changed since the 1980s, but one thing remains the same; some of the candidates show up thinking they have to pander.

Each candidate was given a loose mandate to speak for only 10 minutes. One candidate barely exceeded six minutes, while another spoke for more than 20. There was no penalty for going over the allotted time limit.

After his or her respective speech, each candidate then fielded four questions. Two were asked on behalf of the IFFC by Scheffler, while the other two were asked on behalf of the Iowa Energy Forum by Iowa Senator Jerry Behn, a Boone County farmer who ran briefly for governor last year.

The candidates largely did very well for themselves on the questions, which appeared to be provided to allow the candidates to distance themselves from each other in an apples-to-apples sort of way. But, the candidates actually did a halfway decent job of that in their speeches.

As always, there were winners, losers, and those who just held onto the ground they’ve already gained. And, purely by happenstance, I felt there were two candidates in each of those categories.

The Losers

Ralph Reed Founder of Faith & Freedom Coalition

The biggest loser of the night was Reed, who took the opportunity during his time on stage to beg for money from “everyone age 7 or over” at the event, and then closed his speech by thanking the great state of “Ohi — uh — Iowa” for putting on such a wonderful event. Perhaps he was trying to exorcise the gaffe demons from the room before the candidates spoke, but I found myself losing almost all of the remaining respect I had for the man last night.

Herman Cain

As far as the presidential candidates go, the big losers were Herman Cain and Rep. Ron Paul. Both seemed to come off as panderers who were only interested in sounding like “one of the gang” to the audience. Cain failed to dispel questions about his commitment to pro-life and family values issues, and Paul failed at several points to reach a coherent thought pattern.

Of the two, Cain needed a momentum shifter the most, so I’m declaring him the biggest loser among the presidential candidates. Twice said, “I’m 100-percent pro-life, no exceptions.” And, he did talk about what role he would take as president to defend life, but the role he pledged to take was only a little bit stronger than that of Paul. And, Cain doubled-down on his “9-9-9 Plan,” which has been losing support since he first suggested it. In the end, he did very little to heal his self-inflicted wounds on social issues, and opened the door for even more attacks on his positions on economic issues.

Congressman Ron Paul (TX)

Paul’s speech was by far the worst, but he probably didn’t lose a lot of supporters at the end of the night — although a lot of his college student supporters are probably scratching their heads over his plan to eliminate federal student loans — but he really didn’t lose as big as Cain. Overall, he did very little to move his campaign out of the high single-digits, if the caucus were to be held right now. He opened with a bizarre reference to the Book of Judges in which he attempted to liken the argument of decentralized “states rights” governing (the judges and the prophet Samuel) over a centralized “federal” government (the Israelites’ constitutional monarchy that led to King David). Factually accurate in a college history professor sort of way, it was completely devoid of real Truth. Paul has consistently refused to acknowledge the existence of an external righteous law that supersedes the laws of man that have codified debauchery ranging from sodomy to the murder of the unborn.

The Lost Opportunities

Other than Cain, the only other candidates in the race who should’ve been desperate for a bump from last night’s event were Rep. Michele Bachmann and Texas Gov. Rick Perry. And, while neither of them did anything to hurt their campaigns, they failed to light a fire in the crowd that would lead to a major improvement in their standing in the caucus, if it were held now.

Governor Rick Perry (TX)

Perry had the weaker of the two speeches, largely because he failed to reach the 10-minute “limit” imposed by event organizers while everyone else exceeded it. In fact, he barely clocked in at six minutes, failing to capitalize on an opportunity to provide depth to a speech that lacked specifics, but was high on self-deprecating humor. And, it reopened the old criticism that he lacks the physical energy to be President. He did, however, score one of the high points of the night when he eviscerated — I think the word I used at the time in my live blog was “disemboweled” — Cain for his wishy-washy position statements on the pro-life issue (even though his stated position is equally weak).

Rep. Michelle Bachmann (MN)

Bachmann’s speech had some of that fiery punch we all liked about her early on in the campaign, along with a little of her record in defense of family values social issues. But, like Perry, she failed to provide specificity to her proposals, leaving the door open for other candidates who followed to take them for their own and run with them. Allowing someone to take your intellectual property and “make it their own” may work on “American Idol,” it’s a sign of failure as a politician. She also had one of the high points of the night, though, when she told the audience it was going to take a miracle to fix America, but she believes in miracles.

Both candidates needed to do better than this, signaling perhaps they aren’t ready for the job. It’s just about time to stick a fork in both of them.

The Winners

Former U.S. Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum stole the show last night. One did it with a substantive speech that stirred the very core of each audience member’s conservative heart. The other opened up his own heart for public examination.

Former Speaker Newt Gingrich

Gingrich was the former, taking all of the elements the speakers before him broadly brushed over and provided both historical and practical significance to those issues. He fully and completely explained why the 2012 presidential election is THE critical election — the “most important since the Election of 1860,” as he put it. That wasn’t the only time he took something said by Bachmann earlier in the night and proceeded to completely own it. He was, as he has been in recent debates, the school master, taking the students to task. Seemingly, the student he “schooled” hardest was Paul. Taking the stage just before the Texas congressman, Gingrich completely stole some of Paul’s biggest thunder by astutely pointing out why it was a good idea to fire Ben Bernanke and to audit the Federal Reserve, and then explaining exactly how he was going to do it.

Senator Rick Santorum

But it was Santorum who completely stole the show. I don’t know how the speaking order was determined, but it seemed almost divinely inspired that he would present his message last, and that his message would be such a resounding endorsement of the Christian evangelical political viewpoint. He was well rewarded for his speech, too. By the time the night was over, there was absolutely no doubt he had won. He fearlessly stole the stage for more than twice as long as any of the others, and he bore his soul and exposed his human frailty. He opened with a recap of all the times he defended the evangelical position in Congress, then talked about his personal salvation after attending a Bible study led by the venerable Lloyd John Ogilvie. Then, he personalized the life issue by talking about his son Gabriel, who had a fatal congenital birth defect and who died after a premature death brought on by complications following a surgery to correct the defect. The audience ate it up and seemed to want more, once the night was over.

The Final Analysis

Afterward, I sent a text message to a good friend who also had entered the evening uncommitted and asked simply, “Are you ready to endorse?” His response was one word: “Yip.” Checking in with several other uncommitted voters who watched the event on TV, I got similar replies from all of them.

Earlier this week, I spoke with a member of the Iowa House leadership about some upcoming campaign appearances Rick Santorum is scheduled to make in my neck of the woods—Southwest Iowa. He said he was amazed the Pennsylvanian hadn’t attracted more grassroots support:

“If you look at who the typical Iowa Republican Caucus attendee is, and what they generally are looking for in a candidate, you cannot find a more cookie-cutter match than Rick Santorum.”

After his speech last night, I know he certainly won me over. And, judging from the crowd that seemed to swell around him after the event was over, I’d be willing to assume there are a lot of people just like me out there.

Bob Eschliman is an Iowa journalist who has been covering politics and government for more than a decade. He is the founder of the Ben Franklin Journalism blog, which promotes citizen journalism.