IFPC Endorses Vander Plaats
- Tuesday, January 12, 2010, 23:27
- Iowa, News Center, Top Story
- 1,778 views
- 87 comments
The Iowa Family Policy Center’s political action committee endorsed Republican gubernatorial candidate Bob Vander Plaats yesterday. The endorsement was originally meant to be made last week, but a snow storm precluded the organization from endorsing Vander Plaats until yesterday.
Below is IFPC’s press release announcing their endorsement of Vander Plaats as well as videos from the rally of Rep. Kent Sorenson’s remarks, Danny Carroll announcing the endorsement of Vander Plaats, and Vander Plaats himself.
TheIowaRepublican.com will have more analysis of the endorsement later this week.
Iowa Family PAC Endorses Bob Vander Plaats for Governor
The United States was founded by religious men who were nearly all followers of Jesus Christ, and who all shared a Judeo-Christian worldview. It was from their understanding of Biblical principles that they molded a nation unlike any in human history. Thanks to the faithfulness of the Christian statesmen who founded this great nation, we have enjoyed unprecedented blessing in the United States. George Washington, in his Farewell Address, said,
“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensible supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness.”
John Adams, a signer of the Declaration of Independence and the Second President of the United States, said on June 21, 1776,
“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.”
President Ronald Reagan, during a 1984 radio address to the nation, summed up the attitudes of the founders on the role of faith in government when he said,
“The First Amendment of the Constitution was not written to protect the people of this country from religious values; it was written to protect religious values from government tyranny.”
In an effort to recover, and pass on to posterity, a state and nation well positioned to enjoy God’s renewed blessings, the Iowa Family PAC will seek out and promote men and women to public office who are bold yet compassionate statesmen leaders. Though we are far from perfect, and may misjudge or be misled by candidates, we humbly offer the following to those who welcome this input. After a careful and lengthy review of the various 2010 gubernatorial candidates, which included several face to face meetings with candidates, we have decided to endorse and offer our full support to Bob Vander Plaats.
The Iowa Family PAC’s evaluation of the candidates was designed to seek out and promote a statesman and public servant who would commit to uphold the Biblical principle of individual responsibility, who recognizes family as the foundational unit for a stable social structure, who will boldly defend the sanctity of human life and of marriage, commit to limiting the size and cost of civil government, promote high quality education under the authority of parents, encourage an ethical free enterprise system, defend the Constitutional separation of powers, and like our Founding Fathers be guided by the absolute moral truth that comes from a regular reading of the Bible. We believe that Bob Vander Plaats is the candidate who best meets those requirements. We are especially pleased with his pledge to stand up to the Iowa Supreme Court and stay their effort to unconstitutionally legislate same sex “marriage,” until the Iowa Legislature and the people of Iowa act on the Iowa Marriage Amendment.
This endorsement is not unconditional. If, in our opinion, Mr. Vander Plaats strays from the bold principles and Biblical standards listed above, the Iowa Family PAC will ask him to correct the error.
As an organization, the Iowa Family PAC encourages every Iowan to fully engage in primary and general elections, and to carefully consider the candidates running for any office. Because we advocate for civic involvement, we believe it is our obligation to lead by example.
In addition to finding a candidate we can support in Bob Vander Plaats, we have enjoyed getting to know several of the other candidates. While each has a desire to serve, there are lingering concerns about them and their ability to lead with the principles and boldness Iowa needs.
For instance, Representative Rod Roberts has been a consistently reliable vote in support of righteousness during his time in the Iowa House. He understands the need to honor God with his service, but seems to have more of a legislator’s temperament than that of an executive. As a member of the Republican Caucus in the House, Representative Roberts can be counted on to interject godly counsel and to cast principled votes. He has not, however, demonstrated the bold resolve and drive necessary to successfully confront those in leadership positions who actively promote wrong-doing in Iowa. While Representative Roberts is not our choice for Governor, he is a man who will be difficult to replace in the Iowa House, and we urge him to consider the greater good of the State and run for reelection.
Representative Christopher Rants has been perhaps the most surprising of the candidates in the GOP field. He has proven that he has a gift for the creative use of procedure to promote policy. His confrontation with Democrat opposition to the Iowa Marriage Amendment on the floor of the Iowa House last year was a showcase for the talent he possesses. We are encouraged by the spirit and enthusiasm with which Representative Rants engaged our group, and while we do not believe that this is the right time to elevate him to the office of Governor, we look for God to grow and use him for great things in the future. Unfortunately, his lengthy legislative record, his history in House leadership, and his past willingness to pursue questionable political pragmatism will take more time to overcome than this primary race allows.
While Representative Rants was the most surprising candidate, former Governor Terry Branstad was the most disappointing. With a 16 year record as Iowa’s Governor, much is known about who he is and how he would govern. For instance, Iowa faced financial challenges similar to today’s when Branstad first became Governor. His answers to those problems included growing government, raising taxes, legalizing gambling, and keeping what State Auditor Dick Johnson referred to as “two sets of books.” He did demonstrate pro-family support at times, like helping to de-criminalize home schooling, fighting rampant “no-fault” divorce, and helping produce pro-marriage public service announcements. Still, significant portions of his record cause Christians serious concern, such as approving immoral “Human Growth & Development” sex education (which is used by Planned Parenthood and others to promote abortion and homosexuality), allowing homosexual advances in his Dept. of Human Services, appointing pro-homosexual Supreme Court Justices who unconstitutionally try to legislate from the bench, and opening Iowa to the ravages of gambling.
Branstad also brings with him a loyalty to long term political partners that seems to trump his loyalty to Biblical principles and the people of Iowa. He continues to refuse to publicly distance himself from his former Lt. Governor Joy Corning, even when she blatantly promotes and defends abortion on demand, state sanctioned sodomy, and the evil that has been loosed on the state as a result. When his former Chief of Staff, Doug Gross, chastised those of us who desire to see Biblical principles promoted in politics and public policy, Terry Branstad was silent. He needs to understand that Christians are tired of being poked in the eye by political elites and then being told to “go along and get along.” He appears to lack an understanding of the deeply important principles that current policies threaten, or at the very least seems to lack the fervor necessary to address them.
Traditionally, most issue driven special interest groups wait until after the primary to engage in an election. Pragmatists will argue that should Branstad win the primary, he will be better than the current Governor, and that we ought to position our organization to support anyone but Culver. As a Christian organization we will always be ready to respond to the work of the Holy Spirit, and we believe that God can change anyone. However, should Branstad become the Republican nominee, apart from clear evidence of a fundamental transformation, the Iowa Family PAC will not endorse either Terry Branstad or Chet Culver in the general election.
We do not accept the notion that by refusing to support one candidate, we somehow become responsible for the election of another. We answer to God, not to a political party or anyone else. We will strive to promote God-honoring, bold, compassionate candidates, and are convinced that in the 2010 race for Iowa Governor, Bob Vander Plaats is the candidate Christians ought to support.
On behalf of the Iowa Family PAC,
Chuck Hurley, J.D.
Danny Carroll
Photo by Dave Davidson
About the Author
Craig Robinson has written 700 stories on this site.
Craig Robinson serves as the founder and Editor-in-Chief of TheIowaRepublican.com. Prior to founding Iowa's largest conservative news site, Robinson served as the Political Director of the Republican Party of Iowa during the 2008 Iowa Caucuses. In that capacity, Robinson planned and organized the largest political event in 2007, the Iowa Straw Poll, in Ames, Iowa. Robinson also organized the 2008 Republican caucuses in Iowa, and was later dispatched to Nevada to help with the caucuses there. Robinson cut his teeth in Iowa politics during the 2000 caucus campaign of businessman Steve Forbes and has been involved with most major campaigns in the state since then. His extensive political background and rolodex give him a unique perspective from which to monitor the political pulse of Iowa.
87 Comments on “IFPC Endorses Vander Plaats”
Write a Comment
Gravatars are small images that can show your personality. You can get your gravatar for free today!
You must be logged in to post a comment.
You’re going to go to hell if you don’t vote for BVP.
I guess im going to HELL Deace. BVP could not fight his way out of a wet paper bag. Hes has the far right vote.
If you want the state of Iowa to turn into the Iowa Church of BVP then vote for him.
Was this not *completely* expected? It would’ve been shocking if they didn’t endorse BVP.
> President Ronald Reagan, during a 1984 radio address to the nation, summed up the attitudes of the founders on the role of faith in government when he said,
> “The First Amendment of the Constitution was not written to protect the people of this country from religious values; it was written to protect religious values from government tyranny.”
I like Ronald Reagan, but this just simply isn’t true. Go read the 1st amendment, and while you’re at it, you can actually read Thomas Jefferson’s opinion on this EXACT issue in his letter in 1802 to the Danbury Baptists:
link to the full letter (Libary of Congress): http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html
[..] I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.
He’s quite clear that the 1st amendment (which is where the section in double quotes in that passage is from) separates religion from the government. Jefferson also says:
Our civil rights have no dependence upon our religious opinions more than our opinions in physics or geometry.
– Thomas Jefferson
I love how you this article tries to prove that somehow our Government is not secular. It was founded on the very notion of secularism…that we have freedom to practice (or not) religion.
It’s also interesting that none of our first 7 US Presidents ever even claimed to be Christians.
> “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.” – John Adams
That’s a nice quote. Cherry picked from Adams, but nice. I can do you better though…also straight from the mouth of John Adams:
“The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity. Nowhere in the Gospels do we find a precept for Creeds, Confessions, Oaths, Doctrines, and whole carloads of other foolish trumpery that we find in Christianity.” -John Adams
“As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion, — as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,– and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religous opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”
[John Adams, 1797-05-27, Article 11, Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the US and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary. Treaties and Other International Acts of America, ed. Hunter Miller]
Read that part again (written by John Adams):
“As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion[...]”
Seems pretty clear to me.
“He needs to understand that Christians are tired of being poked in the eye by political elites and then being told to “go along and get along.”
couldn’t the same be said for the the tatics of IFPC, Deace, etc if someone doesn’t agree with them they are castigated.
and since when did IFPC speak for all Christians?
the irony is they are treating Rod Roberts the same way they accuse branstad and others of treating BVP
Jeff
You could not be more wrong. It is breathtaking, the extent to which you try and twist Jeffersons letter to your own agenda.
Consider the last portion of Jefferson’s letter to the Baptists,
“… I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association assurances of my high respect and esteem.“
Consider for a moment the Baptists concerns, illustrated in their prior letter to Jefferson, that their religious freedoms were in danger…
“Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty: that religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals, that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions, [and] that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor. But sir, our constitution of government is not specific. . . . [T]herefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights. “
Consider that when Jefferson speaks of the ‘wall’ between the church and the state, that he is reassuring the Baptists that in no way can the government of the United States infringe on their religious freedoms
As a side note,
“Praise be to God [Allah]! Declaration of the twelfth article. If there arises a disturbance between us both sides, and it becomes a serious dispute, and the American Consul is not able to make clear (settle) his affair, and (then) the affair shall remain suspended between them both, between the Pasha of Tripoli, may God strengthen him, in the well-protected Algiers, has taken cognizance of the matter. We shall accept whatever decision he enjoins on us, and we shall agree with this condition and his seal (i.e., the decision sealed by him); may God make it all permanent love and a good conclusion between us in the beginning and the end, by His grace and favor, amen!”
[John Adams, 1797-05-27, Article 12, Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the US and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary. Treaties and Other International Acts of America, ed. Hunter Miller]
> The United States was founded by religious men who were nearly all followers of Jesus Christ, and who all shared a Judeo-Christian worldview.
This is so clearly NOT true. If you don’t understand this, then you really don’t understand much at all about American History. But unlike this article, I will actually prove my point with facts.
Most of the founding fathers where either atheist, or Deist at best. But the majority of them were most certainly NOT Christian.
“I have recently been examining al the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition (Christianity) one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded upon fables and mythologies. The Christian God is a being of terrific character — cruel, vindictive, capricious, and unjust…” — Thomas Jefferson
If Christianity was so important to them (as you claim but don’t prove), then why add the following to Article 6, section 3 of the legally binding US Constitution: “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”
Also, why leave out mention of Christianity at every possible opportunity in the founding documents? There is NO mention of it.
“I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life I absented myself from Christian assemblies.” – Benjamin Franklin
“Lighthouses are more helpful than churches.” Benjamin Franklin, “Poor Richard” 1758
“The New Testament, they tell us, is founded upon the prophecies of the Old; if so, it must follow the fate of its foundation.’ – Thomas Paine
“As to the book called the bible, it is blasphemy to call it the Word of God. It is a book of lies and contradictions and a history of bad times and bad men.” -Thomas Paine, writing to Andrew Dean August 15, 1806
“Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprize [sic], every expanded prospect.” – James Madison, in a letter to William Bradford, April 1,1774
> You could not be more wrong. It is breathtaking, the extent to which you try and twist Jeffersons letter to your own agenda.
I didn’t twist, I directly quoted. Jefferson was not a Christian, he was a deist. Deists believe in a creator, but not one that intervenes in our lives or really is concerned with our welfare.
> Consider that when Jefferson speaks of the ‘wall’ between the church and the state, that he is reassuring the Baptists that in no way can the government of the United States infringe on their religious freedoms
I have. By reassuring the Danbury Baptists that non one can infringe on their freedoms, he reassures non believers that the state will not be involved in religion other than to ensure that the government cannot infringe on the beliefs of its citizens. Again a WALL OF SEPARATION…that’s a direct quote.
@CT at 8:10
I know that John Adams has that statement in the Tripoli Treaty. However it takes nothing away from his statement:
“As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion, [..]”
Again, I’ll leave you with Thomas Jefferson, whose words I do not twist but quote directly and in context:
Our civil rights have no dependence upon our religious opinions more than our opinions in physics or geometry.
– Thomas Jefferson [Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, 1779]
Former legislator Carroll, I know God, God is a friend of mine. Former legislator Carroll, you’re no friend of God.
IFPC and BVP should try to keep their chins up after the upcoming primary loss: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlBiLNN1NhQ
“But my friend there is something very serious in this business. The Holy Ghost carries on the whole Christian system in this Earth. Not a baptism, not a marriage, not a Sacrament can be administered but by the Holy Ghost, who is transmitted from age to ” – John Adams to Benjamin Rush 1809
Benjamin Franklin wrote to Thomas Paine warning him against publishing his Age of Reason. Benjamin wrote in part,
“I have read your manuscript with some attention. By the argument it contains against a particular Providence, though you allow a general Providence, you strike at the foundations of all religion. For without the belief of a Providence, that takes cognizance of, guards, and guides, and may favor particular persons, there is no motive to worship a Deity, to fear his displeasure, or to pray for his protection. I will not enter into any discussion of your principles, though you seem to desire it. At present I shall only give you my opinion, that, though your reasonings are subtile and may prevail with some readers, you will not succeed so as to change the general sentiments of mankind on that subject, and the consequence of printing this piece will be, a great deal of odium drawn upon yourself, mischief to you, and no benefit to others. He that spits against the wind, spits in his own face.”
He made the argument, further in his letter that religion was beneficial and necessary for the country.
Jeff
As for your argument that Deists do not believe their creator is involved in their lives, I highlight a portion of Franklins letter “…worship a Deity, to fear his displeasure, or to pray for his protection…“
“The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity and humanity, let the Blackguard Paine say what he will.” – John Adams, in response to Thomas Paine’s Age of Reason
“[W]hen I heard you had turned your mind to a defence of infidelity, I felt myself much astonished and more grieved that you had attempted a measure so injurious to the feelings and so repugnant to the true interest of so great a part of the citizens of the United States.” – Samual Adams, in response to Paine
No mater how you put it CT, the First Amendment’s Freedom of Religion is also a freedom from religion.
“The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed.” – James Madison, Annals of Congress, House of Representatives, 1st Congress, 1st Session, Pages 448 – 460 of 1274
“no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities” -Thomas Jefferson, 1785
“The ‘establishment of religion’ clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between Church and State.’” – Everson v Board (330 US 1 [1947])
“Infatuated Americans, why renounce your country, your religion, and your God?” – Supreme Court Justice, William Paterson, speaking to those that agreed with Paine’s work
“In the absence of precisely stated constitutional prohibitions, we must draw lines with reference to the three main evils against which the Establishment Clause was intended to afford protection: “sponsorship, financial support, and active involvement of the sovereign in religious activity.”
Every analysis in this area must begin with consideration of the cumulative criteria developed by the Court over many years. Three such tests may be gleaned from our cases. First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; finally, the statute must not foster “an excessive government entanglement with religion.” – Lemon v Kurtzman (403 US 602 [1971])
Vast –
Again you bring up very good points. I am not sure where you’re going with them though
I don’t think anyone is advocating the establishment of some kind of theocracy. The point I was trying to illustrate is that the nation, in its inception, was in fact greatly judeo christian in nature. I don’t think anyone is advocating putting President Obama at the head of the Church of the United States.
You may make the argument that banning gay marriage is a religious act, but couldn’t same argument be made for the opposite? Couldn’t one argue that Atheism or Secularism are in fact religions?
I would bet that if you were to ask any Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Pagan, or any member of the hundreds of other religions that exist on Earth, they would probably disagree with Adams response to Paine. You could also ask, if you could bring them back to life, anyone persecuted by the European church over the last 2000 years and I would suspect they wouldn’t have a lot of good things to say about Christianity, which is the reason why the Church has no business in Government and Government has no business with the Church.
What makes a religion, a religion, is there an official listing at congress? Does the lack of belief or the denial of belief, belief in and of itself?
CT – I’m not sure that the banning of gay marriage is in and of itself a religious act but all most every group in favor of banning it relies heavily on the religious argument that it is a sin. You can’t ban something simply because it is a sin. There has to be a legitimate non-religious reason for the prohibition of something. Every non-religious argument that has been tried in court has failed to show a legitimate reason for the government to prohibit same sex marriage.
Atheism and Secularism as a religion? I can see the argument but I think that’s pushing it. (Just a note, I am not an atheist.) By that argument you could say that everyone that calls themselves a Trekker or Trekkie (Star Trek fan – which I am) a member of a Religion. (and we can be rather fanatical at times… LONG LIVE CAPTAIN KIRK!)
The Department of Defense actually has a list of religions that it recognizes and will provide funeral services for. I’ll see if I can find the document number.
Wicca is a religion recognized by the DOD by the way.
I take that back sort of… it’s a list of religions that the Department of Veterans Affairs will provide headstones for.
http://www.cem.va.gov/hm/hmemb.asp
Oddly enough it includes Atheism.
Vast
I did not realize that Atheism was recognized as a religion, at least in one facet of the government. That certainly raises some questions about the abolishment of religious phrases from public places. Wouldn’t that act, in and of itself be religious, in the light of Atheism? Certainly something to ponder.
As a side note, you mentioned earlier “… anyone persecuted by the European church over the last 2000 years…“. I would add this to think about, the 20 milion people ‘purged’ under the secular government of Joseph Stalin
I still think including secularism and Atheism as a religion is stretching it.
Sure Stalin killed millions of people but his secularism isn’t the reason why Stalin killed all those people. Stalin killed for greed and power. His faith or lack of faith, much like Hitler, had nothing to do with the killing. Stalin could have been fanatic follower of Christianity and still killed those 20 million people.
The church on the other hand, and not just the Christian one, has killed and continues to persecute people simply based on faith in God.
Listen, did Stalin kill 20 million people because of secularism? Of course not, but ask yourself this, would a largely Christian nation stand by and let that happen if they believed in an absolute right and wrong that they would answer for beyond death?
This is the larger point made by looking and the aboslute Evil wrought by secular governments and people. The german people believed that it was absolutely ok to just mock, murder, and commit genocide against the Jewish people, because, hey, there’s no God and the Government says its ok, so it must be ok
Another example:
Cambodia, 1975 – 1979. The Khmer Rouge takes over the country and begins a campaign of human indignity and slaughter. This happens under a philosophy of the greatness of the State. That the Party would lead them to a Communist Utopia. During this time period nearly 2.2 million people die from disease, starvation, overwork, or outright execution. This happens because the individual is not important, only the greater collective. “To keep you is no gain,” the Khmer Rouge warned, “To destroy you is no loss.“
In contrast, to a Christian people, human life is absolutely sacred.
I think that you all should take a break from statutory and Constitutional interpretation and pray for Haiti. Many Iowa churches have mission projects involving that country.
America is not a secular nation. America was founded as a Christian nation, just not on one Christian religion. You quote John Adams in here, the quote remains: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” And, we wonder why our nation is in the state it is in today? How on earth will the Lord bless a nation which is doing what this nation is doing to itself? It is suicide. The murder of God’s children through abortion. Homosexual rights and gay marriage. Do you not remember, Sodom and Gomorrah was a “secular, wicked” state, and God saw fit to destroy it. Is this what we want for ourselves? There is no getting around correct principles and our Savior, no way. If you think so and perpetrate these monstrosities on others, you may say, “Well, I guess I’m going to hell,” jokingly, you are in for a lot worse than you can ever imagine.
> Listen, did Stalin kill 20 million people because of secularism? Of course not, but ask yourself this, would a largely Christian nation stand by and let that happen if they believed in an absolute right and wrong that they would answer for beyond death?
What does belief in the supernatural after-life have to do with murdering people today? I reject your premise. I don’t kill people, and I wouldn’t stand for you killing someone…and I don’t believe in the after-life.
I sense that your argument is that Christian nations have never allowed (or directly been responsible for) the murder of innocent lives. I am reluctant to believe this, because from our interactions that you are intelligent and thoughtful…but this is a tough row to hoe for you if this is your point.
I’m not a religious believer, but I wouldn’t say that lack of belief lead to Communism, North Korea, or Russian oppression.
The Crusades during 200 years of the middle ages were fought specifically for reclaiming Christian holy lands. Unfortunately, there is no accounting of the number of deaths during the roughly 6 generations of war sanctioned by Christian leaders.
And while the Spanish Inquisition didn’t result in more than a few thousand murders, it is clear that fear and intimidation were their primary weapons. All in the name of spreading Catholicism…which they succeeded in doing.
Jeff
I am certainly not saying that a Christian nation and a Christian people have never been responsible for terrible and regretable things. This is most certainly bore out by your example of the Crusades and that of the Spanish Inquisition. My larger point is that a people that believe in no higher power than the State, can be convinced of the rightness of State to commit horrible atrocities.
Also keep in mind, that the Crusades were a response to armed agression
> How on earth will the Lord bless a nation which is doing what this nation is doing to itself?
I don’t care if I’m “blessed” by any supernatural beings. I don’t know how that helps me, or my fellow Americans. I love this country, and I love the liberty and freedom it provides me and you.
> Do you not remember, Sodom and Gomorrah was a “secular, wicked” state, and God saw fit to destroy it
Yes, I see you are making the point that your God is an angry, vengeful God. Can’t wait to grovel at his feet.
> “Well, I guess I’m going to hell,” jokingly, you are in for a lot worse than you can ever imagine.
What a wonderful religion you have where the primary motivator for being good is the threat of eternal torment. So don’t say “be good for goodness sake”, but instead “be good or you’ll burn in hell”.
As I’m sure you know because you clearly understand the Christian scriptures very well, in the Old Testament, people simply died and entered the grave. There was no mention of any hell. It is only with “gentle Jesus, meek and mild”, that we have eternal punishment after death.
Additionaly, the last Crusade happened over 700 years ago. The Spanish Inquisition, over 600 years ago. These practices have long been abolished and the Catholic Church went through the Reformation thanks to those such as Martin Luther.
> Also keep in mind, that the Crusades were a response to armed agression
Oh c’mon. It isn’t: “Thouh shalt not kill….unless in response to armed aggression”.
“In March 1095 at the Council of Piacenza, ambassadors sent by Byzantine Emperor Alexius I called for help with defending his empire against the Seljuk Turks. Later that year, at the Council of Clermont, Pope Urban II called upon all Christians to join a war against the Turks, promising those who died in the endeavor would receive immediate remission of their sins.”
source: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/urban2-5vers.html#Fulcher
So what response to attack takes 200 years to complete…all with the promise from a Pope to absolve their sins? What a crock of crap. You can’t absolve someone’s sins…you can’t “wish” them away. This forgoes personal responsibility and I don’t accept it. And if you are intellectually honest with yourself, you won’t either.
> My larger point is that a people that believe in no higher power than the State, can be convinced of the rightness of State to commit horrible atrocities.
Untrue. Look at religious extremism of all stripes, whether Christian, Muslim, or anything else. They guarantee of a life beyond this one means that if I perform a murderous act, but am promised by a religious authority, then I have *nothing* to lose.
The guarantee of the afterlife gives more credence to the idea that we need not care much about this one…as long as we kill in the name of God, or sincerely repent right at the end.
> These practices have long been abolished and the Catholic Church went through the Reformation thanks to those such as Martin Luther.
How about those in the Catholic church that ignored and were complicit in the rape of young children at the hand of Catholic priests…in violation of American law. Supposedly good and honest Christian *leaders* allowed this to happen.
But back to your main point that a Christian nation wouldn’t allow injustice or murder. That implies that non-Christians are incapable of it, and that non Christians are capable of it.
I’d pose 2 questions in response to that:
[1] Can you name one ethical statement made, or one ethical action performed, by a believer that could not have been uttered or done by a nonbeliever?
[2] Could anyone think of a wicked statement made, or an evil action performed, precisely because of religious faith?
The second question is easy to answer, is it not? The first awaits a convincing reply.
If we should be a Christian nation, how would we ever settle out the question of whose Christianity?
Catholics, Assemblies of Gods, and Methodists just for examples each have widely differing standards of social conduct even if they might each agree on some item or several of theology.
I am a Baptist and I know for a fact that if some of my fellow Baptists ever got into power based on their standards of conduct, they would close down every source of liquor, beer, and wine immediately. You Catholics and many more-mainline Protestants would go nuts over that. Abortion? some in my own congregation would make it murder and punishably by death.
Or, put some Catholics in charge based on their standards of conduct? The Baptists would go nuts because many of them still think Catholicism is descended from Mother Babylon and the pope is the antichrist.
Get my point?
Religion and politics just flat don’t mix. Keep them apart.
Peggy’s wackos, Emily’s wackos, CT’s wackos, and my wackos each are so different from each other that we’d have religious wars for sure.
Jeff
“In March 1095 at the Council …” Seriously? 1095? So nearly a THOUSAND years ago, some miguided Christians did some pretty terrible things in response to Muslim armed incursion. Because of that, we should throw all of Christianity under the bus? c’mon now yourself, what kind of standard is that?
In response to your [1] question, no I don’t think you can. But I believe the reason for it, is because, as I believe, all mankind was made in the likeness and image of God.
As for [2], can you name an evil act committed soley for the sake of Christianity in the last 500 years?
I am a pro-life social conservative and Christian, and abortion is one of my highest priorities. After this, The IFPC will never get a dime from me.
Mr. Hawk
You say that you are a Christian, so I’ll take you at your word. If fighting for the ‘least of these’ is not your top priority, then what is?
Does anyone else find it interesting that the “endorsement” spent much more time talking about Branstad, Rants and Roberts than it did about Vander Plaats. Seems to me that they do almost nothing to advocate for him nor persuade any undecided voter to vote for him. It’s a sad little endorsement, but a telling one.
And it will be for naught.
CT, I could argue that the last Crusade is occurring right now in Iraq.
The majority of the German population under Hitler was Christian and very anti-Semitic even if the Facsit government itself was secular. The Pope at the time of WWII largely sat by and did nothing while Hitler killed millions.
For those that claim America is a Christian nation, why have we sat around and done nothing to intervene in Darfur?
The persecution of people by the Catholic Church continues to this very day, granted in a much diminished capacity than that of the past.
Some rally. I have never seen such a ragged group of misfits. After witnessing this event I am convinced as ever that these organized groups of haters have no future in Iowa.
The Crusades were in no way a response to armed aggression. They were the a response to the Church’s desire to control the Holy sites of the Middle East.
hum… I ‘m following the Prop 8 trial that is currently going on and I seem to be getting emotional and not getting my facts straight.
I meant to say that the crusades were not entirely a response to armed aggression.
Conserv Demo–you get the drift. Fratricide is an ugly thing to witness.
Vast
I would Challenge you to give an example of Christians persecuting someone, I am simply unaware that this is happening anywhere today. As for the crusades…yes they were a response to muslim incurrsion. The holy sites that you speak of were occupied by christians, long before muslims got there. In the bible, when it speaks of babylon and Syria, these lands were Christian
The Canaanites (which is actually the Hebrew name of these people) who inhabited the land that Israel claims today before the Jews moved into the area were not christian and neither were the Syrians or Babylonians. These cultures believed in a multitude of gods such as Ba’al. There very few nations on Earth today that don’t inhabit land that the stole or somehow coerced from an earlier culture. It’s kind of interesting to note that for the most part, the lands that have seen human habitation the longest generally see the most political and religious conflict.
What are Christians in Uganda trying to pass through their legislature right now? A law that would proscribe the death penalty to homosexuals. Look at all the ties that this bill has to several prominent anti-gay evangelical Americans.
A few years ago a Pastor in the UK suggested that all homosexuals should be tattooed with a health warning. (Kind of reminds me of how Germans tattooed those they deemed as undesirables)
Granted, today, the Church is generally a force for good. But it doesn’t have a monopoly on good and just because someone, or a government, is secular, or without faith, doesn’t mean that they are not good or do not have a sense of morality. A person can be completely without faith and still be good and moral.
“You say that you are a Christian, so I’ll take you at your word. If fighting for the ‘least of these’ is not your top priority, then what is?”
- I can tell you what isn’t: hissy fits and political paybacks. This was not a decision based on principle. It’s a decision based on throwing a tantrum. And worse yet, it’s not even a logical one. I’ve attended IFPC events. No longer. They can marginalize themselves as much as they want. I won’t be a part of it.
And by the way, I wonder if anyone (Deace, IFPC, etc) have yet asked BVP to publicly announce that he’ll advocate for a full repeal of gambling. They won’t because they are hypocrites.
I’ll also give some historical examples:
630 – Muhammad launches the Tabuk Crusades against the Byzantine Christians.
634 – At the Battle of Yarmuk in Syria the Muslim Crusaders defeat the Byzantines
635 – Muslim Crusaders besiege and conquer of Damascus
637 – Muslim Crusaders conquer Iraq at the Battle of al—Qadisiyyah
638 – Muslim Crusaders conquer and annex Jerusalem
…
937 – The Church of the Holy Sepulcher is burned down by Muslims; more churches in Jerusalem are attacked
…
1031 – Collapse of Umayyid Caliphate and establishment of 15 minor independent dynasties throughout Muslim Andalus
1048 – Reconstruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher completed
1071 – Turks (Muslim Crusaders) invade Palestine
1073 – Conquest of Jerusalem by Turks (Muslim Crusaders)
1075 – Seljuks (Muslim Crusaders) capture Nicea (Iznik) and make it their capital in Anatolia
1094 – Byzantine emperor Alexius Comnenus I asks western Christendom for help against Seljuk invasions of his territory
1095 – Pope Urban II preaches first Crusade; they capture Jerusalem in 1099
> As for [2], can you name an evil act committed soley for the sake of Christianity in the last 500 years?
How about from last week? Catholic lawmakers in Ireland passed a law that outlawed blasphemy:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/01/02/ireland.blasphemy.law/index.html
And if you don’t think suppressing freedom of speech is “evil”, then let it sink in a bit.
> Granted, today, the Church is generally a force for good. But it doesn’t have a monopoly on good and just because someone, or a government, is secular, or without faith, doesn’t mean that they are not good or do not have a sense of morality. A person can be completely without faith and still be good and moral.
I agree 100% with that statement. I don’t hate religion…Christianity generally does positive things in America. I love liberty though. And I want my liberties protected from those people (often religious) that wish to legislate their beliefs upon me.
Jeff
The law it seems is as follows, “abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion.” Sure this is not what I would advocate here, but I wonder if it is a response to what happened after some Muslim cartoons were published and the threats of murder ensued. So if you make a law that you believe could save lives, is that evil?
Vast
I read up on that Ugandan law and come to a couple of conclusions. 1, this is repulsive in nature. 2. It’s interesting to note that in to articles i read, neither state the religion of lawmakers that passed the law.
Vast
Another point, and I think somewhat important, not 1 person in Uganda has been convicted under these laws
I have read about half of the posts listed. Why would it matter if a politician believed in God, Buda or any other religious figure. We elect people to help govern our state. We do not elect them by there religious beliefs. I would never vote for BVP. Besides wearing his religion on his sleeve(most people that wear their religion on there sleeve are the people that do things wrong). He has ZERO EXPERIENCE in running a company let alone a state. He has not held a full time job for years (unless you consider fund-raising a career). He has no plan for the state except gay marriage. Talk to him one on one about real issues and you will soon realize he has no clue.
CT – No one has been prosecuted on it becuase it is still going through their parliament. The bill was created by Ugandans who were encouraged to do so by prominent evangelical anti-gay Americans such as Scott Lively (who has since tried to back track and distance himself from it), and yes, the bill is very horrendous in nature.
For those interested in more information about the Ugandan “Kill Gays” bill check out Box Turtle Bulletin.
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/slouching-toward-kampala
Why don’t we just get the state out of the business of marriage? Marriage is rightly an institution of the church not the state.
While I would support that I’m not convinced its really realistic. There is somewhere around 1000 to 1100 individual laws at the federal level alone that rely on marital status.
Get those homosexuals married–fast. Marry everyone we can get married. If the Democrats in Congress get their way they are going to have a HUGE marriage penalty in their “health care reform” bill.
It’s time homosexuals paid their fair share of their increased costs of helath care.
> [..] but I wonder if it is a response to what happened after some Muslim cartoons were published and the threats of murder ensued. So if you make a law that you believe could save lives, is that evil?
This law is evil, because not only does it infringe on a people’s right to express themselves, but it says that those that commit murder and terror because they are “offended” have a right to not be offended. ARE YOU KIDDING ME!!!
The response to the muslim cartoon was wrong. They should’ve splashed that cartoon on every news station, but every single major news network was afraid of “offending” or inciting violence. If that’s what incites violence, then let them do it. Then put them in jail. This is not how responsible people, parents, or governments react to bad behavior.
> Why don’t we just get the state out of the business of marriage? Marriage is rightly an institution of the church not the state.
Agreed. I’d rather the state call every marriage a civil union for legal purposes only. Then let the church call it what they want.
> The law it seems is as follows, “abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion.” Sure this is not what I would advocate here, but I wonder if it is a response to what happened after some Muslim cartoons were published and the threats of murder ensued. So if you make a law that you believe could save lives, is that evil?
Also, did you notice how the Irish Atheist groups violate the law with 25 historical quotes from the likes of Pope Benedict, Mark Twain, Muhammad, Salman Rushdie, Frank Zappa, George Carlin, Jesus Christ, and Richard Dawkins?
This law could *not* happen without belief in religion. Imagine living in a country, where you couldn’t go see a George Carlin show (pretend he’s alive), because he was in jail for the things HE SAID.
> Sure this is not what I would advocate here, but I wonder if it is a response to what happened after some Muslim cartoons were published and the threats of murder ensued. So if you make a law that you believe could save lives, is that evil?
I’ll also add the you do NOT have a right to not be offended.
This just proves how lucky the GOP is that Danny Carroll is NOT our chairman. “Pick my guy or we stand against the party?” Who the hell does he think he is? Pat Robertson?
I was about to make the comment Cletus stated. Just think, Mr. Carroll could have been our state chairman. Just imagine how well that could have worked out, especially when our national committeewoman already snipes down candidates who aren’t conservative enough for her, or won’t take her stupid tests.
Carroll, Sorenson, Lehman, et. al. can have their pure party. And they can enjoy a permanent minority with ZERO legislative victories.
Quoting the final two paragraphs from above:
“Traditionally, most issue driven special interest groups wait until after the primary to engage in an election. Pragmatists will argue that should Branstad win the primary, he will be better than the current Governor, and that we ought to position our organization to support anyone but Culver. As a Christian organization we will always be ready to respond to the work of the Holy Spirit, and we believe that God can change anyone. However, should Branstad become the Republican nominee, apart from clear evidence of a fundamental transformation, the Iowa Family PAC will not endorse either Terry Branstad or Chet Culver in the general election.
We do not accept the notion that by refusing to support one candidate, we somehow become responsible for the election of another. We answer to God, not to a political party or anyone else. We will strive to promote God-honoring, bold, compassionate candidates, and are convinced that in the 2010 race for Iowa Governor, Bob Vander Plaats is the candidate Christians ought to support.
On behalf of the Iowa Family PAC,
Chuck Hurley, J.D.
Danny Carroll”
That’s astounding.
And some of you still get angry with me for saying that those people need to be a political party of their own. The rest of you do not belong with them and they don’t belong with you.
You are not alike and you will _never_ agree to even get along; it just isn’t going to happen to either of your satisfactions.
Clean them out of the Party.
Like poop off a shoe.
> And some of you still get angry with me for saying that those people need to be a political party of their own. The rest of you do not belong with them and they don’t belong with you.
I won’t get angry with you!
These people are Christians in spite of evidence that their beliefs are occasionally at odds with the constitution. They fail to see that attempting to legislate their beliefs actually erodes their own liberty. That if someday we are predominantly Muslim, or HIndu, or Buddhist, that they have set the precedent for their own persecution.
Keep religion out of government, and you are guaranteed to be able to be religious forever!
Throughout this discussion it seems people are incapable of destinguishing between the actions of a State founded on Christian Principles, and a Church.
Our nation is founded on the basic Judeo-Christian ethic that people have worth because they are. People have freedom because they are. People deserve to live their own lives, make their own decisions, and keep the fruits of their own labor because they are. The role of the state is to enforce those basic rights, and to prevent others from infringing upon them. Examples, prosecuting murder, theft, and fraud, preventing slavery and kidnapping, etc. The current governmental machine fails this basic function in many many areas.
Selective service implies that the government owns your life and can compel you to give if according to their will. Income taxes infer that the government owns your time and can take the fruits of your labor at will. Property taxex infer that the government owns your property and can take it at any time. By legalizing refusing to criminalize abortion the government is failing to defend life. By requiring marriage licenses the government is failing to protect freedom of choice. By distributing tax dollars, I willingly paid for legitimate government services (post roads, fire protective services, police services, national defense, regulation of monetary values) and instead distributing those tax dollars to individual tax payers they feel more worthy (the poor, single mothers, children, elderly, war torn foreign countries, college students, unemployed, the disabled) the government is doing exactly the things they are charged with preventing, outright theft and fraud. The government is not a cheritable organization. That is the place of the church, the individual, or groups of individuals. The government is not a counceling service. That is the place of the church, the individual, or groups of individuals. The government is not a social service organization. That is the place of the church, the individual, or groups of individuals. The government is not a societal morality monitor. That is the place of the church, the individual, or groups of individuals.
Direct application, marriage licenses are immoral and improper application of government power. Financially or otherwise rewarding individuals based on their “marital status” is either illegitmate use of taxpayer dollars or playing favoritism and discrimination. Both are constitutionally illegal in either the State of Iowa, or the united States of America. The “same sex marriage” issue is not about religion or morality, it is about legality and equal protection. The government has no right to descriminate FOR or AGAINST same sex couples, nor have they any right to descriminate FOR or AGAINST different sex couples, nor have they any right to descriminate FOR or AGAINST single people. Nor old people, nor young people, nor men, nor women. “All [people] are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights…” Marriage is not one of those rights, choosing who to spend the rest of your life with is.
> Our nation is founded on the basic Judeo-Christian ethic that people have worth because they are.
Wrong. That is a basic HUMAN belief. My rights do not come from the supernatural. You will not find this *anywhere* in our constitution. Feel free to correct me with direct citations if you believe I am wrong.
> The government is not a cheritable organization. That is the place of the church, the individual, or groups of individuals. The government is not a counceling service. That is the place of the church, the individual, or groups of individuals. The government is not a social service organization. That is the place of the church, the individual, or groups of individuals. The government is not a societal morality monitor. That is the place of the church, the individual, or groups of individuals.
I completely agree.
> The government has no right to descriminate FOR or AGAINST same sex couples, nor have they any right to descriminate FOR or AGAINST different sex couples, nor have they any right to descriminate FOR or AGAINST single people. Nor old people, nor young people, nor men, nor women.
I agree!!
Rod Roberts is a Christian and unlike BVP has actually won an election! Why didn’t they endorse him? Just where does IFPC get off claiming to represent the “christian” voters? I’m sorry, but my faith isn’t based on whether or not IFPC has endorsed a particular candidate and I’d like to assume that most other Christians would agree.
Wrong. That is a basic HUMAN belief. My rights do not come from the supernatural. You will not find this *anywhere* in our constitution. Feel free to correct me with direct citations if you believe I am wrong.
You realize that the Founders didn’t talk about our rights at all in the Constitution? It was a document meant to formulate and place limits on the government. They expounded upon our rights more fully in their writings and speeches, one of the most famous being the Declaration of Independence. To say that they did not believe the our basic rights were given to us by God ignores the history which influenced them dating back to the Magna Carta.
Not only has Roberts, Rants and Branstad won elections, they have taken votes. BVP can say all he wants but he’s never had to take a vote.
He’s never had to look back over years of elected office and perhaps regretted a vote he took.
IFPC made a big mistake getting involved in a primary. Their excuses for excluding the other three men are lame at best.
This looks like an attempt to appease Deace.
I, too, am a social conservative Christian and I don’t need anyone telling me for whom I should be voting if I’m a good enough Christian.
IFPC does not speak for me.
belikebunce, The courts have ruled over and over again that marriage is a right protected by the constitution.
VV – Again…Being allowed to enter into a legal, state sanctioned and protected contract or arriage is not a fundamental human right. Having the personal freedom to choose who you spend the rest of your life with is.