Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
December 22, 1960
NUMBER 33, PAGE 6,10

Beyond The Horizons

By Wm. E. Wallace, Box 407, Poteau, Oklahoma

Our Catholic President

The election of a Roman Catholic to the presidency of the United States turns our attention to the American system of checks and balances. Although the president is in a position to exert subtle pressure in each branch of government, any favoritism he may show toward the Roman Catholic drive for ascendency in our country could be restrained in the legislative and judicial branches of government. The system of checks and balances in our nation balances power between administrative, legislative and judicial branches of government. Each branch of government can check and curb the activity or performance of the other branches. This separation of powers, with the different branches of government, makes compromise necessary and autocracy difficult. James Madison wrote:

The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands. whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.

Suppose the Senate has a Catholic as leader of the majority, suppose the House of Representatives has a Catholic as speaker of the house, and suppose the Supreme Court is made up of a majority of Catholic judges — what then? What could become of issues involving special benefit for Roman Catholic activities and projects?

While high government leaders may indeed profess and propose to reject religious pressures deemed contrary to the good and the freedom of the nation as a whole, their interpretations of what is in the best interests of the good and the freedom might be colored by Catholic favoritism. Any growth in Catholicism toward numerical ascendency in America will naturally involve a corresponding favoritism from Catholic government officials. Organizations of great power in number and influence naturally gain more recognition in government circles.

As Roman Catholic power grows and Catholics predominate in high government offices, our system of checks and balances will check less and balance little in the matter of religious favoritism. Changing times bring a changing economy, a changing government and a changing constitution. More Catholic people and more government officials will naturally mean more government favoritism to Catholic causes.

The delaying or possible thwarting of these developments is possible through militant opposition to Roman Catholic doctrinal and political propaganda. A militant non-Catholic populace could protect the ascendency which the non-Catholics now have in this country. The Catholic Church grows on non-Catholic credulity and complacency. Through emigration the Catholic ranks are augmented. If the non-Catholic population could be aroused to a diligent, legal, moral opposition to Roman Catholicism, if emigration could be restricted in its favoring of Catholic people, the possibility of the ascendency of Catholicism in our country could be reduced.

It appears that without some great and sudden Roman Catholic encroachment, the non-Catholics of our country will remain somewhat passive in their attitude toward Catholic growth and power. Yet there are many voices of admonition, and perhaps their effectiveness will be seen in some slowing of the rate of Catholic growth and the postponing of Catholic objectives in America.

Once the ball is rolling well toward Roman Catholic domination, the attitude of defeatism or surrender will prevail. If Roman Catholicism is going to take the country, it will be reasoned, then favoritism toward Catholicism in governmental functions is not only inevitable, but presently expedient.

Communists, negroes, socialists, sectarians, doctors, farmers, businessmen — all these, and others seek important representation in government to further their particular interests. It is quite natural and expected that Catholics in government will want to further the interests of the cause which they espouse. And that cause is a drive for ascendency and domination in America. If and when they reach the goal, the American system of checks and balances will be losing its significance so far as religious favoritism is concerned. Relationship between government and religion in our country will look more and more like Italy, and then Spain.

Our grandchildren will not live under Communism, contrary to Communistic assertions, but they may live under Catholicism if the Vatican's design for America succeeds. Our grandchildren will not live under Communism simply because the free world will effectively oppose Communism. The domination of America by Roman Catholicism could be thwarted by an aroused non-Catholic population in the free country of America.

What it will take to arouse the people, I do not know. Most people are suppressed under charges of bigotry, prejudices and such like. Political forces have successfully hoodwinked American voters into believing that opposition to Catholicism is bigotry and prejudice. The same political forces have favored and encouraged Catholic bigotry and prejudices.

We will be waiting and watching. Our Catholic president will be cautious. A precedent has been set. We will be looking for subtle, small and innocent appearing favoritism of Catholicism in governmental circles. We will know more what to think, what to say, and what to do as developments come to our attention.

From "Evidence Quarterly"

A UPI news release (The Miami Herald, Sept. 11, 1960), carries the headline: "BONES OF PREHISTORIC WHALE UNEARTHED." The article tells of the discovery of an "almost complete skeleton of a huge whale that lived 20 million years ago....," discovered at Hampton, Va. Dr. Nicholas Hotton, associate curator of fossils, amphibians and reptiles at the Smithsonian Institute, said the discovery "will help in probing deeper into the theory of evolution."

Reflecting on the development of whales over the past 20 million years, Dr. Hotton is reported to have said: "Whales haven't changed much in that period." The press release says: "He added that 'Man only took a million of years to get to his present physique.' "

This Evolutionist Has Proved Too Much!

Dr. Hotton says that whales haven't changed in 20 million years, but man reached his present form in one million years. We are not told from what form man developed in a mere million years. But the point is clear: Man made a definite change in a million years but the whale hasn't changed in 20 million. Has organic evolution stopped? Or, did it ever begin? Dr. Hotton has proved too much with his 20 million year old whale bones!

— Ferrell Jenkins n * * *

Russians Change Calender?

Radio Moscow is reported to have said that Russia is considering a new calendar, to date from the Bolshevik revolution in 1917 instead of the birth of Christ. "Communism was born in the October revolution," the statement said, "which makes that date more suitable as marking the beginning of a new era in the world." It seems that even the Communists get the point of what W. F. Fitchett called "The Unrealized Logic of the Calendar." The event which divides the ages of man into B. C. and A. D. must on the face of it be the greatest event in human history, the incarnation of the Son of God. Every time you write a date you testify to the importance of the coming of Christ for mankind.

— From "Herald of Holiness"