Greetings my beloved,
I wanted to explain to some out there who know me, why it is that I support Dr. Ron Paul for the presidency. Specifically I want to explain to my loved ones why I support his stance against the Iraq war (and even further action against Iran), even though that is a stance that seems to be counter so many professing Christians around us. Just because you or some Christian disagrees with Dr. Paul and myself does not make you a non-Christian or a bad person, I’m not laying this out to make anyone else feel bad. But I want to make it clear to everyone, what I believe and why. There are two big reasons I am against the war in Iraq, here they are.
I. I am Pro-life.
Now most people calling themselves protestant Christians call them selves pro-life. I am too. But to me, the sacredness of human life must extend beyond just the womb of a pregnant woman. I ,of course, agree that we must as a society and as Christians do all we can to protect all unborn human beings, but I believe we must also protect and have respect for life of all ages, genders, races. And this seriousness towards life must extend beyond our own borders as well to people of other countries and other religions too, even though they are false religions. These people have human souls and are valuable to God and that makes them valuable to me. Now in this country, we have laws, which are biblically based, for times when the state has a right to deprive a person of life or liberty. Crimes like murder and such must be met out with the punishment they are due. Likewise with foreign affairs, if we are attacked, our government bears a God given duty to protect their citizenry. On 9-11 our country was attacked by the Taliban (specifically we were attacked by Saudi Arabians and Egyptians under the protection of the Taliban), who were the recognized government of Afghanistan. We reciprocated and should have, Dr. Paul voted for the use of force in that country for the purposes of capturing Osama Bin Laden. Iraq, However, did not attack us. They did not have the ability to attack us. Even if they did have the ability to attack us, that still would not justify invading them. It is not the person owning a gun that the government should punish, but the man who has used his gun in threatening that country's citizens that should be punished.
Human life, including Iraqi life, is valuable. Before our government gives the order for one of our soldiers to shoot another human soul, we need to be dang certain of why he is doing it and it better be a good reason. Pre-emptive war is not justifiable. And this war in Iraq was not justifiable and our country has killed many more innocent women and children in Iraq than the terrorists (who were not affiliated with Iraq) did on 9-11.
One more thing, war is a terrible and has terrible psychological effects to the men who serve in them, ask any person, like my Grandpa, who served during war time. Even now the suicide rate is extremely high among our troops. I say again before we send our boys to kill and be killed be better have good reason for it. You can’t put a gun in some one’s face and make them love freedom, it just doesn’t work. I believe it is past time to bring our sons and daughters and neighbors home.
II. The government has no authority from God for preemptive war.
Last spring I took a course on the “doctrine of the church” taught by Dr. Sam Waldron. In one lesson he focused on the relationship between the government and the church. Basically here is the deal, all authority men have is a derived authority, that is it is an authority that comes from God. God has three spheres of delegated authority. The sphere of the family where God gives authority to the Husband to teach, train up and lead his family. There is the sphere of the state, where God has given the government the right to bear the sword and punish evil and keep civil order. Finally there is the sphere of the Church, whose elders govern the administration of Baptism, the Lord ’s Supper, and other things like church discipline. No one authority has the right to interfere with another’s God given areas. Neither the state not the Church can rightfully decide it is their duty to train up the family’s children. Both can provide institutions that the Parents can freely decide to use, but they can not be forced. The Church and the Family have no right to meet out justice; only the state has God’s authority to do that. But let us focus on the state for now.
The Text for State authority comes from Romans 13.:1-7.
Romans 13.:1-7 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4 for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. 7 Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.
Now let us bear in mind that this letter was written to the Roman citizens not the Roman government. This is not a Charge for the Government to run across the globe avenging evil! This text is telling citizens to be submissive to their government because God has set them up as authorities over them. Certainly, a Government should and can go to war to defend it’s citizens from an invasion, but it is not ever given the authority to decide it doesn’t like another country’s policies and so invade it depose the rulers and then set up it’s own. This is equivalent to one father deciding he doesn’t like the way another father teaches his children so the first father goes and kills him and forcefully sets up an new father in that home. That is wrong, because God did not give the first father the right to do that. My Friend, Peter Lovassy, has a charge by God to train his children and spiritually aide his wife in her growth in Christ; he does not however have authority over the decisions that my friend Pat Hines makes with the training of his children. God has placed George Bush as President of the United States, he then has no authority to go into another nation killing both our troops and that country's people because he doesn't like the things that that country's government says.
To wield authority over another human soul, one must have a warrant from God. Our Government has no ground for exercising such authority over Iraq, Iran or North Korea.
These are my thoughts, maybe you don't agree, but I hope you van respect them.
God Bless you,
Hideous Rex
UPDATE: Here are some interesting figures about who supports Ron Paul. Our Military.
Ron Paul also received more total money from military contributors than all the Democratic candidates combined, or all the Republicans combined. Here are the totals in dollars for each candidate:
Ron Paul $392,721.00
Barack Obama $124,234.00
John S McCain $106,309.00
Hillary Clinton $75,258.00
Fred Thompson $58,373.00
Mike Huckabee $47,376.00
Mitt Romney $43,332.00
Rudolph Giuliani $23,430.00
Bill Richardson $21,175.00
John Edwards $20,711.00
Joseph Biden $10,940.00
Duncan Hunter $9,820.00
Thomas Gerald Tancredo $7,200.00
Samuel Dale Brownback $3,606.00
Dennis J Kucinich $2,952.00
Christopher J Dodd $1,098.00
Mike Gravel $970.00
1 comment:
Interesting read. One question - how should I act if Citizen A knew Citizen B was raping Citizen B's daughter? First, Citizen A should report it to the authorities. What then if they fail to respond? I think I see where you are coming from and agree in principle, just not in this instance. I just don't see it as an unused gun. I see it as a gun that was used on others - a gun that Iraq refused to give up - and a gun that we stepped in to remove. Now, we may not have executed the plan in a good way, but I'm talking the moral intent.
Additionally, do you think the first war with Iraq (stopping the invasion of Kuwait) was justified? If so, consider that the peace that ended that war had conditions, and Iraq violated them. From one perspective, this is not a new war, just the eventual conclusion to the US response to the invasion of Kuwait.
Post a Comment