On Mar 6, 2:02 pm, Bruce Majors <majors.br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Enjoy!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Steve Campbell
> Date: Tuesday, March 6, 2012
> Subject: A Biblical Case for Ron Paul on Four Issues of Importance to
>
> Christians
> To: Steve Campbell <callstev...@gmail.com>
>
> A Biblical Case for Ron Paul on Four Issues of Importance to Christians
>
> by Michael Eversden
>
> <http://s7.addthis.com/static/btn/lg-share-en.gif>
>
> In the debate among Christians about who should be the Republican nominee
> for president, the discussion is unfortunately informed more often by the
> Gospel According to O'Reilly and the Book of Limbaugh rather than the
> Bible. I have therefore undertaken in this article to apply Biblical
> principles to four issues that are under discussion in this year's
> presidential campaign, which are or should be important to Christians,
> including foreign policy, life, education, and monetary policy. I conclude
> that Ron Paul's positions are by far the most consistent with Biblical
> principles and indeed that the other candidates have decidedly unbiblical
> views on these issues.
>
> Before proceeding, please note that I have entitled this article "A
> Biblical Case…" because I am sure there are other applicable Scriptures and
> perhaps other better Biblical arguments to make on this subject, but I
> offer the arguments below in an attempt to help my Christian brothers sort
> out to what extent the candidates conform to Biblical principles on the
> four issues that are addressed in this article.
>
> Foreign Policy
>
> Matthew 7:12 (ESV) – "So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do
> also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets."
>
> Matthew 5:9 (ESV) – "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called
> sons of God."
>
> Romans 12:18 (ESV) – "If possible, so far as it depends on you, live
> peaceably with all."
>
> Hebrews 12:14 (ESV) – "Strive for peace with everyone, and for the holiness
> without which no one will see the Lord."
>
> Duet. 5:17 (ESV) – "You shall not murder."
>
> A government is nothing more than a group of men who possess certain powers
> and authority over those residing in a certain geographical area. Relations
> between governments are essentially relations between groups of men. There
> is nothing in the Bible that exempts the groups of men known as governments
> from the commands of God.
>
> Therefore, applying the commands God gave, as quoted above, Christians
> should urge their government to do to other nations what they wish other
> nations would do to them. Christians in the U.S. no doubt would like their
> own country to be free from invasion, attack, assassinations, covert
> operations, or other violent and subversive interventions by other
> countries' governments, so they should advocate a foreign policy that will
> not involve invasion, attack, assassinations, covert operations or other
> violent and subversive operations by the US government in other countries,
> and they should support candidates for office who will oppose such
> unbiblical practices.
>
> Moreover, Christians should not advocate an interventionist foreign policy
> that will inevitably produce unjust wars, the killing of innocents, and the
> subversion and overthrow of other countries' governments, because to do so
> would be to thwart the command of the Apostle Paul in Romans 12:18 to live
> peaceably with all. Indeed, not only do interventionist actions violate
> Paul's command in themselves, but they also provoke violent responses and
> thus perpetuate conflict, as the United States has experienced a number of
> times. Such responses are known by a term the CIA coined: "blowback ". It
> illustrates the truth that violence begets more violence, and as Jesus said
> in Matthew 26:52 (NIV), "[A] ll who draw the sword will die by the sword."
>
> Furthermore, a foreign policy that advocates aggressive wars (that is, wars
> that involve the invasion of other countries and not the repelling of an
> invasion of the U.S.) is anathema to the Sixth Commandment, which prohibits
> murder. Wars of aggression are unjust (as the Nazi leaders learned from the
> Allies in the trials at Nuremburg), thus making the killing associated with
> them unjustified (even the killing of enemy combatants) and therefore
> murderous. Even just wars become unjust when the means by which the war is
> conducted are unjust, as in the killing of innocents.
>
> In addition, because rulers are not exempt from the commands of God, they
> too must abide by the law of the land in accordance with Romans 13. The law
> of the land in the U.S. is the Constitution, which gives limited powers to
> the executive branch and only allows for war in the event that Congress has
> issued a declaration of war. No war since WWII has been a declared war,
> which means that all wars since that time have been unconstitutional and
> illegal, in violation of Romans 13.
>
> To these arguments, one might object: What about all of the dictators and
> repressive governments in the world? Should we just sit back and do nothing
> about them? First, the U.S. government for decades has been a supporter,
> financially and otherwise, of repressive dictators throughout the world,
> including Saddam Hussein in Iraq in the 1980s, Hosni Mubarak in Egypt until
> he was overthrown in 2011, the Shah of Iran (whom the U.S. government
> installed after overthrowing the democratically elected Mossadegh),
> Pinochet in Chile, Noriega in Panama, Diem in Vietnam, and many others. If
> Christians are concerned about repressive dictators, then they should urge
> the U.S. government to stop supporting them.
>
> Second, if we were to operate on the principle that the U.S. must overthrow
> repressive dictators, there would be no end to war until our own country
> collapsed economically, because contrary to popular belief, wars destroy
> wealth, not only for those whose lives and property are destroyed, but also
> for those who pay for the destruction (e.g., U.S. taxpayers).
>
> Third, the best way to influence a country is through open and free trade,
> which leads to the exchange of ideas. As Ron Paul has said, "Ideas are very
> important to the shaping of society. In fact, they are more powerful than
> bombings or armies or guns. And this is because ideas are capable of
> spreading without limit. They are behind the choices we make. They can
> transform the world in a way that governments and armies cannot. Fighting
> for liberty with ideas makes more sense to me than fighting with guns or
> politics or political power. With ideas, we can make real change that
> lasts." China provides a great example of this principle. The U.S. opened
> relations with China in the early 1970s, and since that time, owing to
> trade and the consequent exchange of ideas, China has liberalized more and
> more, and the people of China have prospered. Of course, China is not yet a
> beacon of liberty, but the point is that it changed for the better without
> the use of sanctions or bombs. It is no longer Mao's China.
>
> The lesson is clear: The U.S. should stop installing and supporting
> repressive governments, stop overthrowing and attempting to overthrow other
> governments, and instead pursue peaceful commercial relations with other
> countries. (Note: This is precisely what George Washington's foreign policy
> was.)
>
> Ron Paul is the only candidate who advocates a Biblical and Constitutional
> foreign policy. He is not an isolationist. Rather, he advocates peaceful
> commercial relations with all and denies the right of the U.S. government
> to intervene in the political affairs of other countries. His foreign
> policy is essentially the Golden Rule given by Jesus in Matthew 7:12, as
> applied to governments (remember, governments are just groups of men).
> Moreover, Ron Paul would refuse to go to war without a declaration of war
> by Congress, thus upholding the Constitution and the idea that political
> leaders are not above the law.
>
> Every other candidate (including Obama) supports an interventionist foreign
> policy, which is to say they advocate aggressive wars and military
> operations (e.g., Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and the coming wars in Iran and
> Syria), assassinations, economic sanctions (which do nothing but harm the
> poor, destroy the middle class in the target country, and solidify support
> for the existing regime in the target country), as well as violent and
> subversive operations in other countries. Rick Santorum, for example,
> recently cheered the assassination (murder) of Iranian scientists, calling
> it a "a wonderful thing" and saying he hopes that the United States was
> involved in their killing, and he has been beating the war drums against
> Iran more and more each day. He also apparently has no problem
> assassinating (murdering) American citizens without due process of law,
> notwithstanding the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, which prohibits
> it. Mitt Romney advocates imposing "crippling sanctions" on Iran, taking
> covert action to overthrow Iran's government, and even waging war against
> Iran to prevent it from doing something that the U.S. government and the
> Israeli government have already done hundreds of times over – obtain a
> nuclear weapon. Newt Gingrich agrees entirely with Romney's approach on
> Iran. Like Santorum, both Romney and Gingrich approve of the disregard
> Obama showed for Biblical prohibitions on murder and the Constitution's
> guaranty of due process when he ordered the assassination of an American
> citizen.
>
> (As an aside, Does any of the discussion about Iran's nuclear program sound
> familiar? The people who are beating the war drums against Iran for its
> supposed nuclear-weapons program are the very same people who lied the
> country into war against Iraq in 2003 on the false premise that Iraq
> possessed "weapons of mass destruction," notwithstanding abundant evidence
> at the time that no such weapons program existed. They led us into one
> crippling disaster, and hundreds of thousands of people lost their lives.
> Why should we follow them into the abyss this time?)
>
> Lastly, neither Santorum, Gingrich, nor Romney have any qualms about a
> president initiating war without a declaration of war from Congress. This
> means that they are willing to violate the Constitution that they would be
> sworn to uphold. Christians cannot support someone who would violate the
> law of the land without themselves violating Romans 13.
>
> Much more could be said about the immorality and illegality of the foreign
> policy of Santorum, Gingrich and Romney, and the disaster that would be
> unleashed on the world if one of them were to become president, but the
> reasons above are sufficient to show that none of the candidates other than
> Ron Paul can be said to comply with the Biblical mandates quoted above;
> indeed the other candidates advocate the exact opposite of those commands.
>
> What about Israel? Isn't Ron Paul's foreign policy against Israel's
> interests? Actually, Ron Paul's foreign policy would benefit Israel. First,
> he wants to end all foreign aid (because it is not authorized in the
> Constitution and is therefore illegal). Given that Israel's enemies receive
> seven times more foreign aid from the US than Israel, this would be a net
> benefit to Israel. Moreover, Ron Paul advocates allowing Israel greater
> sovereignty. Currently, Israel must obtain the permission of the United
> States government before implementing any plans to deal with the
> Palestinians internally or Israel's enemies externally. That is not
> sovereignty. Ron Paul would allow Israel to deal with internal and external
> matters without obtaining permission from the United States, and far from
> opposing Israel, he would advocate friendship and peaceful trade with it,
> as he would with any other country.
>
> For those who are not yet convinced about the foreign policy argument,
> please watch the following videos. The first is Ron Paul talking about a
> Biblical basis for foreign policy. The second is a striking video of Ron
> Paul's predictions in 2002 about the consequences at home and abroad of the
> prevailing U.S. interventionist foreign policy – and how they have largely
> come true.
>
> Christians, it is not sufficient to say that the world is a viole
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment