and if Paul wasn't a xian would you say the same thing? On Mar 6, 2:02 pm, Bruce Majors <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> > > 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.
