28One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?”
29 “The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength. 31 The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’There is no commandment greater than these.”
Mark 12:28-31
A number of evangelical Christians are supporting Congressman Ron Paul’s campaign for the presidency. I certainly understand why. Congressman Paul, (a man I first met in 1996), is bright, well-read, refreshingly blunt, wonderfully consistent and severely adverse to compromise. I frequently find myself yelling, “Amen!” at the televised GOP debates when Congressman Paul takes the status quo to task.
One of the things I appreciate about Congressman Paul is his Christian conviction that his fellow believers, not a secular government, should care for the poor. Leading the way, Rep. Paul, a OBGYN, continues to practice often offering the impoverished cheap or free health care services. God bless him.
Yet, as much I admire Congressman Paul I also often find myself befuddled by many of his stances including his foreign policy positions. He is generally an isolationist who believes we need to shut down our military bases overseas and refuse to intervene in conflicts between other nations.
Right now, in Syria, ordinary men and women are suffering and dying in their brave attempt to overthrow the Al-Assad government, which openly sponsors international terrorism and is a close Allie of Iran. Senator John McCain has rightfully argued that the U.S. should support the anti-Al-Assad forces with air support and I agree. Ron Paul disagrees.
As a viral video has recently made clear, there is a mass murderer named Joseph Kony in and around Uganda who has led a group of assassins known as the LRA for nearly 10 years. Recently, President Obama authorized a special forces unit to help bring Kony to justice. Again, Ron Paul thinks we should not get involved.
But what would Jesus say to this? Are the Syrians our neighbors? Are the Ugandans our neighbors?
Perhaps you will object that we can’t intervene in every corner of the world but what happens when we can with minimal investment such as airstrikes in Syria or one special forces unit in Uganda? What if they asked us to come?
There are people suffering right now in Syria and Africa. And, yes, they have specifically asked for our help. Should we help them? Are they your neighbor?
Tune in tomorrow for the Best of the Web this week and why I think Rick Santorum is acting like a sissy.
Until then, grace and peace.
So, you will be heading to Uganda when? When you find Kony saddle up and drop the bombs for the good of our neighbors.
Thanks for stopping by and thanks for not answering the question.
Glad to be here. Thank you for discussing this mesh of the psudo-christian american religion.
Christ did not call the church to be good citizens and fall in line under the roman empire. The church recognised that they had a higher responisbility to their creator than to ceasar. We walked the extra mile out of love for people not duty to an empire. That is what made the church so dangerous in its first century! That is what caused them to be persecuted, what Rome feared, what the powers that be fear and stunt today.
What would Christ say today? He would remind us that he only used violence when He removed the money changers from the temple. Are the children of Uganda our neighbors? Yes, just as the foxcon factory workers, NYC child prostitues and the uneducated immigrants are.
So who is the church to be stiring up imagery of death and war instead of hope and love… seems that by comparing Kony to Hitler and Bin Laden focus was lost.
Anon, that takes a rather narrow view of the Bible and, again, takes Jesus out of his historical and cultural context. Paul specifically urged Christians to be good citizens, pray for the government and he was more than happy to take advantage of the benefits of his roman citizenship. Also, there is that whole Old Testament and book of Revelation thing to deal with.
The old testemenat gives us numerous stories warning against humanities nature to allow earthly powers to usurp the Creator’s authority and the churches role. Stories of how these worldy powers will break communion with God and bring judgement on the people. Through Samuel, Isreal was warned what they give up by asking for a king. After the kingdom split the north forced worship of idols so that the people would not flock to the temple in jerusalem.
In reading the apocalyptic literature like Daniel and Revelation did you ever consider this american empire as Babylon? Anyone who sees this current nation of Isreal as the fullfilment of prophecy is stuck in an american state religion and will constantly overlook the infidelities we do as a people.
So sure, we can keep trying as a church to be a part of the empire. In doing so are we not being more like Judas? Loving Christ but we still know better. We know how to work the system and get things done.
I’ve read on the Richard Horsley non-sense on America as Empire. Read Kim’s “Christ and Caesar.” McKnight also thinks the comparison doesn’t hold and writing on it now. It is a weak argument. Also, you are arguing in circles. First you and others on this thread want to make the Sermon on the Mount the whole canon and ignore the directed acts of war and violence by God but then want to adopt portions of the Old Testament to support your narrative. I’ll stick with Augustine who deftly harmonized Scripture rather than pick and choose.
It’s a tricky issue. And not so cut-and-dry as to assume there is only one “Christian” answer, either. Personally, my position harkens back to Anabaptist convictions. Your use of the term “we” when speaking of the American government doesn’t apply too well in such a view. Though obviously I pay my taxes and I enjoy the privileges that come with my American citizenship, there is still a very real sense in which I do not think “we” when I consider the United States or its government. I find this position to be similar to that of most early believers, which is reflected by what Celsus said about them:
“If everyone were to act the same as you [Christians], the national government would soon be left utterly deserted and without any help, and affairs on earth would soon pass into the hands of the most savage and wretched barbarians.”
I try not to be a legalist in this regard, however. There are certain causes I support, or would support, and I find nothing wrong with a Christian wanting to try to effect some change through the political system if that’s what he wants to do. Issues of peace, justice, being a kind of conscience in the world-all this I am for. But in a different kind of way than most, I guess. I can say I would be half tempted to vote if Ron Paul were actually in the running for president, yet even then I’m not sure. I place no hope for a better future in him or any other man who might run for office.
Josh, I think Paul would disagree with that. He urged Christians to be good citizens, pray for their rulers, follow the law and he took full advantage of his citizenship as well. Nowhere in Scripture are even Roman soldiers urged to abanadon their duties. Also, I’ve believe the anabaptist perspective has a trick time harmonizing God’s actions in the Old Testament with their New Testament theology. God clearly calls nations to war in the Old Testament. In the end, I look at it this way. If I see someone is trying to hurt my next door neighbor and I have the power to do something about it, whether directly or indirectly by calling the police, and I don’t, have I loved my neighbor? Especially if she asks for help. The Syrians fighting the oppressive Assad government have asked for help. Kony has been on the loose in Uganda for ten years with devestating effects. They too have begged for assistance. Are they our neighbors? If we ignore their pleas, have we loved our them?
Even in the Old Testament, retribution was limited to an “Eye for an Eye”. What, we had 3,000 people killed on 9/11. Did we quit at the killing of 3,000 “terrorists?”
Besides, while the OT seems to allow for war, there are no commands or principles that require us to go to war.
Besides, consider Luke 14. Are we not supposed to count the costs of our commitments?
Lastly, Jesus gave us the Sermon on the Mount. Why again would we not follow His teachings? Why would we not return good for evil? Why instead do we return 10x evil for every evil? (and 10x is to be generous; it may be more like 100x or 1000x)
Sure. Again, I’m not necessarily against anything in particular here. If the government of any nation wields the sword responsibly and with the greater good in view, then that’s fine for that is what they are here for.
You’re probably right about the Anabaptists being unable to mesh their views with certain portions of the OT; all I can say for myself is that I sympathize with their belief that the revelation of God in Christ supercedes the old. Jesus Himself remarked, “you have heard it said by those of old, but now I say to you…” I think the attempt to harmonize the OT with the New in every facet is a pointless exercise, as the two obviously do not coincide in every respect.
As to your initial comment, though, nothing I said was meant to convey that we shouldn’t be good citizens, pray for our rulers, obey the law, or take full advantage of our citizenship. And I do not consider myself a pacifist in the commonly understood meaning of that word; if someone breaks into my house and attacks my wife and kids, for instance, I will certainly do something about it. But that’s a whole different story than the political issues we’re talking about here.
At the core of the gospel we find the Lord Jesus laying down his life, not calling people to war. You just can’t apply the cross to the realm of politics and worldly government is all I’m saying.
Understand, bro. But that view of the Old Testament doesn’t change the essential nature of God, does it? If he ordered his people to wage war in the Old Testament, then did Jesus differ with him? Did he change his mind? See my point?
I do. And it all depends on your overall view of the Old Testament. To be honest I have to say that mine is still in flux at this point. For instance, what do you make of the glaring similarities between OT calls to war and the calls to war by the “gods” of other ancient near eastern cultures? I’d be interested to hear your take on this.
I’m no Marcionite, but it makes me curious at the very least.
I think the comparison to other ANE culture is overstated. I’m doing research on a future blog series on the rise of theological liberalism in the 18th and 19th century. The similarities are not as glaring as the differences. For example, the “gods” of the ANE always favored empirical expansion whereas Yahweh would use war to liberate and punish, not to colonize. See what I mean. In the end, I think we are wise to look to church fathers like Augustine who carefully worked through these “problems” 1700 years ago.
Is this the same Augustine who advocated the use of force when other methods of conversion failed?
Seriously, though, thanks for taking the time to answer my questions. I appreciate your feedback.
Never heard of that one! Thank you for the interesting discussion. Appreciate it, bro.
Matt, you raise a good question here. As a Christian, below are several reasons why I support Ron Paul.
I firmly believe we should be sending support around the globe for a variety of good causes. I do not, however, trust my government to determine what is or is not a good cause. There are underlying economic reasons for much of our presence around the globe. I remember hearing first hand from a survivor of the Rwandan genocide who told our Sunday school class that Americans didn’t know the extent of what was going on in Rwanda because the O.J. Simpson trial was on all major networks. This man also informed us of some US or UN (Big difference but I cannot remember exactly) officials went to Rwanda and came to the conclusion that there “were only humans here” and there basically was nothing worth getting involved with. I have a huge problem with that.
America’s reach is huge, and if another country’s reach and impact on the globe was as much as ours, we would have a big problem with it and in fact, we DO have a big problem worrying about China’s growth. I can understand some of the resentment toward us.
Even though I have no great appreciation for Islam, does anyone in politics or the national media care to know why we are referred to as the “great Satan?” I will handily concede Jihadists are nuts, but why are we referred to as the great Satan? Is it because of what we export? our friendship with Israel? (Iran is totally out of their head in denying the holocaust) but why? I believe part of our problem with terrorism is our own fault.
When I was watching the Republican debates, one phrase that was used struck me… I believe it was either Romney or Santorum that said they would look out for America’s interest in the world… I have been wondering what that means… and it seems to me that we have been looking out for too many interests in the world. Ron Paul’s accusations of empire make sense to me.
Back to your original question… Yes we must love our neighbor as ourselves but nationally that would assumes our government’s goal is to follow Christ. Our government is just as much a problem in the world as it is a help – and part of the principalities and powers of the air. Our churches, and faith organizations should send people to help out, join foreign armies, give money, volunteer, but I think the government should be much much more hesitant to send troops to other nations…Somehow, I think we would like the globe to be dependent on us for much more than they already are.
Eric, I disagree. I think Christians who have influence on a secular government should use that influence to help others. So, while I don’t trust our government much either, I do trust the power of Christians to mobilize our government for good whether it was the clergy known as the “Black Robe Regiment” who helped lead the American people into the Revolutionary War or those who fought tirelessly for the abolition of slavery, etc.
I also don’t think it is our ties to Israel or overseas activities that cause resentment among radical muslims. I just think we are an easy target for meglomaniacs like Bin-Laden to gain an audience and power. If you go back to the 1980′s, Bin-Laden was asking US to help HIM in Afghanistan. He had no issue whatsoever with our activities overseas in Islamic nations AND he asked when we had closer ties to Israel and there were more conflicts with Palestine. Bin-Laden turned in the 1990′s when he needed another cause to gain power. At first, he preached that Islam should attack America to unmask it as a paper tiger. He argued that Vietnam had demonstrated how weak we are and that if Muslims attacked the U.S., we would turn tail and run. When we abandoned our efforts in Somalia and tried to deal with Al-Quada through civilian courts, he released videos arguing our “cowardly” actions proved his point. It was only after we came at him and pushed him into the mountains that he suddenly discovered the cause of the Palestinians and claimed to be a persecuted freedom fighter.
Also, we are not even talking about sending in many or any troops in these situations. And, if we don’t, we will hear another narrative that was much more common before the last 10 years–before George W. Bush, we were criticized much more often for NOT acting. For example, when we committed to Operation Desert Storm, Iraqis in the south rose up in the hopes of joining our troops in displacing Hussein. When we decided not to go in, Hussein slaughtered entire villages who had pledged to help oust him–hence, the mass graves we discovered in Iraq. That drew more ire from the Muslim world in the early ’90′s then did our efforts over the last 10 years.
Actually, Bin Laden turned against the US when US troops were deployed to Saudi Arabia in operation Desert Shield. He was very offended with the military presence on what he believed was holy ground. Not that any of that justifies terrorism, but it’s what he believed.
After Desert Storm, the international objection to US Iraq policy was not that we didn’t finish the job, but rather that our sanctions were causing many innocent Iraqis to suffer/starve.
Bernard, again, that doesn’t tell the whole story. Bin Laden hadn’t cared about the “holy ground” of Arabia before when foreigners were trampling all over the place for oil and whatnot. It was a sham excuse to get himself attention. If he were really so offended, why isn’t he waging his war against the Saudi Royal family because they asked us to come and “desecrate” holy ground.
What would Jesus have us do? How about follow the Golden Rule? ((Of course, we can still here the crowd’s response to that idea. “Boooo!”))
Jesus separates the sheep and the goats. Those that feed the poor, cloth the naked, visit those in prison, shelter the homeless…. Those are the righteous.
I don’t see anywhere in that list those that police the world, or force others to behave, or force others to take care of people.
Jesus was surprisingly focused on what we do. And telling others what to do was pretty low on the list.
Paul, I think you committ a number of logical fallacies. First of all, you have to keep Jesus’ words in context…both historical and literary. Jesus was not addressing democratic states but individuals in a Roman province who longed to overthrow the government. Also, Jesus accepted the Old Testament as God’s Word. Did God the father and the Israelites violate the Sermon on the Mount? I don’t think so. As Augustine pointed, to take the Sermon on the Mount and not harmonize it with the rest of Scripture is to create a canon-within-a-canon. Thus, Augustine produced the Just War Theory, which, while brilliant, is also dated in the sense that Augustine could not have predicted a world with the news coverage and intelligence we have to act pre-emptively if necessary. That being said, I am not defending the Iraq war or every military intervention that our nation has embarked on over the years. I am simply arguing that it is a mistake to draw such a bright line as Ron Paul has done. There are times when we can act humanely with little or no military risk. I think it is always worth considering.
Great issue for discussion!
For starters, I have to say that your Neo-Con policy of intervening to overthrow really bad dictators is working like a CHARM. Let’s see… Jimmy Carter helps overthrow that really bad Shah in Iran and in return we got the present Iranian Islamic regime. Touche!
That’s French for, “Can I get a witness”?
Then we have more recent examples, like in Egypt when Obama assists in the overthrow of that terrible Mubarak and after the “democratic youth” were finished raping CNN reporters and shouting “death to America” and “death to Israel”, we have been blessed with the Muslim Brotherhood going by the name of “Peace and Justice” something or other…
And, yes, Obama is following the Bush doctrine on cue. His liberal friends are quietly pissed off at him for it, but who cares? What are they going to do, vote for ROMNEY?
Other examples could be cited, but that would be redundant. Now we have Al-Assad, that ruthless and brutal punk in Syria. So, let’s follow Juan McCain’s lead so that Hamas can take over! And that is exactly what is about to happen once Al-Assad is gone. Hamas is downright GIDDY over what is happening in Syria.
Who’s next? We could help overthrow Lebanaon and let Hezbullah take over. We could help overthrow Gaddafi (or Qaddafi or Daffy or whatever his name is) and…. OH, forgot. We already did that and now the Muslim Brotherhood under the guise of the “Justice and Development Party”. Good times!
Do we see a pattern here?
So, why don’t we try a different approach, like following the CONSTITUTION. Why NOT stop acting like blind, stupid sheep who believe every war cry that we are spoon fed? A novel idea that most Christians have YET to try.
And only the Ron Paul Christians seem to get the message.
And one last little tid bit of factual information that blows Obama’s Neo-Con build up for a Uganda invasion… Kony isn’t anywhere near Uganda. BOTH sides, or maybe we should say ALL sides of that conflict are as depraved and wicked as Kony. Invasion will solve nothing, but will result in more dead American GI’s sent home in body bags.
Finally, what would Jesus say about all of this? The same thing He said while on earth when atrocities were taking place all over the globe while He walked the streets of Jerusalem. NOTHING.
That’s right. Romans were committing atrocities all over the world. During the life of Jesus, TERRIBLE abuse of Germanic tribes to the north and the Musulamii in north Africa (just a short camel ride from UGANDA) were taking place and Jesus didn’t organize a single effort to intervene or call on any nation or confederacy of nations to intervene.
One might argue that Jesus gave us the Constitution (Romans 13) which does not authorize war without a formal declaration by Congress, thus making the wars in Korea, Viet Nam, Kuwait/Iraq of 90-91, the Iraq invasion of 2003 to the present, the Afghan War of 2001 to the present AND any additional undeclared wars ILLEGAL and a violation of the God-ordained authority of this nation.
So, you will find that there are very good reasons not to support a lawless regime with a globalist (anti-Constitutionalist) agenda–whether that’s Bush, Obama, Romney, Santorum or Gingrich–and to support the only man with the Ronald Reagan foreign policy of a “strong national DEFENSE”.
Reagan never took this nation to war and never violated the Constitution to fight undeclared wars. And Ron Paul would follow that policy and example.
God bless Ron Paul.
Greg, first of all, I am not defending EVERY military endeavor that our nation has undertaken but arguing that Congressman Paul should not draw such a bright line if the cause is humanitarian and the cost minimal. Second, Jesus did not address a democratic state but worked to create a people within a military empire. When God did have a nation of his own, did He God to war? Yes, he did. And why? In Deuteronomy and Joshua it is clear that part of His goal was to punish a people for their oppression of others. Also, note that NOT acting is the reason the Middle East is where it is. We refused to take action in Lebanon, which once was a thriving democratic state. Also, the Founders didn’t believe the Constitution prevented foreign military intervention although some cautioned against hard alliances but given the strife between France and England at the time, who can blame them. Also, Reagan did commit troops overseas in very much the same fashion in which I am arguing now–it was called Grenada. We were also helping Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan but they tried to keep that under wraps. Finally, it was our failure to take more of a lead that allowed radicals to rise in Egypt. We could’ve prevented it and we should have.
Also, the report about Kony not being in Uganda has already proven to be false. They actually don’t know where he is exactly but he is still conducting raids in Uganda. That’s one of the reasons why President Obama committed one special forces unit to look into it.
Whatever the case may be, I think we all know that the only thing that matters is:WWMD
What Would Mit Do?
I think it’s down to Mit vs. B.O. So, Christian supporting Paul or anyone else is just about moot.
On that, we agree, old friend.
Matt, I KNEW that you would slap down the Granada card on me and I almost deflated that hot air balloon before you had a chance to float it, but my response was already lengthy and I didn’t want to come off as a Neo-Con with a Preemptive strike.
“Reagan did commit troops overseas”?? We’re talking the Caribbean. We could have used cruise liners to take the 8,000 troops (only SOME of which were U.S.) into this little blip on the map of less than 150 square miles and a population that could ALL fit into Ohio Stadium to watch the next Buckeye vs. MAC team matchup in late August.
That is hardly evidence to support any claim that Reagan “committed troops overseas”.
The better test would be 1983 in Lebanon. In April, the U.S. embassy was attacked and dozens killed. Reagan doesn’t “commit troops overseas”.
Six months later, our Marines are attacked in Beirut and 299 of our best and brightest are killed. Still, Reagan does not “commit troops overseas”.
So, I don’t think the claim sticks to Reagan, especially in light of the fact that Granada was not a manhunt (for someone like Kony) or an attempt to assist with the overthrow of a government (as in Syria). Reagan sent troops south of Miami to EVACUATE Americans.
No, Reagan can in now way be turned into a Neo-Con. He never even made a case for preemptive war. He NEVER committed troops overseas, outside of the Caribbean. He didn’t even support Israel’s JUSTIFIABLE bombing of the Iraqi Nuclear works in 1981 (which Ron Paul was nearly ALONE in supporting). And Reagan certainly showed no desire to overthrow Hussein during his 8 years in office.
But the point in question is, how could Christians support Ron Paul in light of his foreign policy. And I don’t think you’ve made a case that such support is somehow contradictory to an accurate interpretation of the Scripture.
Becoming involved in a civil war by assisting one side in defeating the other, etc., is not really what could properly be termed as “humanitarian”. And I simply can’t find any evidence of Constitutional authority for such a thing. If the Neo-cons think that should be in the Constitution, we have an amendment process for them to follow so that they can add that as the 28th amendment!
Until then, Christians should support the candidate who will not fall to the foolish temptations of pragmatism and feel-good-ism that has resulted in such terrible fuster-clucks as what we’ve seen nearly EVERY time it’s been tried.
-Ron Paul would stop funding Israel’s enemies with TWICE the amount of foreign welfare that we give to Israel.
-Ron Paul would disengage from the ridiculously laughable “peace process” that has created the mess we see in the middle east, allowing Israel to handle it’s issues with enemies.
-Ron Paul would stop the American demand that Israel give up land to terrorists for peace and would, instead, allow Israel to do what was in her own best interests.
For these and many other reasons, I don’t see how a Christian could support anyone else BUT Ron Paul.
Greg, that’s simply not true. Every Reagan bio reads that they weren’t even sure if the Americans were still on the Island. He wanted to kick the Cubans out to send a message to the USSR and he did. Moreover, launching air strikes in support of the Syrian democratic movement or committing a few dozen Navy Seals to take out a monster in Africa is hardly the same as committing troops to take on Cuban regulars. As for Beirut, we went in too late. It was already a mess by the time Reagan made the decision. IF we had acted earlier when Syria and the PLO led a bloody coup, we wouldn’t have nearly as many problems in the Middle East. I agree that Ron Paul holds many good positions but drawing a bright line and stating that we will never go overseas unless attacked first is ridiculous and mean. As for my interpretation of Scripture, Professor Wayne Grudem agrees (author of the Bible & Politics) as does D.A. Carson at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and many others. You keep wanting to make this about W and Paul’s other positions but that’s not what I argued.
Perhaps the reason many now lean Libertarian is because they’d like the Church to take back—and take seriously—its calling to transform this world. It’s Jesus—not Uncle Sam—that people should see and know whenever blessings flow and mercy, justice and love roll.
The bottom line is following Jesus is supposed to be something we do—not vote for. Especially since no political philosophy or party will ever align perfectly with Scripture. Nor should it—in a free society. Our political leanings have as much to do with our personalities, our experiences, our families of origin, our callings—as they do our faith. Let’s be honest.
Be glad for Christian friends all over the political spectrum. It keeps us all thinking, all sharp. If we’re all open to listening to one another, open to seeking the best solutions, and understanding that God gave us these different political perspectives, then maybe—somehow—they can all work together. In some wild, beyond-the Beltway, Sprit-led way, we can be those hands and feet we’re called to be.
Anon, with all due respect, those are all nice bumper sticker slogans but they don’t work practically or theologically. Under your line of thinking, Wilberforce, Martin Luther King, etc. were violating Jesus’commands by urging people to vote a certain way. Also, libertarianism is a political philosophy. I also disagree that our political opinions are simply the product of our environment. People can think critically, can’t they? Finally, politics is a game of inches and yards–it is about using one’s influence to slowly make change–practically, this involves working from within political parties. It didn’t diminish King’s standing as a Christian leader and doesn’t have to diminish our’s either. Right now, the political party most open to the influence of Christians is the Republican Party. It has been that way since 1980. So, I see no problem in generally supporting it in order to exert the type of influence most effective in a democratic-republic. Thanks.
Calling Ron Paul a Isolationist is like calling your neighbor a hermit because he doesn’t come on your property and break your windows.
Phil, nice quote from “Fun Tweets” but, regardless of what Ron Paul likes to say, his stance fits the very definition of isolationism used by political scientists. Also, he believes that if your neighbor were killing people in his basement, well, that’s really nobody’s business!
what quote from fun tweets?
Matt, I’m begging to see more and more that most of your blog posts are just you wanting to argue and have very little to do with real discussion. It’s rather sad.
Oh, please. That’s an old Tweet. And how do you define discussion? Discussion never involves disagreement? Just wanting to throw off bumper sticker slogans that aren’t fully thought through from a historical or public policy position is sad!
Dont bother trying to debate with this guy anyone. I use to attend his Church fairly regularly and it was the same thing every week. Him reminding everyone that hes smarter then his people because he went to seminary. He’s opinions are more valid because he worked in washington. He claims he wants to help portsmouth yet he doesn’t live in portsmouth and sends his son to a private christian school. Not to mention he tears down every other church who doesn’t help them as often as he can.
Please tell me how offering facts, historical data and logic is a bad thing? I’m sorry that you feel you always have to be so personal rather than either accept a counter argument and learn from it or at least agree to disagree in a mature way. I was lucky enough to be mentored by a number of wise, experienced and, in many cases, Godly men when I was young. They taught me about politics, recommended books, sponsored me to attend conferences and political leadership schools. It was a blessing and I learned a lot from it. The way we learn is to listen and carefully consider the opinion of our elders. God bless,
What would Jesus say to this? Are Syrians our neighbors? Ugandans?
Yes, of course they are all our neighbors. But Jesus’ commandment was to individuals, not to governments. Stated otherwise, Jesus did not command us to forcefully confiscate the property of some of our neighbors (via taxes), and then use their property to help out other neighbors.
From an individual perspective, yes, Jesus teaches us to help those who are suffering, and any individual or individuals who choose to help those suffering in Uganda or Syria (or anywhere for that matter) are (IMHO) doing as Jesus would do.
Bernard, I am speaking about individuals–individual Christians who have been blessed with the responsibility of influencing our government. And no one would pay more in taxes for the military operations to which I am urging Christian Ron Paul supporters to consider. Thanks.
I am shocked at your ignorance. You let a viral video make up your mind for you. Sir you are misinformed, Kony has not been in Uganda since sometime in 2006. If you will take a little time to research instead of letting a video dressed up with old footage you would have found what the Ugandan’s think or are saying about this Kony 2012 video. Have you not read “blessed are the peacemakers for they will be called the sons of God”. Jesus told Peter put away your sword, answer me this was Peter his neighbor?
Louis, if you had read the post carefully and the comments you would know that I did not let the video make up my mind. I researched articles from Foreign Affairs and other public policy journals and think tanks. If you had read those, you would know that Kony’s “army” still conducts raids in Uganda and other countries to kidnap young girls for the international sex trade. As, for Peter, I also stated that one must keep all the Scriptures in mind when approaching an issue not just a verse take out of context. If nations engaging in violence to bring justice is wrong, then God was wrong to have the Israelites slaughter the Canaanites, etc. And how does allowing a band of armed guerillas to kill, kidnap and force people into prostitution bring “peace”? Are these young girls not our neighbors?
I must say, very interesting post and intriguing comments. I only read half of the comments as I am limited on time, but I wanted to chime in.
First of all, the blanket statement that Paul is an isolationist is (in my honest opinion) a tactic used by every major media outlet to unabashedly lambast a politician on a policy that differs from what our country’s “leaders” have made a “business” at doing…intervening around the world in selected areas in an attempt to “secure” our country’s wellbeing.
Needless to say I don’t believe Ron Paul would ever be against any kind of military action, especially if it truly and honestly was in the best interest of this country and even if it helped severely disenfranchised peoples from any part of the world. What Ron Paul mainly has a problem with is the blatant abuse of power at the executive level to send troops wherever the current president pleases, without due process (or better yet the right process, which is the congress’ job to do). Ron Paul would support military plans that had a clear objective and is properly passed and secured before action is even taken.
The primary purpose of federal government was to: 1) defend the shores, 2) establish a system of currency, 3) deliver the mail, and 4) protect individual rights. These being found in Amendment X of the Constitution. Our rights as a person are not granted by any form of government or constitution, otherwise they could be easily amended or taken away from a government (as our fore-fathers understood)…which is also why this country is a constitutional republic and not a democracy. But to not forget, there are established processes within (and limitations of) the federal government so that abuse of power does not occur. It is almost bound to happen regardless, but limiting the affects of it is also a clear reason why we shouldn’t flippantly agree with a president who sends troops off without a plan or timetable. We will end up bound to a continual conflict which in turn does not seem to help even the people it is proclaiming to help (the locals in whatever country as well as the people back at home here in America).
Knowing this, Ron Paul believes our current engagements around the world are not necessarily defending our shores, but rather creating more and more problems for our country in the long run. And not to mention that our actions around the world are not even properly sanctioned by the Congress, what more of a reason to end what is being done. We must demand that things be done properly, or else our basic rights will continue to be whittled away from a system that is having too much fun at our expense.
As a follower of Christ and as an American, there are many things to consider and many actions to take. My hope is that people of this country begin to seek Christ more dearly in everything they do which (if done with a repentant heart) will then lead to seeing Christ in every action that that person does in their life. I know I am far from having this in my life, but my hope is that no one ever would stop to seek this in their life in order that they will live it fully as Christ wants us to.
Trevor, as a lawyer specializing in Constitutional law, I understand the need for Congress to approve oversea military ventures although you should note our actions in Tripoli and the undeclared naval war with France, which was sanctioned by many of the Founders without an act of war by Congress. Also, the “blanket” statement is supported by most political scientists because Paul’s position is classically defined as isolationism. Congressman Paul has even questioned our involvement in World War II! Also, there is actually no evidence that our actions in the Middle East have generated any additonal hostility. In fact, as I pointed out, in the ’90′s we were criticized by many groups in the Middle East for not doing more. Thanks for stopping by.
lol. I’m not voting in this election… but seriously, people like this Matt character are reasons why i stopped practicing christianity… they rather follow paul’s teachings that were sent to specific churches at specific times than listen to the words of Christ.
Sorry for bringing facts and logic into the dicussion, Dan.