GOP PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES SUPPORT PREEMPTIVE WAR — BUT NOT RON PAUL
A YouTube video strikingly shows the contrast between Ron Paul and other Republican candidates for president on the subjects of preemptive nuclear war and Christian just-war theory.
Follow this link to the original source: "Preemptive Nuclear War vs. Christianity"
Anyone closely following the Republican presidential debates knows that there is a huge contrast between the position of nine of the 10 Republican candidates and that of Congressman Ron Paul on the subject of war. That contrast was strikingly illustrated in a YouTube video that was recently forwarded to me. Entitled "Preemptive Nuclear War vs. Christianity," the video depicts a nuclear attack while also showing clips of remarks by some of the Republican candidates including Ron Paul.
For example, the YouTube video shows clips from the June 5 Republican presidential debate in New Hampshire, where candidates were asked if they would use tactical nuclear weapons in a preemptive strike against Iran. Congressman Duncan Hunter said: "I would authorize the use of tactical nuclear weapons." Rudy Giuliani said: "You shouldn't take any option off the table." And Mitt Romney responded: "You don't take options off the table."
Ron Paul was not asked that particular question. But later in the same debate, he got his opportunity to comment about preemptive nuclear war when he was asked: "What's the most pressing moral issue in the United States right now?" He responded emphatically: "I think it is the acceptance just recently that we now promote preemptive war. I do not believe that's part of the American tradition. We in the past have always declared war in the defense of our liberties or go to aid somebody, but now we have accepted the principle of preemptive war. We have rejected the just-war theory of Christianity. And now, tonight, we hear that we're not even willing to remove from the table a preemptive nuclear strike against a country that has done no harm to us directly and is no threat to our national security."
The YouTube video also shows Ron Paul commenting on the floor of the House: "I remember something about 'Blessed are the peacemakers.' Some of the strongest supporters of the war declare that we are a Christian nation, yet use their religion to justify the war. They claim it is our Christian duty to remake the Middle East and attack the Muslim infidels. I have been reading from a different Bible. Christian teaching of nearly a thousand years reinforces the concept of the just-war theory."
What is Christian just-war theory? Paul summarized:
• "War should be fought only in self defense";
• "War should be undertaken only as a last resort";
• "A decision to enter war should be made only by a legitimate authority";
• "All military responses must be proportional to the threat";
• "There must be a reasonable chance of success; and"
• "A public declaration notifying all parties concerned is required."
Obviously, these criteria for a just war do not match what we have been doing in Iraq. Nor are they in harmony with the concept of a preemptive nuclear war against Iran. Yet the Republican presidential candidates who support the concept of preemptive nuclear war also claim to be Christians and men of faith. How can that be? Have they studied Christian just-war theory? Are they even familiar with it? Ron Paul made a very astute observation when he commented: "I have been reading from a different Bible."
Gary is the Editor of The New American magazine, a publication of the John Birch Society.
Comment: It is sad when the libertarian John Birch Society is far saner about war than is the President of the U.S.
Nevertheless, the Real Liberal Christian Church does not subscribe to the just-war theory. It is not Christian. War is antichrist.
Originally by Gary Benoit from The John Birch Society - Truth, Leadership, Freedom - on July 13, 2007, 10:51am
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)