(ESV) – "So whatever you wish that others would do to you,
do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets."
(ESV) – "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called
sons of God."
(ESV) – "If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably
(ESV) – "Strive for peace with everyone, and for the holiness
without which no one will see the Lord."
(ESV) – "You shall not murder."
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.)
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
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?)
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
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.
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.
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
it is not sufficient to say that the world is a violent place,
that there are wicked people who are intent on the destruction
of the United States, and that our country must destroy them before
they destroy it. That view ignores what the U.S. government has
been doing in the world for the last 70 (or more) years, and it
is more akin to the Golden Rule according to Boss Hogg ("Do
unto others before they do unto you.") rather than
the Golden Rule according to Jesus. If you are going to support
an interventionist foreign policy, you must find Biblical support
for it. I submit to you that there is none.
(ESV) – "You knitted me together in my mother’s womb."
(ESV) – "You shall not murder."
As an OB/GYN,
Ron Paul delivered
more than 4,000 babies and saved many lives by counseling women
considering abortions not to abort their babies.
He supports a bill called the Sanctity of Life Act, which would
define life as beginning at conception.
least 2004, when the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress
and the Presidency, Ron Paul has been introducing
each year a bill known as the We The People Act, which would
effectively overturn Roe v. Wade with a simple majority
vote in Congress, by prohibiting federal courts from having
jurisdiction over abortion-related cases and making federal-court
decisions on that issue non-binding on state courts. This would
return the issue to the states (which is where it should be under
the Constitution), enabling individual states to prohibit abortions.
How many thousands of lives would have been saved if the Republicans,
who claim to be pro-life, would have passed this bill when they
had the power to do so?
Santorum, by contrast, did
not support the We The People Act, but he did
VOTE FOR FUNDING FOR PLANNED PARENTHOOD, and he has supported
rabidly pro-abortion candidates for office, including the notorious
Arlen Specter and Christine Todd Whitman, while they were
running against pro-life candidates. How can a person
claim to be pro-life and still vote for and support those things?
Moreover, how can a person claim to uphold the law of the land
and vote to fund Planned Parenthood, when there is no authority
in the Constitution to do so? This is lawlessness.
Gingrich has previously supported federal
funding of abortions in cases of incest, rape, or to save
the life of the mother. Even if you think abortion in such cases
should be legal, there is no basis in the Constitution for providing
federal funding for abortions. Gingrich also sponsored
the Global Warming Prevention Act of 1989, which would have,
among other things, eliminated the federal ban Ronald Reagan imposed
against funding international groups that perform abortions.
Romney is notorious for his conveniently timed flip-flops
on abortion. As recently as 2002, when he was running for governor
of Massachusetts, Romney signed
a Planned Parenthood questionnaire stating that he supported
a woman’s so-called right to choose. Ted Kennedy summed up Romney
well when he said that Romney wasn't pro-choice or anti-choice,
he was multiple
should consider that a candidate’s position on war is just as
relevant to whether or not he is pro-life as his position on abortion
is. War in the 21st Century inevitably involves the
killing of innocent civilians. There is no way to drop bombs on
a house in a neighborhood without killing innocent people. Moreover,
in unjust aggressive wars like those that Santorum, Gingrich and
Romney advocate, all of the killings are unjustified murders.
Christian conservatives need to stop taking their marching orders
from neo-conservative talk-radio hosts and start taking their
orders from the Bible. We should take seriously the Bible’s teaching
on the value of life, including the lives of those in other countries,
and we should evangelize people with Bibles, not bombs.
(ESV) – "Fathers, do not provoke your children
to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction
of the Lord." (emphasis added)
– "And these words that I command you today
shall be on your heart. 7 You shall teach
them diligently to your children, and shall talk
of them when you sit in your house, and when you
walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when
you rise." (emphasis added).
children to their parents and charges their parents with the responsibility
to raise and educate them (i.e., to bring them up in the discipline
and instruction of the Lord). Nowhere in Scripture is the government
given any authority or responsibility to educate children.
Paul supports the biblical role of parents in educating
their children and opposes
the encroachment by the government in the parents’ freedom
to educate their children as they see fit. He believes that no
country can remain free when the government has more influence
over the knowledge and values transmitted to children than parents
do. Ron Paul would uphold the law of the land on this issue –
the Constitution – which gives no authority whatsoever to the
federal government to meddle in matters of education. Ron Paul
would work to eliminate
the disastrous Department of Education, and he has also introduced
legislation that would give homeschoolers a tax credit
(not a welfare voucher with strings) of $5,000 per child for educational
expenses. He also has promised to veto
any bill that encroaches on homeschooling parents’ rights.
Homeschooling Christians will not find a greater friend in this
campaign than Ron Paul.
Santorum, on the other hand, apparently does not have a problem
with disregarding the Constitution when it comes to education,
given that voted
for the No Child Left
Alone Behind Act, and
he voted to double
the size of the federal Department of Education. He also
supports the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
As Wikipedia states, the IDEA act has grown in scope
and form over the years, just like every other big-government
program. If you want more of these types of programs and mandates,
which will grow and metastasize, then Rick Santorum is your man.
Santorum also has taken
$100,000 in taxpayer money to pay for
his children to take part in an online charter school, and he
did so by claiming residency in Pennsylvania while he and his
family actually lived in Virginia. That kind of practice sounds
suspiciously unlike what an honest, small-government conservative
Gingrich worked with Jimmy Carter to create
the Federal Department of Education,
notwithstanding the lack of any Constitutional authority for such
a thing, and one of his noted accomplishments in the House was
the dramatic increase in the department’s budget that the Republicans
passed. As for homeschooling, Newt’s idea of "protect[ing]
the rights of homeschooled children"
is "ensuring they have the same access to taxpayer funded,
extra-curricular educational opportunities as any public school
student." What?! Who cares about that? We simply want to
be left alone. Newt also proposes education welfare programs,
including a "Pell
Grant-style system" for grades K-12,
which would get all participating schools – public, private, and
homeschools – on the public dole and under government control.
He also wants to make sure children are being adequately
indoctrinated into the government’s view
of American history, which would have to be done by some sort
of federal mandate or funding threat. More government, more government,
Romney, like Gingrich and Santorum, sees no difficulty in
flouting the Constitution concerning education. He believes that
the Federal Department of Education plays an "important
role" in education, and he advocates
more government involvement in education, such as standardized
testing, merit pay programs for teachers (presumably directed
in some way by the federal government), and taxpayer-funded "scholarships".
proposals and records of Santorum, Gingrich, and Romney show that
they have little or no regard for the law of the land or for the
fact that government has no Biblical authority to raise and indoctrinate
Money and Ending the Federal Reserve