The Bosom of America

"And so we understand that ordinary people are messengers of the Most High. They go about their tasks in holy anonymity. Often, even unknown to themselves. Yet, if they had not been there, if they had not said what they said or did what they did, it would not be the way it is now. We would not be the way we are now. Never forget that you too yourself may be a messenger. Perhaps even one whose errand extends over several lifetimes."

Lawrence Kushjner-Honey from the Rock

Note: Those that know me know that I am a voracious reader. My home is scattered with an assortment of books, magazines and letters that I pick up and absorb when ever I'm idle for a minute or more. The above quote is from the intro of a book I'm now reading titled "Rescuers,,,Portraits of Moral Courage in the Holocaust", by Gay Block and Malka Drucker.

When I read this quote I immediately thought of Rosa Parks, the unassuming lady whose courage, on the spot, without concern for personal glory, but just raw courage started the downfall of Jim Crow laws( I hate using the term "laws" in reference to them). She didn't subsequently grab the limelight like the "poverty pimps' did, ala Jack$on, $harpton and "calyp$o louie" did,(what is that man drinking?) She remained the unassuming and dignified lady that had had just enough of injustice and wasn't going to stand (literally) for it any more. IN closing, I highly recommend "Rescuers", read the stories of those who stood up and said "enough!" under the most trying and dangerous times. JF

"The bosom of America is open to receive not only the Opulent and respectable Stranger, but the oppressed and persecuted of all Nations and Religions; whom we shall welcome to a participation of all our rights and privileges, if by decency and propriety of conduct they appear to merit the enjoyment."-- George Washington (Address to the Members of the VolunteerAssociation of Ireland, 2 December 1783)

Note: Something the french are learning now,,JF

FAMILY
"In Los Angeles today, bus stop posters read 'No shame. No blame. No names.' The posters explain that in California, as in more than 40 states, a mother can terminate all parental responsibility by returning the baby to the hospital within a few days or weeks of birth, with no repercussions (and no consultation with the father). Yet if the mother decides that she wants to keep the child, she can demand 18 years of child support from the father, and he has no choice in the matter. Feminists base their support for Roe v. Wade in large part on the idea of 'My Body, My Choice.' Yet men also help create children. Why should they have no say?" Glenn Sacks

Note: Maybe if and when we build a fence between the U.S. and Mexico, we should extend it to fence off Kalifornia from the rest of the country,,,JF

CULTURE
"The cultural civil war in which America is engaged is, in large measure, about American exceptionalism. Conservative America generally believes in the concept; liberal America generally finds it chauvinistic and dangerous. What is American exceptionalism? The belief that America often knows better than the world what is right and wrong. This belief drives most of the world's opinion-makers crazy. And it particularly infuriates the American Left, that part of America that trusts what is called 'world opinion' more than it trusts the American people. And from where does this belief in American exceptionalism derive? Mostly from the religious beliefs that underlie American values. That is a major reason the current culture war is about the place of Judeo-Christian values in American life. Those who believe that America must remain a Judeo-Christian nation (in terms of values) are far less respectful of international institutions than those who wish to make America a secular nation... For the Left, i.e., the opponents of American exceptionalism, law is the highest good; for the Right, especially the Judeo-Christian Right, morality is higher than law." —Dennis Prager

LIBERTY
"Why...must government be neutral about religion? Because, we are told, the First Amendment demands it by forbidding any 'establishment of religion.' But this is nonsense. The First Amendment says nothing of the sort, and I wish atheists would read it as literally as they think most Christians read the Bible. 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof' means something very different from 'Government must be neutral about religion.' It bars the Congress of the United States from legislation that either establishes a religion or prohibits its free exercise. This left the states free to do both, and for a long time they did. Several states had official religions as late as the 1830s. You may deplore this, but don't say the Constitution bans it, because it plainly doesn't. Now we are told that the Constitution forbids everything from a moment of silence in the classroom to the phrase under God in the Pledge of Allegiance!" Joseph Sobran






THE GIPPER
"A number of years ago a president of this country declared that we have a rendezvous with destiny. In a world where terrorism spreads and the innocent die we must fulfill our destiny. If not us who? If not now when?" Ronald Reagan







POLITICAL FUTURES
"If the Republican majority in the Senate cannot bring themselves to act like a majority, they may no longer be a majority if their base of support stops supporting them at the ballot box. The brutal fact is that Senate Republicans have not had the stomach for a fight, either during this administration or during the Democrat administration under Clinton... Democrats understand that they were elected to do what those who elected them wanted. But Republicans seem to think they were elected to make deals with Democrats and gain media applause for doing so. Senate Democrats are a united minority, while Senate Republicans are a divided majority, with prima donnas and opportunists ready to leave their fellow Republicans in the lurch when a showdown comes, even if that means risking the whole party's loss of support among voters who feel betrayed." Thomas Sowell



THE LAST WORD
"[President Bush]...needs to stop trying to placate the very people who hate and revile him. For generations the American people have proven over and over again that they love a man who fights for what he believes, even when the odds seem to be against him. They'll get behind him and give him their full support. On the other hand, they have no respect for anyone who seems namby-pamby about defending what they know is right and just and good. George Bush is in the White House because the people in a huge majority of states believed he represents the values and virtues they hold dear. They have every right to expect him to do everything in his power to defend those virtues and values, and they expect him to do battle and show no mercy to those who oppose everything they hold dear. His foes deride those who support America's traditional values, calling them 'right-wing extremists.' He needs to stand up and shout that if being a right-wing extremist means being pro-life, adhering to the Constitution of the United States as it is written and not as some wooly-headed judge wants it to mean, being pro-military, and favoring smaller government and less spending, then he is proud to be a right-wing extremist as defined by the socialist anti-democratic left-wingers." Michael Reagan





TOP OF THE FOLD
Dear Mr. President A letter from Teddy Kennedy...
On Tuesday morning, an urgent correspondence from Senator Edward M. Kennedy to President George W. Bush was inadvertently delivered to the publishing headquarters of The Patriot. It seems that one of Mr. Kennedy's aides mistakenly put the letter to President Bush in a Patriot donor-support envelope, which means that the White House instead received a priority message from Sen. Kennedy with a profane "cease and desist" note addressed to your humble editorial staff.
Our editors wrestled with the legal and ethical implications of reprinting this letter for at least 60 seconds before concluding that we should disclose its contents to you, our esteemed readers, verbatim.
Dear Mr. President:
On behalf of the American people, I must say that we are deeply disappointed, offended in fact, with your nomination of Judge Samuel Alito for Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Clearly, you're pandering to the right-wing extremists on the fringe of your party.
Yes, Alito was unanimously approved by the Senate as U.S. Attorney in 1987 and for the Circuit Court in 1990.
Yes, when Ronald Reagan nominated Alito to be a U.S. attorney in 1987, he received unanimous consent from the Senate. Yes, when your old man nominated him for the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in 1990, he again received unanimous consent from the Senate. Surely by now, some right-wing Internet rag has uncovered my praise for Justice, err, Judge Alito at his confirmation hearing back then: "You have obviously had a very distinguished record, and I certainly commend you for long service in the public interest. I think it is a very commendable career and I am sure you will have a successful one as a judge."
However, he was the lone conservative voice on the Third Circuit Court back then, so I didn't view his confirmation as a threat to our Constitution.
Besides, Mr. President, you know how these back-room wink-and-nod deals are cut. Remember when we agreed to give Reagan unanimous consent for that right-wing nut case Antonin Scalia in 1986, with the understanding that you guys would show us the same favor when it was our turn? Indeed, when my good friend Ms. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, former general counsel to the American Civil Liberties Union, was nominated by my good friend Bill Clinton, she received overwhelming bipartisan support from Republicans.
More recently, knowing that your partisans would invoke the constitutional, err, nuclear option to change Senate rules and force a full-Senate vote on your right-wing appellate nominees, we agreed to release some of them for a floor vote. Then, when you finally got an opportunity to nominate a Supreme Court Justice, you sent up a guy named John Roberts, about whom precious little was known. That allowed us to save face with the American people. Even less was known, publicly, about Harriet Miers, which is why my colleague, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, was kind enough to recommend her for the High Court.


You've nominated a dinosaur, a constitutional constructionist, who can read what the Constitution actually says, and the American people are very upset.
But now you've nominated in her place a man about whom a great deal is known. After 15 years on the appellate court, we know Alito is a dinosaur, a constitutional constructionist, somebody who can read what the Constitution actually says, and this has the American people very upset.
You and your right-wingers seem to cling to the antiquated notion that the Constitution should be interpreted as written. Well, wake up and smell the whiskey! What the American people want is a Supreme Court that will do what we, as their elected representatives, bid it to do. That's the Democratic way.
As I said in my press conference today, "Rather than selecting a nominee for the good of the nation and the court, you have selected a nominee who conservatives think has views as extreme as their own. If confirmed, Alito will fundamentally alter the balance of the court and push it dangerously to the right, placing at risk decades of American progress in safeguarding our fundamental rights and freedoms."
Harry Reid told you to "find a consensus nominee," but you ignored him.
When Harry Reid told you to "find a consensus nominee," you not only ignored his sage advice, you also failed to seek his approval for this nominee prior to your announcement. That, Mr. President, is a disgraceful example of partisanship.
We are gravely concerned that, in the words of my senatorial colleague, Chuck Schumer, "Alito will use his seat to return the court to the injustice of the past." Well, Mr. President, we are not going to let that happen. Pat Leahy feels the same way. "This is a needlessly provocative nomination," he said. "Instead of uniting the country through your choice, you have chosen to reward one faction of your party, the virulent wing of the Republican Party, at the risk of dividing the country." My understudy, John Kerry, echoes these grave concerns: "The far right wing has now forced you to nominate a divisive justice in the mold of Antonin Scalia who does not hold mainstream American values, rather than a qualified woman or minority." Dick Durbin got it right when he called this nomination "an effort to appease the far right wing."
The same talking points have been distributed to my underlings down in the House. Nan Pelosi got them: "The radical conservative right is in charge of your administration."
Until now, Mr. President, we've worked extremely well together. As your far-right radical base has no doubt told you, you haven't yet vetoed a single spending or regulatory-expansion measure we've sent over your way. Heck, your dad's foundation even bestowed upon me its annual lifetime achievement award for public service. But everything hangs in the balance with this nominee, Mr. President—so all bets are off.
So what if Alito has great academic credentials and more judicial experience than 105 of 109 Justices confirmed to the court? So what if Alito is the son of poor Italian immigrants? He may think he's Catholic, but he lacks the integrity of an Irish Catholic like me. None of this matters. I got kicked out of Harvard for cheating on a Spanish exam, so what? I left a young gal to drown when I got sloshed and drove us off that bridge, so what? I am still a Senator.
Judge Alito has demonstrated that he's a strict constructionist who supports states' rights and thinks the First Amendment restricts only the Congress when it comes to our sacred wall of separation between church and state. He would, no doubt, return to states and local communities the decision to have prayer in their schools. He's even approved Christmas displays by local municipalities. Even worse, though, is his support of parents' rights, as if they know better how to raise their kids than the government does. Alito thinks the Second Amendment means what it says, and that, Mr. President, is really dangerous. As you know, far more conservatives own guns than liberals. But my greatest concern is that he's the sort of nut who believes that children in the womb deserve to live, and that husbands, and parents in the case of minors, should be notified before an abortion. Outrageous.

Your little "Scalito" claims that "Judges should be judges."
Your little "Scalito" claims, that "Judges should be judges. They shouldn't be legislators, they shouldn't be administrators." Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist seems to agree, insisting, "Judge Alito has displayed a judicial philosophy marked by judicial restraint and respect for the limited role of the judiciary to interpret the law and not legislate from the bench."
Well, maybe that was true back when the Constitution was ratified, but not today. What unmitigated arrogance. Frankly, we know that all this "constructionist" stuff is just a ruse to suggest the Constitution does not guarantee the right to kill children before they are born. As you know, that right is what holds our Party together, and we will not turn it back over to the states.
Mr. President, as Chuck Schumer said earlier today, Alito is "a controversial nominee for a pivotal swing vote on the High Court who could shift the balance of the court, and thus the laws of the nation, for decades to come." I'm well aware, Mr. President, that you made a campaign promise to appoint strict constructionist judges in the mold of Scalia and Thomas, but it was only a campaign promise after all. I mean, it's not like anyone would've held you to it.
Candidly speaking, you know as well as I do that the majority of Americans don't support our Democratic agenda, which is why we're so desperate to maintain control of the Supreme Court. If we can't pass legislation by legitimate means, we can still do it by judicial diktat, right?
We'll use the Alito nomination to rally our constituents.
Level with me, Mr. President: Did you use the Miers nomination as a decoy to rally your troops behind Alito? Either way, you can rest assured that we'll use this same nomination to rally our constituents, we will have them whipped into a frenzy and filling our Senate and House campaign coffers with their last pennies. In the end, your Party controls the Senate and can even invoke the "nuclear option." OK, but we will not take up this nomination until January, to give us as much time as possible to unite our base.
Prepare for battle, Mr. President. We are going to use everything in our arsenal, starting with our print and television media outlets, to force you into submission.
Sincerely,
Senator Edward Kennedy
(Note: The previous letter is actually a spoof from The Federalist Patriot and is printed for comedic value only,,but you did wonder didn’t you??,,JF)







Quote of the week...
"A judicial conservative is not necessarily politically conservative, but believes in sticking to the actual Constitution as it was understood by those who made it law rather than amending the Constitution from the bench... I don't think the question is whether the candidate is like a politician who can bring the country together. The question is whether a candidate respects the actual Constitution. A candidate who does that is not a right-wing extremist." Robert Bork






From the "Department of Military Correctness"...
The Big Three nightly newscasts have become nothing more than anti-war activists with a national platform. The Media Research Center recently released a review of over 1,300 news stories on Iraq from January through September. Among their findings was the following: 61 percent of the stories were negative or pessimistic, while only 15 percent were positive. The gap became even worse in August and September with negative stories nearing 75 percent; positive stories at seven percent. Stories about heroic actions by the troops were outnumbered eight to one by stories of abuse or other misconduct. Two of every five news stories covered bombings, kidnappings and other mayhem. Election stories also trended negative, as if things truly were better under Saddam Hussein. We think most Patriot readers will agree, the words that come to mind are "aiding and abetting."



Judicial Benchmarks...
From the Leftjudiciary, the same Court that ruled the Pledge of Allegiance "unconstitutional," the 9th Circus, is at it again, this week ruling parenting basically unconstitutional when it "interferes" with the state's school-indoctrination system. Sex surveys are being handed out to Palmdale, California's first-, third- and fifth- graders that ask things our Editor for Standards and Practices won't allow in our publication! Many parents filed suit, arguing that they, not public schools, should have the sole right "to control the upbringing of their children by introducing them to matters of and relating to sex."
The Court disagreed, saying, "There is no fundamental right of parents to be the exclusive provider of information regarding sexual matters to their children... Parents have no due process or privacy right to override the determinations of public schools as to the information to which their children will be exposed while enrolled as students." Judge Stephen Reinhardt went even further, saying, "No such specific right can be found in the deep roots of the nation's history and tradition or implied in the concept of ordered liberty." There are simply no words for this abhorrent travesty. No news yet on any appeal.
There is currently a Republican proposal in a House budget reconciliation bill to split the Ninth Circuit Court territory up with the Twelfth Circuit in order to create a Leftcoast venue from the planet earth. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (from some other planet) complains, "On the merits, there is no justification for the Republican court splitting proposal. It is simply a partisan exercise to appease the radical right."






October 26, 2005
Hillary in 2008: All Hail Ms. President
Jim Kouri, CPP
For many Americans it may be hard to stomach, but it's almost a certainty that the next President of these United States will be Hillary Rodham Clinton. We've had two Bush family presidencies, now it's time for the second of two presidencies for the Clinton family.If things develop for Senator Clinton as predicted by yours truly, the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton dynasty will have led and will lead the United States for a possible total of 28 consecutive years.Madam Clinton is unstoppable for a number of reasons. Here are a few:

1. The GOP has no one on the bench with the ability or credentials to beat Clinton in the 2008 election. If Senator John McCain is actually nominated -- which I doubt -- many, many conservatives, this writer included, will stay home on the first Tuesday of November 2008. Conservatives do not trust the man. He possesses a reputation for being the liberals' favorite Republican and someone who can always be counted on to betray conservative values and fellow Republicans. The left calls him a "maverick;" I call him a backstabber. Again, if John McCain gets the GOP nomination by some fluke, he will drive conservatives -- the very lifeblood of the GOP -- away from voting machines. As for me, if McCain is the GOP candidate, I'll rent a movie, pop some popcorn, put up my feet and relax on Election Day.Rudy Guiliani may be able to beat back a Clinton juggernaut, but there's only the slimmest of chances for him to get the GOP nomination. A war hawk against terrorism and strong law and order advocate, he's a liberal when it comes to domestic or cultural issues. He believes that government can solve societal problems. He believes in abortion, gun control, affirmative action and is soft on illegal immigration. Rudy is a classic liberal as opposed to Madam Clinton whose history bespeaks volumes of her far-left tendencies.Secretary of State Condi Rice's name has been bandied about as a possible anti-Hillary candidate. In fact, Dick Morris' new book has her running against Clinton in 2008. However, I believe Rice when she says she has no intention of running for President. Besides, she doesn't have the visceral edge necessary to go up against a cunning, ruthless bunch, who with the help of a compliant media lie, smear and cheat. These Democrat bomb-throwers can echo a talking point until it penetrates the American psyche. A good example is when they allege a "culture of corruption" exists in the Bush Administration without one indictment yet, while their own superstar, Bill Clinton, had an administration that boasted numerous indictments and even convictions. I'm sorry, Condi. Even if you wanted to run against Hillary, you are too nice to enter the depths to which she and her cronies will go to win.Other possible GOP candidates include Senator Bill Frist, Senator George Allen and Senator Chuck Hagel. Frist and Allen are lightweights and practically unknown outside of the Beltway. Hagel recently became a highly visible RINO (Republican In Name Only) and is "McCain light." If you'll recall, he compared Iraq to Vietnam on national television. The man treats conservatives the way Democrats treat African-Americans. Of course, there may be someone hiding in the wings waiting to burst onto the political stage, but I'm not sure how well that person will fair against the Clinton Machine, a machine that includes the overwhelming majority of the big -- and still powerful -- media organizations. Her media supporters even debuted a drama series on national television in order to prep Americans for a feminist president.

2. The GOP will have a difficult time finding a strong nominee because, for some reason, Republicans read -- and believe -- former New Jersey Governor Christine Todd Whitman's book advocating the GOP's move to "the center." In English, that means moving to the left of the political spectrum. Whitman is a bigger Lib than many Democrats: she supports partial-birth abortion; she betrayed police officers who were accused -- and acquitted -- of excessive force charges; she supported a so-called assault rifle ban in New Jersey; and she believes that government interference in the capitalist system is a good thing especially industry regulations.Of course, Whitman is a Blue State Republican who, out of necessity, had to move to the left if she wanted to live in New Jersey's State House But after leaving office she's been pounding the drum for the GOP to turn its back on its conservative base. Unfortunately, too many Republicans believe her rhetoric, especially in the US Senate, the apparent farm team for another GOP presidential candidate. An example of "Whitmanism" is when the President and other top GOPers supported Arlen Specter, a liberal's liberal, over a conservative in the Pennsylvania senate primaries.

3. I wrote earlier about Hillary's allies, the mainstream news and entertainment media. The obviously liberal news organizations will produce more puff pieces about Clinton than you can shake a stick at. The stars of network news such as Katie Couric, Diane Sawyer, Matt Lauer, etc, will interview her, tossing softball questions at her without the slightest attempt to rebut any of her deceptive answers. When it comes to the Clintons, even the most hardened man working in the news business becomes a giggling schoolgirl. They do it now three years away from the next election cycle. They practically lap-dance for Bill and Hillary. Imagine how they'll behave when the actual campaign begins. The Fourth Estate will make certain Hillary doesn't have a "Howard Dean moment" that would derail her nomination.On the other hand, whomever runs against Clinton will be the subject of hundreds of investigative reports. Every word uttered by the GOP candidate will be printed or broadcast -- even created -- while Hillary's words will be filtered or worse, completely ignored. The media have already done that. When Clinton gave a speech denigrating President Bush's immigration policy or lack of immigration policy, she told a cheering crowd she supported tighter border security and opposed illegal immigration. Her message permeated the liberal media. They enjoyed seeing their heroine move to the right of a President they hate more than they hate Saddam and Osama put together. They knew she was shoveling a pile of....A few weeks later, Senator Clinton joined the most liberal Democrat senators when she opposed and voted against adding more agents to the Border Patrol and building more detention facilities for captured illegal aliens. Perform an internet search and count how many times the elite media told Americans about that part of the story. Not only are the members of the elite media liberals, they're liars as well. They will look people straight in the eyes and deny their bias or worse; they'll claim -- as Fox News Channel media critic Neal Gabler routinely does -- that the media establishment is right-wing.

4. It's time for some honesty: Democrats know how to sway voters better than the Republicans. George W. Bush should have wiped the floor with John Kerry during the 2004 election cycle. Spin it as much as you want, but it was a close race. Bush ran against a candidate who had more baggage than the cargo hold of a 747 jumbo-jet. The GOP did not win that election -- the blogosphere, the Swiftboat Vets and Osama Bin Ladin won it for them.Also, Hillary will be better at curbing the enthusiasm of the wacko-wing of the Democrat Party. She will wink in their direction and make some backroom promises in exchange for their silence. The news media will help in that regard, as well. Suddenly loudmouth Babs Streisand will indeed just shut up and sing. Her and her ilk will not get in the way of Clinton portraying herself as a moderate, because they know as many of us already know that Hillary is not moderate person. If she was such a moderate Democrat, why the hell would they support her?I'm not optimistic about the 2008 election and beyond. A Clinton presidency will return us to the pre-9-11 days when the President will call an airstrike on an empty building and the New York Times will run an editorial praising the restraint of President Clinton. Heck, they already have just such an editorial in their files from the last time a Clinton sat in the Oval Office. They can dust off the old Clinton editorials and rerun them. Everything old will be new again as the USA continues on the path to the eventual Three S's -- Stalinist tactics, Socialism and Secularism.

Jim Kouri, CPP is currently fifth vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police. He's former chief at a New York City housing project in Washington Heights nicknamed "Crack City" by reporters covering the drug war in the 1980s. In addition, he served as director of public safety at a New Jersey university and director of security for several major organizations. He's also served on the National Drug Task Force and trained police and security officers throughout the country. He writes for many police and security magazines including Chief of Police, Police Times, The Narc Officer and others, and he's a columnist for TheConservativeVoice.Com, AmericanDaily.Com, MensNewsDaily.Com, MichNews.Com, and he's syndicated by AXcessNews.Com. He's appeared as on-air commentator for over 100 TV and radio news and talk shows including Oprah, McLaughlin Report, CNN Headline News, MTV, Fox News, etc. His book Assume The Position is available at Amazon.Com, Booksamillion.com, and can be ordered at local bookstores. If you wish to sign up for his intelligence reports, write to JimKouriReports@aol.com. Kouri's own website is located at http://jimkouri.us
(Note: I fully support the previous post by Jim Kouri,,,JF)








FROM GABE SUAREZ
http://www.suarezinternational.com/
The Origins Of Christian PacifismAn article researching the origin of pacifism and why it is not biblical
As we whistle through the first decade of the New millennium, we find ourselves embroiled in conflict with a new enemy. The previous century saw conflicts between city-states, between small states, large nations and even between regions. We saw a "cold war" between political ideologies. This new war is much more than that and before the final shot is fired, we will see its zones of conflict will span and traverse all boundaries whether political, social, or of faiths. Truly it is a struggle of faiths. Colored as it may be by politician and media pundit alike, it is clear that this is a struggle between Islam (the religion of peace, their peace), and the Christian nations of the west with its focal point being the tiny nation of Israel.
So it is with this backdrop that I want to examine the Christian Doctrine of Pacifism. I and many of my colleagues do not believe such a doctrine is biblically correct. My objective then is to find whence it came into acceptance, who brought it, and possibly determine why. Knowing this we can make rational decisions about whether such a perspective truly is of God, or not.
I want to point out that I am a born again Christian. Yet, although I prefer and love peace, I am no pacifist. When I became a Christian, I was prepared to sell all my guns and knives and adopt whatever life the Lord put in front of me. But the spirit did not lead me to cast away my sword, only to put it in its correct place, specifically as a tool of justice. I have killed men in combat and do not regret it. Moreover, if God puts me in the place of battle facing evil men, I will do so again without hesitation. I firmly believe that Jesus does not teach pacifism, but rather He teaches us to seek peace. True Pacifism (peace at any price) and Seeking Peace (but not at any price) are separated by a wide gulf.
As much as depends on us, we are to try to live in peace with all men. But often, such things do not depend on us. We are entrusted with the world by God. Although we are to have a light touch on the things of this world while earnestly seeking Him, we are not called to ignore the world with an excessively lofty spiritual view of things. Rather good stewardship demands that we act well with those things (people) entrusted to us, just like the parable of the talents.
We are to provide for those entrusted to us (family, church, etc.). To deny this cross is to deny the faith and be worse than an unbeliever. Provision includes food, shelter, spiritual guidance AND safety. Some may say that that is why they pay taxes, so the government will protect them. Sorry, hat won't do it completely. Just as we would not expect the United States Government (and would in fact resist it if it tried) to provide us with food, housing, and religious teaching, neither can we abrogate the right and duty to provide for our own protection, and that of our families. To cause others to deny their cross this way (via incorrect teachings) is even worse, and the future of such are filled with waiting millstones.
We are all magistrates of God's word and kingdom. Just as we would not allow unresisted teachings of blasphemy and immorality to our churches and children, so must we resist (in love) unsound teachings. And similarly must we resist violent crimes, and terrorism as much as we are physically (and spiritually) able. Where the spoken word of prayer may be enough in one case, the threat of violent physical action via the readiness of the sword (or in our day the availability of the loaded pistol) will suffice.
We can make a good case, based on scripture, that peace at any price (Pacifism) is not sound doctrine. We did that very thing in the essay titled The Folly Of Christian Pacifism.
In this essay, I will seek to find the first instances of pacifism in the writings of early church leaders. We will examine the social issues of he day as well as the dynamics of the Christian in society to see why such a stance may have been taken.
First I want to be clear about the definitions. A pacifist is a person who refuses to act in violence in any way, or at any time. Such a person will die before resorting to violent means to save himself or others. In contrast, one can love peace and seek it, but not at any price. A man can desire peace with a gun in his hand.
One thing I immediately noticed was the arguments for pacifism revolved around the propriety of Christian service in the Roman military. Nothing was written until much later about the physical resistance of brigands by individual citizens. Since almost every sin was elaborated on in the early writings, it is curious that individual self-defense was not. Perhaps in their minds one had nothing to do with the other.
The First century world of the Christian church was ruled by the iron fist of Rome. Although the Gospel was being spread daily, paganism and idolatry were still very prevalent. In the roman army, they were the order of the day.
Whether Christian or pagan, inductees into the Roman Army were required to swear the oath of the Roman military. The roman soldier had to pledge allegiance in a sacred oath, known as the Sacramentum. This pledge included the idea that a position in the Roman military was of sacred importance. The oath was recited on enlistment, on the third of January, and on the anniversary of the current emperor's reign. One of the main points of the oath is to whom the soldier pledged his loyalty: in the Republic, the commander of the unit received the pledge; while in the Empire, the emperor received the pledge. This change was enacted under Augustus, who believed the oath could be used by generals to place the power of the emperor over the soldiers.
Here is one version of it:
"I swear by Jupiter Optimus Maximus and by any other god I may hold in my heart to be holy, and by the majesty of the Imperator and by the Senate of Rome, which next to our gods should be loved and worshipped by the human race. I, swear to perform with enthusiasm whatever the Imperator and my Legion commander should command, follow all laws set forth by the Senate of Rome, never to desert, and not to shrink from death on behalf of the Roman State."
I can see several points that any Christian, specially a 1st Century one, would find objectionable. Add to this the fact that Caesar used the army to persecute and kill Christians, often sacrificing them to their gods, and you get a picture where it becomes untenable for a true Christian to be involved with them. Compare this to a modern illustration: A Christian being conscripted into the German SS during WW2, knowing they must deny God and serve Hitler, as well as knowing they will be ordered to commit atrocities. What kind of Christian would go along with that? A similar set of circumstances was taking place for the early Christians.
One of the early apologists was Justin of Caesarea, often referred to as Justin Martyr. He wrote in 140 A.D. - 160 A.D. His assertion was that the prophesies in Isaiah 2:4 with regards to the New Kingdom, were already here.
Isa 2:4 And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.
Isaiah was prophesying about the New Kingdom, not the kingdom still on earth. As we know, to this day, nations are still killing each other and the Lord has not yet come to institute His reign. Much less in Justin's day. Great Christian apologist or not, he a man, and was wrong with his interpretation and timing.
Apologists who followed Justin Martyr, such as Irenaeus, Clement, Origin, and others prior to the Council of Nicea also referred to the Isaiah argument as their biblical justification against military service in the Roman army for Christians.
Tertullian was another apologist who wrote between 160 - 220 A.D. in North Africa. He noted, "There is no agreement between the Divine (sacrament) and the human sacrament (Roman Oath)".
Furthermore, Tertullian writes, "Shall it be held awful to make an occupation of the sword, when the Lord preaches that he who uses the sword shall perish by the sword? And shall the son of peace take part in the battle when it does not become him even to sue at law?"
Tertullian makes quite a leap here. First of all, Christ did not eschew the sword. Rather he taught the sword in its proper place, and that those whose only resource was violence would inevitably perish by it. In Luke 22:36-38 Christ admonishes us to be prepared to provide for our own security vis a vis the sword.
Luk 22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
Luk 22:37 For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end.
Luk 22:38 And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.
We can argue about the meaning of this Scripture, but the fact remains that Christ told His men to arm themselves. When they returned to him with two swords, he did not correct them as He did at other times when they mistook His teachings, but rather told them that two was enough.
The sword was meant for physical protection against evil men in a fallen world. It was not to be relied upon exclusively, but rather kept in its proper place and for its proper use.
Joh 18:10 Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest's servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant's name was Malchus.
Joh 18:11 Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?
Luk 22:50 And one of them smote the servant of the high priest, and cut off his right ear.
Luk 22:51 And Jesus answered and said, Suffer ye thus far. And he touched his ear, and healed him.
Moreover, Christ did tell Peter the swordsman that those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword.
Mat 26:51 And, behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest's, and smote off his ear.
Mat 26:52 Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.
Mat 26:53 Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?
Mat 26:54 But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?
Consider the context. Christ was being arrested and surrounded. It was His mission to give himself up and be sacrificed. If His men stood and fought at that moment they would have been killed. Those who took up the sword at that particular time would have certainly been killed by the swords of the enemy. Christ would not tell His men to arm themselves and later contradict His teachings.
Tertulian's reference to suing refers to Matthew 5:25.
Mat 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
Mat 5:23 Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee;
Mat 5:24 Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.
Mat 5:25 Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison.
Mat 5:26 Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.
Specifically this refers to suing a brother, or being in agreement with a brother (a fellow believer). Many of the courtesies described in Scripture refer to daily dealings between fellow believers. Thus we should seek remedies without resorting to suing and fighting between members of the Church.
In reading the context of Tertullian I see that he was trying to convince Christians to not serve in the military and was seeking scriptures to support that stance. In other words, if suing a brother was not becoming, how then could one persecute and murder a brother, even if ordered to do so by a military commander.
Cyprian, a disciple of Tertullian wrote, " It is hypocrisy to proclaim a hero and valiant, the person who will destroy and devastate the life and property of innocent people in organized warfare when if the same occurs in peacetime, it is considered a crime". The key words are "innocent people", as distinguished from evil aggressors. One can hardly disagree with such a point.
The last Pre-Constantine apologist was Lactantius. He wrote a mammoth treatise named the Divine Institutes on or about 300 A.D. This is what he said, " For when God forbids us to kill, He not only prohibits us from open violence, which is not even allowed by public laws, but He warns us against the commission of those things which are esteemed lawful among men".
Although, like the others, Lactantius was no doubt well-meaning, his grasp of the scriptures was incomplete. God does not forbid killing (in fact He often requires it), but rather He forbids murder. The gulf between the two is wide and deep. And although defining and describing what each one is would be easy, it would take space which this essay does not have in surplus. In short killing is an act that can be justified or condemned based in the intent of the actor. Killing may be justified, murder is never justified.
Exo 20:13 You shall not murder.
Without the biblical prohibition against killing, Lactantius' argument falls apart.
So we can summarize that Pre-Constantine apologists had objections to Christians serving in the Roman Army in particular, and because of that objected to all martial pursuits. They based their objections because of the demands of the Roman military oath that went in conflict with God's law, and because of the military activity in the persecution of Christians in particular. Moreover, they based their "swords into plowshares" argument on the belief that the New Kingdom spoken about by Isaiah was here and now, and not in the future. Likewise a confused understanding of the difference between killing and murder supported a pacifistic view.
Many years later, in 312 A.D., Constantine stood near a bridge in Italy preparing to battle Licinius for the city of Rome. There he had a vision. In the vision he saw the shape of a cross with the words, "Conquer By This".
Constantine fashioned a cross of two spears and marched it at the front of his army, routing the enemy and capturing Rome.
In 313 A.D. Constantine granted freedom of religion to all and ended the persecution of Christians. It is argued by some that Constantine was never a Christian and that he was a pagan to his dying day. Nevertheless, the effects he had on the church were profound.
Since Christians would not be required to swear by an oath not acceptable to them, and since sacrifice and persecution of Christians was no longer required, Christians now saw themselves free to serve in the army of Rome, and he distinction between secular and spiritual virtually disappeared.
In 314 A.D. at a council in Arles, church leaders announced, "They who throw away their weapons in time of peace shall be excommunicated". Excommunication was by far a fate worse than death to early Christians and usually reserved for the worst of the worst. Thus to cast away one's weapons in time of peace was held right up there with witchcraft, sodomy, heresy, and all the other 4th Century major crimes.
Athanasius and Ambrose, two Post-Nicene church leaders promoted the necessity of Christians to support the secular government via military service, and pronounced it as service to God.
Athanasius is one of the writers of catholic doctrine. On or about 350 A.D., he wrote, "Murder is not permitted, but to kill one's adversary in war is both lawful and praiseworthy". Well!
Ambrose was more specific. He did not distinguish between a soldier in war or a citizen in peace. In 375 A.D. he wrote, "And that courage which either protects the homeland against barbarians in war, or defends the weak at home, or saves one's comrades from brigands, is full of righteousness". Well! Well!
Ambrose is noteworthy in that he is the first of the early writer I am aware of that lists soldier defending nation, policeman defending the weak, and armed citizen defending against brigands in the same context of courage and righteousness.
Augustine was there in 409 A.D. when the Goths sacked Rome. He came to see the church as having the responsibility to provide for the welfare of the nation, specifically in the context of security.
1Ti 5:8 But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.
It was he who formulated the concept of the just war. A just war would be approved by God if the following conditions were met:

1. War is declared by the sovereign of state.


2. War is to be declared only after all peaceful means of accomplishing resolution have been exhausted. Inner love must be the motivation.


3. The objective must be the punishment or prevention of evil, injustice, or atrocity.


4. It must be directed to enemy forces, not to innocents.

Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274 A.D.) a definer of Catholic theology confirmed Augustine's Just War Concept, as did Martin Luther, and John Calvin.
I believe that some early apologists advocated pacifism because of the odious requirements of Roman military service. And that once those specific requirements were no longer an issue, military service was not only acceptable, but desirable. Further, that the use of arms in personal defense was common in those days and differentiated from military service as always acceptable even when military service might not be.
Today, there are some who still believe that to be a Christian is to be a pacifist. I will humbly submit that such a doctrine is not only ungodly, but may be immoral in many cases. Some who advocate pacifism have, like the servant in the parable, buried their talent in the dirt rather than put it to good use. What takes place here on earth is not of no consequence. We are entrusted with this and must show we have used our "talents" well.
Pacifism is immoral in the sense that the pacifist enjoys the security provided by the warrior without paying for it either physically or spiritually. He won't die to protect his children, but expects you to do so in his stead. I submit that the argument over pacifism in the early church was predicated on excesses of the roman military service, and that once such requirements ended, the pacifistic doctrine changed. I submit that there is no scripture in OT or NT that advocates a "peace at any price" teaching, and that such a doctrine is not only selfish to the utmost, but as mentioned in Timothy , denies the faith.
As I concluded this study, I still believe fully that the Gospel has never taught us to be pacifists, but rather that we are to, as much as we are able, to seek peace. But the context is clear. Not at any price. This is reality, and to ignore is both naive and irresponsible, and smacks of an excessively lofty and spiritual view of things. There is a point where we must pick up the sword, or at least support those that do, so that we can continue to live in peace. Clearly, to have peace, one must often be willing to fight, to kill, and to die for it. To have peace, we must often enforce such a peace with the readiness to do sudden battle anywhere, anytime, and with disregard for our own safety. Whether in an airplane facing terrorists or in a dark parking lot facing muggers, it is the holy duty (and the cross put in front of us) of any able-bodied Christian man of God to stand strong with courage and righteousness and execute wrath on those who would do us evil.
So there you have it my friends. Want to comment on this article? Please post your ideas or comments at our forum Warrior Talk.