The Academy Award speech we should have heard

The Academy Award speech we should have heard
By Dennis Prager
Here's a speech we would like to hear from an Academy Award winner:
I thank you for this wonderful award. Receiving an Academy Award gives the recipient an almost unique opportunity to speak to hundreds of millions people around the world, so I would like take this once-in-a-lifetime moment to say this:
First, I want to thank my country, the United States of America. Every one of us here has this country to thank for enabling us to live lives of unprecedented freedom and unimaginable affluence. Too many of us forget that no other country in history has offered such opportunities to people in our profession or in any other profession, for that matter.
Second, I want to thank the men and women of the armed forces of the United States. While we bask in freedom and spend a good part of our lives going from party to party and award show to award show, tens of thousands of my fellow Americans are confronting a menace to our world as great as that fought by previous generations fighting Nazism and communism.
At the same time, I also want to apologize to these troops for my profession not having made even one motion picture about any of the heroic American fighters in Afghanistan and Iraq. This country is fighting a war, Hollywood. You may think this war is unwise, waged under mistaken, or even false, pretenses. And as an actor in Hollywood, you are overwhelmingly likely to hate this commander in chief. But even the men and women of Hollywood must recognize that America is fighting the worst people of our time, people who hurt every group Hollywood claims to care about -- minorities, women, gays -- people who engage in the sins Hollywood most professes to oppose -- intolerance and violence -- far more than anyone else on the planet.
In another era, when what many have labeled "the greatest generation" fought the German Nazis and the Japanese fascists, Hollywood made movie after movie depicting that great war and our great warriors. And Hollywood showed freedom's enemies as the cruel and vicious people they were. We have not produced one film yet depicting this war in positive terms or one depicting this generation's enemies of freedom as the cruel and vicious people they are.
In fact, the only nominated film about people who slaughter children at discos, blow up weddings, and bomb pizzerias and buses filled with men, women and children is one that attempts to show these murderers in God's name as complex human beings. Just imagine how the Academy would have reacted 60 years ago to a film depicting Nazi murderers as complex human beings. We have descended far.
We in Hollywood walk around thinking we are very important. That is why this year's nominated films for best picture are largely pictures with messages, pictures that relatively few people actually see. But although Hollywood was always concerned with politics, we have let ourselves be taken over by those for whom their message is more significant than the primary purposes of film -- to illuminate life and to entertain. Yes, entertain.
You know, entertainment is actually a noble pursuit. Life is difficult for almost every human being on earth. And if we can offer people an elevated way to divert their attention for a couple of hours from their troubled child, their marital tensions, their ill parent, their financial woes, we have rendered the world a greater service than by making another message-film against racism in America, the least racist country in the world.
My fellow actors, we walk around feeling that we are very important. But we do so only because we confuse fame with significance. We do have more fame than any other human beings in history. Far more people have heard of any actor here tonight than of any of the discoverers of any medication saving billions of lives, of any teacher of the disabled, of any nurse tending the aged, of almost any national leader.
But the truth is that, as noble a calling as acting can be, all we do is make-believe: We portray other people, and we speak words written by other people. Everyone knows our names, but almost no one knows us. All they know are the characters we play.
Thank you again. I hope I haven't ruined your evening.

Traitors

TOP OF THE FOLD
Call them what they are—TRAITORS...
On the heels of the "White House-CIA leak" investigation, which concluded that no laws were broken (but which resulted in straw-grasping charges against Lewis Libby, the Vice President's chief of staff), liberals are attempting to parlay that non-starter into a much bigger political brawl.
Senators Harry Reid, Dick Durbin and Ted Kennedy have accused President George W. Bush of lying about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, insisting that he "lied us into war." Some Demo wing nuts are even floating the idea of impeachment. Their charges have no substance, of course; they're merely contrived to keep Republicans off balance through next year's midterm elections. In other words, Democrat Party leaders are using the gravely serious matter of the Iraq War for trivial political fodder—and their politicization of our mission there has put our Armed Forces in the region in greater peril.
Democrats are using the Iraq War for trivial political fodder.
Let's be clear: There is nothing wrong with honest criticism of an American president; to the contrary, we have written extensively about President Bush's policy failures. The dishonest and politically motivated accusations of Kennedy, Reid, Durbin and their ilk, however, are nothing short of—and we don't use this term lightly—treasonous.
Here are their accusations:
Reid: "We all know the Vice President's office was the nerve center of an operation designed to sell the war and discredit those who challenged it... The manipulation of intelligence to sell the war in Iraq... the Vice President is behind that." (Reid, you may recall, recently called the President "a loser" while speaking to a high-school civics class.)
Durbin: "I seconded the motion Sen. Harry Reid made last week. Republicans in Congress have refused, despite repeated promises, to investigate the Bush administration's misuse of pre-war intelligence, so Senate Democrats are standing up and demanding the truth." (Durbin, you may recall, recently compared U.S. troops to the Nazis and Pol Pot.)
Kennedy: "The Bush administration misrepresented and distorted the intelligence to justify a war that America should never have fought." (Kennedy, you may recall, got kicked out of Harvard for cheating. In addition, you may recall, he drunk-drove his car off a bridge at Chappaquiddick, leaving Mary Jo Kopechne to drown while he went back to his hotel, called his lawyer, concocted an alibi and went to sleep.)


The MSM is reporting Demo charges as de facto truth.
Naturally, the Democrats' media lemmings are reporting these charges as de facto truth, but there is considerable evidence that these and other Demo-gogues believed Iraq had WMD long before President George Bush came to Washington.
Leading the bogus "Bush lied" charge, Ted Kennedy proclaimed last week, "What was said before does matter. The President's words matter." Indeed they do, as do the words of Kennedy and his fellow revisionists. What follows, then, is a collection of words that will shine a bright light on their treachery. We'll begin with an important piece of Clinton-era legislation.
The Iraq Liberation Act: Passed by the U.S. Congress and signed by Bill Clinton in 1998, the Act stated, "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq, and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime." This legislation passed the House by a vote of 360 to 38, and it passed the Senate without a single vote in opposition.
Here's what Democrats were saying before the 2000 election of George W. Bush:
President Bill Clinton: "[M]ark my words, [Saddam] will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them... Iraq [is] a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed. If we fail to respond today, Saddam, and all those who would follow in his footsteps, will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity... Some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal."
"[Saddam] will develop, deploy and use WMD." —Bill Clinton
Clinton on Operation Desert Fox: "Our purpose is clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program... Saddam must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons. Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological-weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors... I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again." (That was Bill Clinton, two years before 9/11, announcing Operation Desert Fox. Question: If Iraq didn't have, or wasn't developing, WMD, then what on earth was Clinton attacking? Ah, that's right—it was a "baby formula" factory.
Vice President Albert Gore: "Saddam's ability to produce and deliver weapons of mass destruction poses a grave threat... to the security of the world."
Madeleine Albright, Clinton Secretary of State: "We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and the security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction... Iraq is a long way from Ohio, but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risk that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Advisor and Plea-Copping Classified Document Thief: "[Saddam will] use those weapons of mass destruction again as he has ten times since 1983."
"[Saddam] is too dangerous to be given carte blanche with WMD." —Harry Reid
Harry Reid: "The problem is not nuclear testing; it is nuclear weapons... The number of Third World countries with nuclear capabilities seems to grow daily. Saddam Hussein's near success with developing a nuclear weapon should be an eye-opener for us all. [Saddam] is too dangerous of a man to be given carte blanche with weapons of mass destruction."
John Kerry: "If you don't believe...Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn't vote for me."
John Edwards: "Serving on the Intelligence Committee and seeing day after day, week after week, briefings on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and his plans on using those weapons, he cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons, it's just that simple. The whole world changes if Saddam ever has nuclear weapons."
Dick Durbin: "One of the most compelling threats we in this country face today is the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Threat assessments regularly warn us of the possibility that...Iraq...may acquire or develop nuclear weapons. [Saddam's] chemical and biological weapons capabilities are frightening."
"[Saddam's] chemical and biological weapons capabilities are frightening." —Dick Durban
Nancy Pelosi: "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons-inspection process."
Sens. Levin, Lieberman, Lautenberg, Dodd, Kerrey, Feinstein, Mikulski, Daschle, Breaux, Johnson, Inouye, Landrieu, Ford and Kerry in a letter to Bill Clinton: "We urge you, after consulting with Congress and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions, including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
After the 2000 election:
When President Bush was sworn into office in 2001, his administration was handed eight years' worth of intelligence analysis and policy positions from the Clinton years—years of appeasement, when Saddam was tolerated, when opportunities to kill Osama bin Laden were refused, and when the 9/11 terrorists were free to get drivers licenses and take flying lessons. Notably, Mr. Bush retained Clinton's CIA director, George Tenet, who was the arbiter of Bush administration's position on Iraq's WMD.
In the weeks prior to the invasion of Iraq, Democrats, who had access to the same intelligence used by the Bush administration (much of which was compiled under the Clinton administration), were clear in their concern about the threat of Iraq's WMD capability.
Here's what Democrats were saying in advance of Operation Iraqi Freedom:
Harry Reid: "Saddam has thumbed his nose at the world community and I think the President is approaching this in the right fashion."
Ted Kennedy: "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
"Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." —Ted Kennedy
John Kerry: "I will be voting to give the president of the U.S. the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security... Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein... These weapons represent an unacceptable threat."
Hillary Clinton: "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological-weapons stock, his missile-delivery capability, his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists including al-Qa'ida members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons... I can support the President because I think it is in the long-term interests of our national security."
"Hussein has chemical and biological weapons, there is no question about that." —Nancy Pelosi
Nancy Pelosi: "Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons, there is no question about that."

In October 2002, by a large margin, a bipartisan majority of the Congress authorized President Bush to use force to deal with the continued threat posed by Saddam Hussein. In the legislation, the U.S. Congress stated that Iraq "poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States...[by] continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations."
These assessments were echoed by intelligence agencies from countries that included Great Britain, France, Germany and Russia, and by the United Nations Security Council in more than a dozen different Security Council resolutions between 1990 and 2000.
So, Ted, Dick and Harry ... what's your real agenda?
Clearly this Democrat "leadership" is willing to turn our national-security interests into political fodder by accusing the President of the United States of lying us into a war. Problem is, the President had no political motive for Operation Iraqi Freedom—only a legitimate desire to fulfill the highest obligation of his office: that of defending our liberty against all threats.
President Bush's only motive for Operation Iraqi Freedom was in fulfillment of the highest obligation of his office: defending our liberty against all threats.
Ted, Dick and Harry, on the other hand, have plenty of political motivation for their perfidy—and they've placed America's uniformed Patriots in the crossfire.
For his part, President Bush has finally responded: "While it is perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war... it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began... We will never back down. We will never give in. We will never accept anything less than complete victory."
"Deeply irresponsible"? He is much too kind.
In the end, American Patriots must call out Kennedy, Durbin, Reid, et al., for what they are: TRAITORS. How else to describe political leaders who so eagerly embolden our Jihadi enemies and erode the morale of our fighting forces in Iraq and around the world?
Call out Kennedy, Durbin, Reid and Company for what they are: TRAITORS
Perhaps the most distressing conclusion about this treachery, though, is that so many Democrats don't seem to care about the truth. For them, the end justifies any means.
(Editor's Note: This essay is based on a Patriot Alert that was circulated 11 November. If you are interested in exact quote sources, start by entering the words "Clinton Iraq 1998" into your Internet search engine.)








Never has an article made me blink with astonishment as much as when I read in yesterday's New York Times magazine that Sayed Rahmatullah Hashemi, former ambassador-at-large for the Taliban, is now studying at Yale on a U.S. student visa. This is taking the obsession that U.S. universities have with promoting diversity a bit too far." —John Fund






February 24, 2006
Of the People, By the People, For the Terrorists
Frank Salvato
Common sense dictates that it is unwise to fund those who want to do you harm. It makes no sense to buy bullets for a gun that will be shot at you. In fact, it wouldn’t be out of line to say that funding those who have declared you are the enemy, for any reason, is a pretty stupid move. In light of this bit of logic, why is the United States, or any other free nation for that matter, still mulling the possibility of funding a Hamas-led Palestinian government?Recently, the US State Department, in response to declarations by senior Hamas leaders refusing to acknowledge the right of Israel to exist, and the refusal of those now elected to power by the Palestinian people to renounce violence and terrorism, asked – asked – the Palestinian Authority to return $50 million US dollars so taxpayers were not funding a Hamas lead Palestinian government.The fact that Hamas refuses to both acknowledge Israel’s right to exist and renounce its terrorism isn’t surprising. After all, Hamas is a terrorist organization and recognized as such, not only by our State Department, but by just about every credible entity on the face of the planet. Those who don’t recognize Hamas as a purveyor of terror are those who are themselves involved in terrorism, those who are corrupt beyond salvage, “progressive” college students vulnerable to their Socialist-leaning professors and Jimmy Carter.There is an important point that needs to be highlighted. “Aid” that is issued in the name of the US government to any country or organization for any reason is literally derived of taxpayer dollars. Whether it is $350 million for tsunami relief, an initial $50 million for Pakistani earthquake aid or $87 billion for the liberation, stabilization and reconstruction of Iraq, it is all derived from taxpayer dollars.So, when the US government sends $50 million to coax Hamas terrorists into not murdering their Israeli neighbors; to reward them for restraining from strapping on suicide vests made of nails and C4 in a quest to acquaint themselves with those 72 virgins, the bribe is bankrolled by American taxpayer dollars.Keeping that in mind, the State Department, although it has asked for the $50 million still in Palestinian Authority hands to be returned, says it will “continue to work to meet the humanitarian needs of ordinary Palestinians using non-governmental entities.”Translation: The US government is going to find ways to continue to give American taxpayer dollars to the people who are directly responsible for voting a terrorist organization into power, and are knowingly complicit with the actions of a terrorist organization sanctioned through their democratic process.The United States has given over $1.5 billion in aid to the Palestinians over the past decade, channeling most of the aid through non-governmental entities. Over the same period of time the vitriol aimed at the United States coming from the leaders of Hamas, and those groups aligned with Hamas – not to mention the Palestinian people, has grown exponentially. The experiment of trying to “buy the child’s love” has failed miserably and, as in real life, the child has grown to resent the adult, this time to the point of wanting to kill him.Lending material support, or knowingly providing financial support, physical assets or services to a foreign terrorist organization was criminalized (US Code Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 113B, Sections 2339A & 2339B) during the Clinton administration as part of the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. In 2001, the Patriot Act increased the penalty for providing material support from 10 years in prison to 15 years and determined that "if the death of any person results, [violators] shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life."The US State Department officially recognizes Hamas as a terrorist organization. Therefore it is illegal for aid, in any form – whether from a governmental, a non-governmental or a private entity – to be given to the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority or those who voted them into power for any reason.If, as the State Department says, the US government continues to “work to meet the humanitarian needs of ordinary Palestinians using non-governmental entities,” it is in violation of the law. Essentially, the US government would be "laundering" taxpayer dollars through non-governmental groups to give aid to a terrorist organization.Meanwhile, Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, is calling on Islamic nations to fund the Palestinian government after Hamas takes control, while Iran’s president calls for the annihilation of Israel from the face of the earth. Both of the genocidal maniacs call for Israeli destruction – as well as the downfall of the United States – while Iran defies the World by ignoring the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and pursuing nuclear weapons.The lines are being drawn, people, and the United States is not the one doing the drawing!Humanitarian aid is one thing, but when US taxpayer dollars are being given to the very people calling for our country's downfall “We the People” must stand up, say enough is enough and make sure we are heard.It is time that those elected to represent us in Washington DC understand fully that they are elected to represent us, the voters, the taxpayers, not to extract hard-earned dollars for the benefit of terrorist organizations that would dance in the streets at our ruin.Abraham Lincoln observed that our government is "of the people, by the people and for the people," it is time those elected to govern realize they work for us and not the other way around.The United States must cease funding nations, organization and groups that, behind our backs, wish we were all dead. That’s not isolationism, it’s common sense. If it doesn’t we could very well see our “government of the people, by the people, for the people,” perish from the earth.
###
Frank Salvato is a political media consultant, a freelance writer from the Midwest and the Managing Editor for www.TheRant.us . He is a contributing writer to OpinionEditorials.com and AmericanDaily.com. He has appeared as a guest panelist on The O’Reilly Factor and his pieces are regularly featured in Townhall.com and occasionally featured in The Washington Times as well as other national publications.
oped@therant.us






"In the United States there is no phenomenon more threatening to popular government than the unwillingness of newspapers to give the facts to their readers." —Nelson Antrim Crawford




February 27, 2006
Arlen Specter's Tangled Web of Pork
Chuck Muth
Hey, boys and girls. It’s that time of year again when Uncle Sam dons the red-suit-and-beard and hangs pork ornaments on the “Emergency Spending” tree. If you’re not quite familiar with this annual congressional festival, let me share with you just one example from last year’s taxpayer-funded earmark orgy.It all started when the president requested “emergency funding” to fight the War on Terror. Now, you may be thinking to yourself that this war has been going on for five years now and, therefore, the cost of fighting it should already be known and funded in the regular defense budget. You silly goose.In Washington, if you don’t declare an “emergency” of some sort each year, you don’t have an additional opportunity to lard up an additional spending bill with earmarks and pork. Geez. You really don’t know how things work in Washington, do you? Here, let me help you understand this better.Last year, the president asked Congress for billions in “emergency” funding for the War on Terror in Iraq and Afghanistan. Sen. Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania Republican, used this “emergency” spending request as an opportunity to insert a provision into the “emergency” bill which directed that a $40 million grant to the Philadelphia Regional Port Authority “be used solely for the purpose of construction, by and for a Philadelphia-based company.”Stick with me here; the story is about to take some wild turns.Here’s how Sen. Specter explained the earmark to his colleagues on the Senate floor last April: “This money is being allocated to develop the port facilities in Philadelphia to accommodate a very new kind of ship which will compete with air travel and which has very substantial military as well as commercial purposes.”Sounds reasonable, doesn’t it? Well, maybe. Until pork-buster Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican, took to the floor and blew the whistle.McCain informed the Senate that he had been in a meeting with the Secretary of the Navy, along with Sen. Specter, to discuss this matter. He noted that he was very proud of the Navy chief “because unequivocally the Secretary of the Navy said: No, we do not want this money, we do not have the technology, we do not have the design for this, this is not one of our requirements, and we do not want to spend $40 million in this fashion.” McCain added, “It was as strong a statement as I have ever heard from the Secretary of the Navy. This is basically a $40 million giveaway of the taxpayers’ dollars to a private corporation that has nothing to do with the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. It has nothing to do with it.”Yowza. But like Al Pacino in “Scent of a Woman,” McCain was just getting warmed up.“There is no design today for a high-speed military sealift,” McCain noted. “I wish there were. It is affordable. But the fact is that there is not. The fact is the Navy unequivocally said they do not want taxpayers’ dollars, defense dollars, spent on this port in the city of Philadelphia.” McCain again reiterated that “This has nothing to do with Afghanistan, it has nothing to do with the tsunami, it has nothing to do with Iraq, and it has nothing to do with the Navy’s requirements for a high-speed military sealift capability.”Sen. Specter then rose to the floor to defend his pet earmark. But McCain remained unconvinced, and brought up yet another aspect of the project: That the $40 million contract was being restricted to a Philadelphia-based entity, a requirement McCain found “astonishing.”“In other words,” the Arizona senator pointed out, “a company in Seattle or a company in Charleston or a company in Oklahoma, they couldn’t compete for this (contract). It has to be a Philadelphia-based company. What is it about Philadelphia-based companies that warrants them receiving a $40 million contract without competition from anybody else?” McCain added, “We should not be designating certain cities as a base for any company to compete for any contract of any kind. . . . In these times of burgeoning fiscal deficits, for us to designate money to be spent by a local-based company is just the wrong way to designate, and I think most Americans would agree.”Yep. Most Americans would. But not most of Sen. McCain’s colleagues.Fellow pork-buster, Sen. Tom Coburn, Oklahoma Republican, offered an amendment to this “emergency” spending bill which would have stripped out this $40 million Philly-only earmark. The amendment was resoundingly rejected on a voice vote.But that’s still not the end of this sordid story.Not only was this $40 million earmark restricted to a Philadelphia-based company, but it turns out that there was only one Philadelphia company which would have qualified for the contract to build a port for a ship that doesn’t exist and which the Navy had no interest in. That Philadelphia company is FastShip Inc. And Business Week reports that FastShip executives “doled out $8,500 to help reelect Republican Senator Arlen Specter” in 2004.But it gets better...or worse, depending on how you look at it. According to The Center for Public Integrity, Sen. Specter also “received $24,500 from lobbyists working for Blank Rome LLP. So what’s that have to do with anything? Well, “One of Blank Rome’s largest clients is FastShip Inc.”Ah, that tangled web of pork. But what a sweet deal, huh? Thirty-three grand in campaign contributions in return for 40 million? I’d take that deal any day of the week and twice on Sunday. And Washington politicians wonder why taxpayers are (a) so damned cynical, and (b) so damned mad?
###
Chuck Muth is president of Citizen Outreach, a non-profit public policy advocacy organization in Washington, D.C.
chuckmuth@earthlink.net






"Surely even the Saudis see the true picture—that Al Gore is a bitter politician who, sadly, seems to be one slice short of a loaf these days." —Kathleen Parker






"The attitude of people associating guns with nothing but crime, that is what has to be changed. I grew up at a time when people were not afraid of people with firearms." —Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia

War,,A Christian View

This about sums it all up for me and how I see things,,,JF

War...A Christian View
Dr. Marshall C. St. John
In the 21st century, there is great confusion about the meaning of the term "Christian." I define a Christian as a person who has repented of his/her sins, and who has personally received Jesus Christ as his/her Savior. A Christian is a disciple of Christ. A genuine Christian acknowledges that the Bible is the Word of God, and seeks to order his/her thoughts and actions on what God says in Scripture.A Christian view of war will be one which expresses the teachings of the Bible. A Christian view will also recognize the unity of God in the Old and New Testaments. Jesus is the third Person of the Trinity. He is the eternal God. The God of the Old Testament is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Therefore, the Christian will recognize no contradictions between Jesus' teachings and the teachings of the Old Testament. The whole Bible is the Word of the Triune God.
GOD IS NOT A PACIFIST A pacifist is a person who refuses to physically fight in any circumstance. Some denominations teach that Jesus was a pacifist, and that Christians should never fight, but always turn the other cheek. This is a narrow-minded view of Jesus, who had much more to say on the subject of fighting. It is obvious from the Bible that God may approve of war in some cases, and even command His people to fight.Numbers 31:1-3 says:The LORD said to Moses, "Take vengeance on the Midianites for the Israelites. After that, you will be gathered to your people." So Moses said to the people, "Arm some of your men to go to war against the Midianites and to carry out the Lord's vengeance on them."Deuteronomy 20:1-4 says:"When you go to war against your enemies and see horses and chariots and an army greater than yours, do not be afraid of them, because the LORD your God, who brought you up out of Egypt, will be with you. When you are about to go into battle, the priest shall come forward and address the army. He shall say: "Hear, O Israel, today you are going into battle against your enemies. Do not be fainthearted or afraid; do not be terrified or give way to panic before them. For the LORD your God is the one who goes with you to fight for you against your enemies to give you victory."King David wrote in the Psalms:"Praise be to the LORD my Rock, who trains my hands for war, my fingers for battle" (Psalm 144:1)."For who is God besides the LORD? It is God who arms me with strength and makes my way perfect. He trains my hands for battle; my arms can bend a bow of bronze" (Psalm 18).
PEACE IS THE IDEAL On the other hand, the Bible holds up peace as the ideal situation:In Deuteronomy 2:9 the Bible says:"Then the LORD said to me (Moses), "Do not harass the Moabites or provoke them to war, for I will not give you any part of their land. I have given Ar to the descendants of Lot as a possession."Psalm 55:21 describes an evil man as secretly planning war:"His speech is smooth as butter, yet war is in his heart; his words are more soothing than oil, yet they are drawn swords."The Psalmist (probably David) also wrote: "I am a man of peace; but when I speak, they are for war." (Psalm 120:7)David wrote again in Psalm 140:1-2 "Rescue me, O LORD, from evil men; protect me from men of violence, who devise evil plans in their hearts and stir up war every day."The prophet Isaiah wrote of a future time of peace: "He will judge between the nations and will settle disputes for many peoples. They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore." (Isaiah 2:4)
WARS - JUST AND UNJUST Our conclusion must be that the Bible teaches that war is sometimes wrong, and sometimes right. Solomon wrote in Ecclesiastes 3:8:"There is a time to love and a time to hate, a time for war and a time for peace."So, what is a just war? On what conditions may Christians go to war? When must the Christian take up arms? According to the Bible, there are two situations that justify war.
JUST WAR SITUATION NUMBER ONE --DEFENSIVE WAR Individuals may take up arms and kill in order to defend themselves and their homes.Exodus 22:2 "If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed..."This verse directly applies to an individual defending himself and his home, but by extension it would also apply to a nation defending itself against an invading army.When the United States was attacked by Japan, we then had the right, and duty, to fight back to defend ourselves.
JUST WAR SITUATION NUMBER TWO -- WAR TO RESCUE THE OPPRESSED
In Psalm 72:1-4, Solomon asks God for strength to rescue the oppressed:"Endow the king with your justice, O God, the royal son with your righteousness. He will judge your people in righteousness, your afflicted ones with justice. The mountains will bring prosperity to the people, the hills the fruit of righteousness. He will defend the afflicted among the people and save the children of the needy; he will crush the oppressor."In Psalm 82:3-4 we are commanded by God:"Defend the cause of the weak and fatherless; maintain the rights of the poor and oppressed. Rescue the weak and needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked."Proverbs 31:8-9 says:"Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy."The Westminster Larger Catechism says in its answer to Question 135 "What are the duties required in the sixth commandment," that it is the Christian's duty to preserve the life of other, to make a just defense against violence, to comfort and succor the distressed, and to protect and defend the innocent."If you know that your neighbor is beating his children and his wife, it is clearly your duty to call the police, and make him stop. If the police are not available, it is your duty to personally go to their rescue.Likewise, if we know of a nation which is jailing, torturing, killing and otherwise wreaking havoc on its own citizens, how can we excuse ourselves from going to the rescue of these oppressed men, women and children? It is to the shame of the Christian nations of the world that they did not step in to Hitler's Germany at the very beginning of his dictatorship, and put a stop to his evil deeds, before he was able to kill six million Jews.
THE FUNCTION OF THE STATE In Romans 13:3-4, the Apostle Paul wrote about the function and responsibility of the State (what we would call the Federal Government):"For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for hedoes not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer."The Bible says that God ordained civil magistrates to support citizens who are doing good, and to terrorize with the sword those who do evil.Any government which turns God’s will upside down, which terrifies those who do good, and which rewards those who do evil, has lost the mandate of Heaven. In such a case, that government has become nothing more than a criminal gang. Is it not then the duty of all civilized nations to depose evil tyrants around the world? Surely a war to set free the captives is a just war.





Never Again!!!




THE CHRISTIAN WARRIOR
Suarez International is dedicated to His service, and this section exists to glorify His name and to provide encouragement to our brothers-in-arms that serve Him as Christian Warriors. We don't force our faith upon anyone, but neither will we ever apologize for it.
Jesus’ Prescription of the Sword in Luke 22:35-38
Rev. George C. Hammond, B.A., M.Div.Pastor, Bethel Presbyterian Church;Chairman, Candidates & Credentials Committee, Presbytery of the Mid Atlanticof the Orthodox Presbyterian Church;Former Senior Chaplain, Leesburg (Virginia) Police Department;Kukkiwan Ildan Black Belt;NRA Certified Instructor;NRA Qualified Distinguished Expert, Handgun (703)777-4221bethelopc@covenant-isp.com The Old Testament is replete with images of God as the Divine Warrior who defends his people and destroys his enemies (e.g. Ps. 3, 7, 35, 68). In view of the fact that Christ came as the fulfillment of all the Old Testament prophecies (Mt. 5:17), it is perhaps curious that since the time of the early church, there has been a committed pacifistic segment within Christianity. Why has this occurred?
The Scriptures indicated that Christ came to eradicate sin, and negate the effects of the curse. Since the wages of sin is death (Rom. 6:23), it stands to reason that this Prince of Peace (Is. 9:6) would destroy death itself (Rev. 21:4), and the instruments that metonymously represent it, i.e. weaponry (Is. 9:5). Bound up with his advent is the hope that people would “beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks” (Mic. 4:3).
No Christian can gainsay this much. It is clearly what the Scriptures teach. But the question must be asked whether these descriptions are properly to be identified with, and effective at his advent (first coming) or his parousia (second coming). Put another way, may the Christian ever lawfully engage in combat of any kind, or does the Bible prescribe pacifism for the followers of Christ? A plain reading of the Scriptures indicates that the Bible does not support pacifism. Of central importance to this issue is Luke 22:35-38:
Then Jesus asked [his disciples], “When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?” “Nothing,” they answered. He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.” The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.” “That is enough,” he replied. (NIV) “If you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.” The words are disturbing to many Christians. If Jesus is “The Prince of Peace;” if it is because of him that nations would “beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks;” then why would Jesus tell his disciples to obtain swords, even at the cost of necessary clothing?
Many modern commentators maintain that Jesus was speaking figuratively. This is a legitimate thesis, but evidence for it is lacking. A thesis must be successfully argued; it cannot simply be stated. The person claiming this as a figure of speech must explain what figure is being used, and what the sword stands for.
It is very difficult in the context to maintain that this is figurative, though. Walter Liefeld, who is against taking what Jesus says at face value, struggles with this portion of Scripture: “This short passage is difficult. It is common to solve the difficulties by taking Jesus’ words as ironical, but if that were so, [his later words] ‘that is enough’ would be hard to understand. One would have expected a correction of the disciples’ misunderstanding of it.”
Of course, Liefeld is right. It was Jesus’ pattern to correct the misunderstanding of the Twelve. We see an example of this in Matthew 16:5-12, in which Jesus warns them to be on “guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” In response to this, the disciples begin to discuss literal bread, to which Jesus replies “How is it you don’t understand that I was not talking to you about bread? But be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” If Jesus was speaking figuratively when he prescribed the sword, we would have expected the same kind of correction.
Older commentators did not have so much difficulty with the evident meaning of the text. Matthew Henry, whose commentary was first published in 1706, states plainly, “The swords were to protect themselves from assassins and robbers.” Any plain reading of the text leads to this conclusion.
Jesus prescribed the sword here because he was preparing his disciples for his departure. During his earthly ministry, the disciples were protected by an extraordinary providence. This, however, was about to change.In the “High Priestly Prayer,” Jesus prayed, “While I was with them I protected them and kept them safe by the Name you gave me” (John 17:12; italics added). There are numerous instances of the protection of this extraordinary providence in the Gospels. In Luke 8:22-25, for example, we read the account of Jesus and his disciples being in a boat when a squall came upon them. The text explicitly tells us, “they were in great danger” (8:23). And yet, Jesus rebukes them for exhibiting “little faith.” The reason for his rebuke is that Jesus was not going to die by drowning. Nor was he was going to die at the hands of robbers. He was going to die on the cross. And so, as long as he was with them, no harm could possibly come to them. But now he was going away, and with him the protection of an extraordinary providence. The disciples must now rely on the ordinary means of God’s protection. And so he says, “But now . . . if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.”
What too many Christians overlook in their consideration of this passage is the implicit directive that Jesus here gives his disciples to love one another. Francis Schaffer, the great twentieth century Christian philosopher wrote, “I am to love my neighbor as myself, in the manner needed, in the midst of the fallen world, at my particular point in history. This is why I am not a pacifist. Pacifism in this poor world in which we live – this lost world – means that we desert the people who need our greatest help . . . I come upon a big burly man beating a tiny tot to death . . . I plead with him to stop. Suppose he refuses? What does love mean now? Love means that I stop him in any way that I can, including hitting him. To me, this is not only necessary for humanitarian reasons; it is loyalty to Christ’s commands concerning Christian love in a fallen world. What about the little girl? If I desert her to the bully, I have deserted the true meaning of Christian love – responsibility to my neighbor. Nor is this perspective limited to Reformed Christianity. Norman Giesler, who does not stand within the Reformed tradition, states, “Any man who refuses to protect his wife and children against a violent intruder fails them morally.”
What is perhaps confusing to people is that Jesus, having just prescribed the sword to his disciples, prohibits the use of that sword in Luke 22:49-51. Why would Jesus, having just told them to obtain swords, now forbid their use? The vitally important point made here is that Christ’s Kingdom is something that cannot be promulgated or enforced by the sword. His Kingdom is not of this world (Jn. 18:36). The weapons used to advance his Kingdom must not be the weapons of the world (2 Cor. 10:4-5). The Kingdom that Jesus was establishing would be advanced through the weakness of the cross, not by the wielding of the sword. Thus, the weapons of the world must never be taken up by Christians to advance the cause of the Christ. The sword must be used for defensive purposes only. Jesus explicitly proscribed the sword as a way of advancing his Kingdom. The Kingdom that Jesus established will one day dominate and do away with all others (Dan. 2:31-45, 1 Cor. 15:24-25). Because the Prince of Peace has come, the day will eventually come when we will beat our swords into plowshares and our spears into pruning hooks.
But that day is not now. “Now,” the Master says, “If you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.”




THE CHRISTIAN WARRIOR
Suarez International is dedicated to His service, and this section exists to glorify His name and to provide encouragement to our brothers-in-arms that serve Him as Christian Warriors. We believe that God gave us courage and called us to the profession of arms, and that its His will that we be strong and dangerous in the face of evil and the sons of perdition that walk this earth.
Can A Christian Be A Liberal??
I was watching MSNBC and a commentator was discussing how one of the democrats announced that he would be invoking the name of Jesus in his speeches henceforth. The commentator noted how this fit right in as Christ was Himself a liberal. After my coffee cup bounced off the television screen, I holstered my Glock, and wiped up the brew from my Sony big screen. The question that kept coming up (at home, not on the tv) was -Can A Christian Be A Liberal??Now us true bible believeing born again warriors know that Christ was no liberal in the modern sense of the word. For those of you who came in late please examine the posts by me in the Christian Warrior section of Warrior Talk.First we need to define "LIBERAL". The dictionary meaning of liberal is -1lib·er·al1 a : of, relating to, or based on the liberal arts <liberal education> b archaic : of or befitting a man of free birth2 a : marked by generosity : OPENHANDED <a liberal giver> b : given or provided in a generous and openhanded way <a liberal meal> c : AMPLE, FULL3 obsolete : lacking moral restraint : LICENTIOUS4 : not literal or strict : LOOSE <a liberal translation>5 : BROAD-MINDED; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms6 a : of, favoring, or based upon the principles of liberalism b capitalized : of or constituting a political party advocating or associated with the principles of political liberalism; especially : of or constituting a political party associated with ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectivesInteresting don't you think??One would think, based on this definition, that liberalism was the greatest thing since sliced-bread. One would think that liberals were the last bastion of enlightened freedom left on earth. However, we live in an age where a word's meaning is corrupted into something else. Who, for example would think that "gay" means happy and light-hearted today?? Gay is used to refer to homosexuals in popular society, yet most dictionaries define the word as something else altogether. Such is the case with "liberal".
In this case we are referring to the American Liberal Socialist (ALS for short). Such are typified by the likes of Bill Clinton, Hilary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, and Diane Feinstein.
A liberal wants to control people, and is anything but "freedom-loving". A liberal wants to force others to conform to a "liberal world view" (or be conformed by force). A liberal wants to force you to become like him, and be tolerant of everyone and everything. Everything is right to a liberal and nothing is wrong. The liberal abhors any competition in the philosophical realm, and thus wants us all to turn from God. Liberal is in essence, another word for a Communist. Don't believe me? Read the works of Marx, Lenin, and Mao. Then compare their thinking with the Clinton-esqe philosophy and political records observed by the folks claiming the title. Christ taught us freedom, and responsability, faith and trust in God, and many other things that the liberal-communists despise. Christ taught us forgiveness, and hope. Liberals teach us that everyone is right (as long as they are also liberals and socialists), and that no one is wrong (unless they are conservative Christians).Liberals do not want us to be reliant on God, but on government...their government. Liberals want us dependant on them and their institutions for everything. This includes everything from security to spirituality, to economics...everything. Look at how they tax everyone and everything, redistributing wealth, redefining right and wrong, and reorganizing society to suit their aims. Look at how they seek to make us all dependant on their programs.
"Want us to help you? Want a government subsidy? Better not talk about God".
"You don't need guns...we'll protect you".Liberals want to remove God from every document and monument. "Teach God in schools? Heavens no! We need to spend the time on tolerance, condoms, and safe drug use instead!"
Look at the laws passed by liberals in the last few years. Is that the work of Christians?? In ancient times, the American Socialist Liberals of today would have been carousing with Philistines, sacrificing babies to Baal, building idols, and doing all those biblical nasties for which cities were flattened. A true modern American Socialist Liberal is the same as communist. And, just as a devil-worshipper cannot be a Christian, neither can a communist be a Christian. The philosophies, life styles, and spiritual attitudes are incompatible. There is no grey area in God's word. There is nothing open for interpretation. Its all there is black, red, and white. Read it and then compare that with the political and governmental record of modern American Liberalism.
We must remember that, and we must point it out as we near the elections in November. Christians Cannot Be Liberals
Gabe SuarezSuarez International USA, Inc.





THE CHRISTIAN WARRIOR

The Folly Of Christian PacifismAt a dinner with some friends recently one man commented on the subject of Christian Pacifism and asked how a Christian could own, carry weapons, and (good heavens) even be willing to use them to kill.After I wiped the food I unintentionally launched at him via my astonished mouth, I kindly explained why he was wrong, and why his pastor, regardless of how learned he may be, was wrong.Some modern Christians believe that we are all called to be pacifists and turn our backs on weapons of any sort. They believe that we are to be docile and submissive to any government or governing authority, and by extension, never resist anything with violence as it is not our job to do so. Moreover, they believe that we must never use violence against anyone, and that we must always turn our cheek to an aggressor. In short, these misguided Christians believe that we should leave all earthly things in other hands and focus exclusively on spiritual matters. I believe that these well-intentioned Christians are mistaken. I believe they have been misled by clergy who misunderstand the Scriptures…or who for otherwise personal reasons have intentionally misinterpreted God’s word. I believe that God calls us to be faithful, and to rely on Him for all things, but He also calls us to be watchful, and being watchful, able to act upon that which we see. What good is it to be watchful if when something is seen, no one was going to do anything about it anyway? Watchfulness is only useful when there is a capacity to act.I also believe that He does not call us to meekly (popular meaning) submit to those who would do us evil (either physical or spiritual). How can any man not fight for his wife, his children or his nation when they are put in harm's way by an evil man. And how can any Christian submit to any group who forbids them from raising their children by the Word of God?God calls us to be strong and courageous (Joshua 1:9) as much as we are spiritually or physically able. God calls all of us to be alert (Eph 5:15), some to be armed (Luke 22:38), and all to resist and abhor evil wherever it is found (Rom 12:9). I have included biblical references to back up what I write.I am not a Pastor, nor even a theologian. I am just an interested sinner, a man at arms that God called. And when He called me, He did not make me discard my “sword”. I have read the Scriptures and this is what I read in them. The lions are NOT our legacy. I will discuss this issue in several parts.One, God does not call us to be pacifists. He calls us to love one another, and that part of the manifestation of that love is the willingness to fight, kill, or die for those you love. Possibly to kill or if needed, possibly to die for them. As Christians we may try to love the enemies whom we face in battle, but we certainly love those whom we are fighting for, our families and country, even more. When the two come into conflict, wether on a dark street, or in a big battlefield, a choice must be made. Who do you love more. Not choosing is the luxury of the coward. Some Christians that argue the point, refer to Jesus’ teachings, and proclaim that Our Lord was Himself a pacifist. They argue that we are supposed to love one another, and if we love as God asks us to love, we can never use force or violence against another one of God’s creations. Furthermore, they point out Jesus’ words “about turning the other cheek”. They also point to Our Lord instructing Peter to “put the sword in its place”. And that those who live by the sword shall perish by it. First of all, the turning cheek business has a different meaning than a simple slap. A slap on the face was an insult, not necessarily thought of as a physical attack. Think of a 21st Century slap as someone rudely giving you the finger. God is NOT telling us that if a man punches us full force in the face we are to allow him to also kick us in the crotch! Nor does it follow that if a man comes in to rape your wife, you will also offer him your daughter. Only a fool or a coward without the guts to keep from getting kicked in the crotch or to defend his family would suggest such a thing!The sword episode with Peter is specially important, and shows us that had Jesus not approved of swords, there would have been no swords in evidence that night. I'll bet you my 401K that none of the remaining apostles had any idols, prostitutes, or anything of the sort on hand. Yet there were two swords among them. Hmmm.When Peter stood and drew the sword, Jesus told him to put it in its place, not to get rid of it. Hmmmm. Also what many of the pacifistics forget is that Christ gave Himself up willingly because it was His mission to do so. He wasn't taken, He wasn't murdered, He gave Himself to this to obey His Father. Its no mystery. Its there for those who wish to read it.Later Christ also said that those who live by the sword shall perish by it. "Those who live by" it, not those who use it. We are not to live by the sword, but by the Word of God. That doesn't mean we aren't to use them WHEN APPROPRIATE TO DO SO.Two, He does not expect us to unconditionally submit to authority. As soon as an authority (any authority) prevents us from living as He calls us to live, that authority has turned from God and no longer has His blessing. We must not submit to such an authority, rather we must resist it.The Word is full of situations where rulers turned from God and were thwarted. Moses' mother defied the Pharoe by not allowing Moses to be killed as a boy, Rahab lied to protect the Israelites, Joseph and Mary defied the government by taking their son away to Egypt. I read and do not see the unconditional submission that some pastors call for. When an authority prevents you rom living as a Christian, that authority is no longer from God. It makes me wonder what some of these unconditional submission crowd would have done with regards to Hitler, Stalin, Castro, or even our own Saddam. Would they have burned bibles or turned in fellow believers to "submit to government"??Three, that we, with His help and blessing, are responsible for our own selves, family, and community. He calls us to provide for our own. We rely on His help, but that it is an active reliance, not a passive one. Part of that provision is security."But if anyone does not provide for his own, and specially those of his household, he has denied the faith, and is worse than an unbeliever".1 Timothy 5:8Part of "provide" is security. This can no more be shirked off to the authorities than the feeding, clothing, and spiritual training of your children can. If you do, you are worse..well, you know.Four, that to insure our freedom to live as Christians, to insure the security and freedom of our loved ones, able Christians that are called by God to do so, must “sell their cloaks”, and as Jesus our Lord asked His men to do in Luke 22:38, purchase the means to insure all these things we discussed. In the 21st Century, those means are firearms.Those who would prevent you from "selling your cloak to buy a sword", which by chronological application today means a handgun, and by extension carrying it around with you, are in effect preventing you from exercising your religious beliefs, and living your life as your God calls you to live it. Such prohibition is a henious violation of your

God given right to religious freedom. So, to recap. God calls us to be strong in faith in Him. He calls us to attempt to live in peace with all men as much as lies on us. He calls us to be alert to the evil around us, and to abhor it. He calls us to provide for our own (part of which is security). And finally, through reading His Word, we are called...some of us..to pick up the sword of a mighty man of God and wield it in faith.
Gabe Suarez






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 naïve 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.
__________________Gabe SuarezSuarez International USA, Inc.