Thank you for your kind words! I’m sorry for taking so long to respond to this question, but there was a lot to write. When you first asked me this question, I was going to talk about all four remaining candidates, but the next day, Rick Santorum dropped out of the race. So that puts a bit of a spin on the race. I was honestly very surprised to hear that he dropped out. Yes, Mitt Romney is in first place, but the race was far from over. The media has been falsely reporting how many delegates each candidate had, and if Santorum won Texas, and after the previous states properly apportioned their delegates, it would have been a very tight race once again. You can read about the delegates below:
So I was very surprised to hear that he dropped out. I do not know why he did. I do know that his daughter had a part to play in it, and if you don’t know about what’s going on with that, it is a very serious disease. Please say a prayer for the Santorum family as they deal with this fatal disease their young daughter has. Politics aside, it is a devastating thing for a parent to go through.
There may have been other reasons as well for dropping out. Maybe some insiders found that he was polling behind Romney in his home state of Pennsylvania, and it would have been pretty embarrassing to not be able to win your home state. Or perhaps he’s just backing out, because his campaign is millions of dollars in debt, and he is gearing up for a potential 2016 run.
I do give Santorum credit though for doing what no one else thought possible. He literally came from out of nowhere, with no funding at all, and was outspent by Mitt Romney by margins of between 7-1 and 10-1 in most states. And against those odds, he was still able to defeat Romney in 11 states.
The good thing about Santorum vs. Romney is that, honestly, based on the states both were winning, Santorum WAS more electable than Romney. Allow me to explain. Was each candidate winning Red States or Blue States? Because that’s what matters in the general election.
Romney has won 13 states. Of these, 8 were carried by Obama and 5 were carried by McCain. Of the 5 GOP states he won, 3 are on the border of Utah. Santorum has won 10 states. Of these, 7 were carried by McCain and 3 were carried by Obama. In general, Romney has strength in areas where the Dem’s will be even stronger in November–Illinois, Mass, Maine, New Hampshire etc. will all be Obama’s in November.
We are on the verge of nominating a Republican candidate who has minimal strength in areas where Republicans can and must do well. Santorum on the other hand was winning in states that were considered conservative, that would need to be won by the Republicans, and that were considered battleground states.
I don’t honestly buy the electability argument. Because in truth, Mitt Romney is perceived as a moderate, and he has held some pretty liberal views in the past. And in reality, a moderate hasn’t won an election since Richard Nixon, and we all know how that played out.
Reagan (a real conservative won) in 1980 and 84. Bush the elder won in 88 pretending to be Ronald Reagan Jr. When it was clear that he was a moderate he lost in 92. In 96 Dole said that he would not even read the GOP pro-life platform. He lost. In 2000 Bush the younger campaigned as a conservative. He won. In 2004 he campaigned as a war conservative. He won. In 2008, McCain campaigned as a moderate and lost.
Moderates lose. The media tells us that we have to run moderates so that we can win in November. They tell us this precisely so that we will do just that, and so that the Democrats will win.
Now, I am not saying it is hopeless for Mitt Romney, as it is becoming more and more likely that he will be the nominee, but he does have some obstacles to overcome.
Let me give some Pros and Cons on the three remaining candidates first.
I’ll start with Ron Paul:
I’ll be honest, I LOVE certain parts of his policies, and I HATE others. The simple fact of the matter is, he will not be elected. There isn’t a possible chance of him being the nominee in November. He hasn’t won a single state yet, and Rick Santorum was his last chance at the Republicans going into a brokered convention, where RP would still have a chance. Since Santorum dropped out, it’s mathematically not possible for him to be the nominee and gather more delegates than Romney.
I do credit Ron Paul with being the most steadfast in his views, the most consistent, and I love his fiscal policies. If President, However, there are other views of his that I strongly disagree with.
For some of these cons, I’m going to quote some statements that constitutional scholar, attorney, founder of the HSLDA (Home School Legal Defense Association), and Chancellor of Patrick Henry College. He is one of the most intelligent men I know, and I thoroughly enjoy reading his researched and constitutionally-based viewpoints. Here are some things that he as a Conservative, had to say about Ron Paul. I will warn you, it is a lot of information, and it does not look kindly on Ron Paul from a Conservative Christian perspective:
“Ron Paul openly says–AND TODAY DEFENDS–the appropriateness of using the morning after pill/shots to take the life of unborn children in very early pregnancies. He has not repented of this outrageous position. I can understand a pro-lifer not being willing to forgive a vote on Title X. But I cannot understand that same voter being willing to vote for someone who justifies the legitimacy of a chemical execution of a baby in the womb.”
“Ron Paul says in his 2011 book that he would support the use of morning after pills and shots in very early pregnancy. By definition a baby is present in very early pregnancy.
This is an abortifacient drug. He advocates the right to kill babies at this stage. Next, he does not believe that the 14th amendment protects the constitutional right to life. I don’t want him appointing Supreme Court justices with this view. Finally, his bill would not reverse Roe v. Wade rather it would freeze it in place. He is prolife after a while but not in early pregnancy. Millions of babies would be killed overtime if his policies were enacted. In my book that is not prolife.”
“The fact is RonPaul in 2008 first endorsed Cynthia McKinney and Chuck Baldwin and the others–then later more specifically endorsed Chuck Baldwin–although you are the first person to bring that to my attention. The reason that is important to me is this: It tells me what is important to Ron Paul. He was willing to give some form of endorsement to Cynthia McKinney despite her votes for abortion, and being an essential Marxist. If she deserves any kind of a endorsement, then the person doing the endorsement lacks the values I value.”
“1. Why does he deny that the 14th Amendment already protects human life?
2. Why does his support for a Human Life Amendment not appear in the abortion section of his official campaign website?
3. Why does his 2011 book on abortion argue that human life should not be nationalized (without making any mention of a human life amendment as an exception to his statement)?
4. Why cannot I not find any record of him sponsoring or co-sponsoring any human life amendments since he came back to Congress in 1997? (See for example, HR Res 9 2003; HJRes 4 2005, HJRes 13 1997, HJRes 10 2001, HR 77 2001, HR Res 40 1998, HJRes 20 2001, HJRes 31 1999).”
“And what about Ron Paul’s statements on Iranian television excusing the making of home-made bombs by terrorists in Israel?
And why has Ron Paul never supported a right to life amendment since he returned to Congress?
And what about Ron Paul’s utter failure to ever pass a single piece of legislation in 26 years in Congress?
And why does Ron Paul refuse to support traditional marriage?
And why did Ron Paul refuse to say that homosexuality is a sin?
And what about Ron Paul’s view that Congress has no constitutional jurisdiction to stop illegal drugs from being imported from foreign countries?
And what about Ron Paul’s pro-abortion views for ‘very early pregnancies?”
And what about Ron Paul’s earmarks?
Do you seriously believe that a man is a man of principle if he endorses a Marxist just because she is “better” than McCain or Obama? Do you really think that a Marxist was better than McCain? Seriously? Think about what you are saying.
Ron Paul does not support the Parental Rights Amendment. “
“I write about what is important to me. Ron Paul is important to me because I see him redefining the biblical worldview according to the godless views of libertarianism. I am an advocate of a biblical worldview for Christians and my spirit cannot rest when I see a counterfeit philosophy being sold to Christian people.”
“If this were all that Ron Paul said I would be his biggest fan. Unfortunately, it is not. The reason that I oppose his is that I think he is misleading the body of Christ into a godless political philosophy called libertarianism.
Let me be careful to say, that I am not saying that he is not a Christian–I cannot judge such a thing. Nor, am I saying that no libertarians make real efforts to reconcile their views with Scripture.
I am focused on the Ron Paul brand of libertarianism which has the following characteristics: (a) pro-abortion views in “very early pregnancies” (advocating the morning after pill and shot); (b) a refusal to say that homosexuality is sin; (c) legalization of drugs; (d) voting against a child porn bill in part because he contended that porn that was just computer generated images was a protected constitutional right; and I could go on.
There have been sincere Christians who have defended the rightness of each of these positions right here on my FB page and I have seen it happen in many other places as well. Christians are being led astray. I feel compelled in my spirit to speak up. You have never heard me say a single thing negative about his views on government spending. I doubt that you could find much difference in his view and mine–other than I would spend money to keep porn and drugs from being imported into the United States from foreign countries.
His views about the Federal Reserve are very close to my own–although I haven’t studied his in real detail–I contend that a private bank (which is what the Fed is) should not be given control of our nation’s money supply and the power to enrich itself by printing money.
Those who lead people astray are rarely those who possess 100% erroneous views. They come in as angels of light in one area and then they reveal a very different orientation in other areas.
Ron Paul’s economic views are generally very good. His moral views, his views on Israel, his views on the Constitution in particular (he has a dramatically limited view on the rights of the people vis-a-vis the states), are all very unacceptable in my view.
My greatest reason for urging people to reconsider their support of Ron Paul has nothing to do with this election. He will never win. It has everything to do with the philosophy of people who claim to have a biblical worldview AFTER this election is over.
I don’t want Christian people defending abortion via the morning after pill, drug legalization, homosexual marriage, and porn. I have witnessed Christian people defending all of these because they are mouthing the words of Ron Paul.
I cannot sit silently while God’s truth is being so perverted with the godless form of libertarianism.
Here is my basic rule for voting: There are certain core issues that are non-negotiable. If two candidates get past those core issues, then I have to weigh pro’s and con’s of secondary issues.
Some of my key core issues are: 1. The sanctity of human life 2. The protection of marriage between one man and one woman 3. Parental rights; and 4. Protecting the sovereignty of the United States (e.g., rejecting treaties like the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child).
If there are two candidates in a race who both are acceptable on my core issues, then I try to weigh the plusses and minuses on other issues.
In this race Ron Paul fails the first three of my listed four issues. Rick Santorum passed all four.
So, even though I like some of your arguments, these are not ever going to get my vote because of his failure on these core issues.
Everyone must decide for themselves what they believe is core and what they believe is secondary. This is how I sort it out.”
“A child is always present when a woman is pregnant. If you give the morning after pill…sometimes pregnancy has taken place…sometimes it hasn’t. But 100% when it is a very early pregnacy, it is an abortion. Because you have a baby 100% of the time a woman is in “very early pregnancy.” He is a pro-abortion advocate in very early pregnancy.”
“What are my priorities in voting?
The life issue is at the top of the list. Marriage and parental rights are right behind.
I do not believe that Ron Paul’s view reflects constitutional government in general–although on spending issues I think he is far closer to constitutional government than others. On issues like life, marriage, parenting, etc…which are also issues of constitutional government, he takes a view that I strongly believe deviates from the original intent of the Constitution. And his views on foreign policy are not derived from any constitutional principles but his own political philosophy–much of which I find dangerous. I do strongly agree with Ron Paul when he says that we should not enter war without a declaration of war by Congress.
The alternative is for me to run. Since that is not realistic, I have to decide how to cast the balance and decide my priority. It is this simple for me. Someone who gets abortion as wrong as Ron Paul can’t get my vote in the GOP primary.
Ok, voting calculus. I can’t recall writing all this down in one play before, so please don’t expect that this is complete. With that caveat, here are the general areas I think about.
1. Issues. 2. Character 3. Experience 4. Motivation
1. Issue analysis is the most important. How a person stands on issues–especially as president–means a whole lot more than just “will I veto this bill or sign that one.” It tells me a lot about their political philosophy which will undergird all of their decisions.
Issues will arise that no one anticipates. What will a president do when faced with an issue that he was never asked about during his campaign? What is in his heart? What does he place at the top of his priority?
This is why I place abortion at the very pinnacle of my analysis. I simply don’t trust anyone who supports the killing of babies. I don’t trust them in foreign policy, domestic policy. I don’t trust them to appoint judges. I don’t trust them to name the Secretary of Treasury. I don’t trust them to choose the correct policy for the National Parks.
I believe that abortion WILL come up in this next presidency. Every time a federal judge is appointed–abortion is on the table–this is especially true when Supreme Court justices are appointed. I would strenously object to someone with the constitutional philosophy of Ron Paul being appointed to the Supreme Court. I don’t want Ron Paul’s views on abortion, porn, marriage, etc etc etc. being advanced on the Supreme Court of the United States.
So it is beyond legitimate argument to suggest that abortion will not come up. It will come up in our foreign policy. It comes up day after dday without fail. A nation that kills babies cannot expect that God will leave us at rest on the issue. Until we get it right, it is going to be in our face day after day.
Marriage will come up in the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court follows the 9th Circuit’s recent decision there will be one final opportunity to reverse that decision with a federal marriage amendment. Ron Paul would take the wrong position on this issue on the very last opportunity to fix the problem.
But, if we are going to be really fair–let’s look and see how likely it is that Ron Paul’s economic views will be enacted. Do you doubt even for a minute that 2/3rds of both houses of Congress would vote to override Ron Paul’s vetos on spending if they thought it went too far? And they judge going too far solely on the basis of their perceived electoral success. I view the viability of his economic proposals as hovering close to zero. This is mainly due to the fact that he has never been able to create a consensus in Congress for any of his proposals. He doesn’t no how to lead. Thus, any advancement of his position in this area is entirely theorectical and not very realistic–even though I would be pleased with such cuts in general.
2. Character. I think moral character is important. I have nothing against either of these two (RP or RS) on this element. Newt or Mitt–well that is a different story.
3. Experience. I think experience is important. I think RS has much better experience. He has actually moved the ball forward in important ways in his terms in office. RP has never actually had a public policy victory on any legislative measure that he wrote–nor on any measure that he killed.
4. Motivation. Why is this guy running? Why does he want to serve? I think Newt wants to serve because he believes that he has brilliant ideas and that America would be better off with his brilliance. I think that Romney just wants to be president–probably a desire coming from his dad. He is not motivated by any issue or set of issues. Ron Paul is motivated by economics and libertarianism. Rick Santorum is motivated by the need to protect human life, marriage, parental rights, and to protect America from the dangers of radical Islam. I appreciate his motivations–they relate closely to my own.
If there were a candidate that was truly about advancing Constitutional Government and really understood what that meant–I would take a leave of absence from my job and spend 100% of my time trying to get them elected. I think many people think that is what Ron Paul is about. But, being a genuine expert on the Constitution and knowing quite a bit about the actual operation of government, I believe that despite his good intentions Ron Paul’s views have only occasional overlap with the Constitution of the United States. He is not the candidate who wants to restore the Constitution. Rather, he is the candidate who wants to place a libertarian imprint on the hearts and minds of American citizens. That is a motivation that strongly motivates me to oppose him.
You are right that at times RP argues both positions–that drugs should be legalized by all levels of government AND other times he argues that drugs laws should be exclusively state functions.
He is arguing the libertarian position on the first issue. Libertarianism is a philosophy that rejects “harm to society” as a sufficient basis for law. It only considers harm to an individual as a proper basis for law. This places the individual at the center of the universe and lacks the balance that we learn from the Word of God that shows there is a place for the individual, yes, but also for the family, the church and the state. Concern for others is pushed aside by the kind of radical libertarianism represented by the drug legalization argument.
The shocking thing about this is that so many Christians seem attracted to this argument just because it is coming from RP.
Here is my analysis of why this is: We are justifiably sick and tired of politicians who believe that the purpose of government is to provide for our every need. They have mortgaged the future of every man, woman, and child in this generation and for generations to come.
Because RP addresses these issues and voices appropriate concern about statism and big government, people are buying into his total philosophy.
We need to support the philosophy of limited government that is built on this premise–the purpose of government is to protect life, liberty, and property and to do justice to those who do evil. That combination of liberty and virtue was at the heart of the founding of America.
But the easiest way to show the error of RP’s views on drugs is at the constitutional level. Drug laws should primarily be state crimes. Ordinary drug possession and drug sales should be prosecuted by state officials only.
But when RP calls for the total elimination of all federal drug laws, he opens the borders of the US to illegal drugs from other nations–particularly Mexico. It is the absolute and exclusive duty of the federal government to control our borders. We can and should stop drugs from coming in from Mexico.
If RP’s view was enacted, states along the borders would be at grave risk. And states on the borders of any state that legalized drugs would also face very serious problems from the spill over effect.
No one wants a drug dealer living next door to them. But this legalize drugs everywhere view of RP would turn this entire nation into a haven for drug dealers.
We can do better than this. We can have principled people who oppose big government spending without the libertarian, amoral view that opens the flood gates for drugs, porn, prostitution, and homosexual marriage.”
Now, that is all information that Michael Farris has said on Ron Paul, which is all factual, and that I agree with wholeheartedly. I have also written up quite a few of my own views on Ron Paul, specifically with his foreign policy problem, and why exactly that it is a problem. Here is what I wrote several months ago when asked for my views on Ron Paul:
My biggest problem with Ron Paul is his foreign policy. I applaud him for his economic and fiscal policies, but disagree with him immensely on a few other key points. The main point being his stance on Israel, Iran, and North Korea. I personally believe that Iran presents the greatest threat to humanity right now, more-so than North Korea. I will explain why below. But Ron Paul has openly exclaimed that his foreign policy is even further to the left than President Obama.
The Bible speaks of many false prophets coming in the End Days, who will perform ‘signs and wonders’ who will deceive many, even Christians.
24 For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect.
One particular example of this is the Twelfth Imam, who is the Islamic Messiah in Islamic End Times Eschatology. He is the supposed one who will return to earth in the Last Days to destroy all Jews and Christians, and create a world-wide Islamic Caliphate, converting all the world into Muslims, or killing them if they refuse. What is particularly disturbing about this, is that I believe there is a very good chance the Islamic Twelfth Imam WILL come to earth. And he WILL deceive many. And it lines up exactly with The Bible prophecy about false prophets and false messiahs coming, performing wonders and leading many astray. What’s even more disturbing about this presently, is that this is what Iran is devoted to and whole-heartedly believes. That’s why Iran is so dangerous right now, and they cannot under any circumstances be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon.
President Ahmadinejad of Iran literally believes he is a prophet of Allah, and that his God-given purpose on Earth is to bring forth the coming of the Twelfth Imam, which is achieved by wiping out Israel and America (The Little Satan and The Great Satan) from the face of the earth. Our current President’s foreign policy is very dangerous, as he believes this is the same as the Cold War. Where even if they can get nukes, that they wouldn’t actually use them. And that we can negotiate with them. The same is true about Republican Presidential Candidate Ron Paul. His foreign policy view on Iran is even more dangerous. What they don’t understand is the actual mindset of Ahmadinejad. He has openly declared on international television, and even in the United States when he visited the U.N., that he would wipe out Israel. Jihad is their way, and he believes it is Iran’s purpose in life to achieve this and ‘wipe out the zionists.’ What’s even scarier is that evil is only ever allowed to triumph when good men do nothing. Hitler slaughtered 6,000,000 Jews because no one stopped him. Evil men tell others their intentions, but every time, people think, “Oh, he’ll never go through with it. He’s not THAT crazy.” And then when the evil person does it, we all sit back and say, “How the heck did this happen? We didn’t see it coming!”
The world needs to wake up. We have a madman who openly calls and prays for on American soil, the destruction of Israel and America. And no one is doing anything to stop him. If America continues to do nothing, Israel will retaliate on their own with a first strike to take out Iran’s nuclear reactors. They’ve been preparing it as a contingency plan for years now. And that will be just as bad, and could be a doorway into World War III. If we do not listen to history and learn from it, we are doomed to repeat it. And I really pray the world learns from it this time and acts. I honestly very seriously worry that our President, or next President, does not realize the threat that Iran is, which is the greatest the U.S. has ever faced, that another great tragedy will occur. Far greater than 9/11. And that it may involve a nuclear bomb. So we should continue to pray for our leaders and for God to change their hearts, and back up Israel. And if you’re at all interested in what I just talked about, I strongly encourage you to buy Joel C. Rosenberg’s books, “The Twelfth Imam,” “The Tehran Initiative,” “Inside the Revolution,” “Inside the Revival,” and “Epicenter.” They are fascinating books, and he is my all-time favorite author now.
(Eschatology = the study of End Times Prophecy)
The Iranian nuclear threat is very real. And it is very naive to think that Iran will not try and use the bomb once they have it. We’re not dealing with Russia or China here. We’re dealing with someone who has openly vowed and prayed for the destruction of Israel and America on International Television, and prayed for the coming of the Twelfth Imam. Ahmadinejad is a religious fanatic who believes it is his God-given purpose to wipe out these nations. It is extremely naive to think that we can negotiate with Iran, just let them be, or think that they don’t have what it takes to actually go through with it. The U.S. Defense Secretary just this week exclaimed that the Iranian threat is more real than ever and will have nuclear bomb-making capability within the year.
I’ve actually spent a bit of time this week debating this Ron Paul stance with a Ron Paul supporter.
He argued that Iran doesn’t have the willpower or manpower to attempt to pull off a nuclear attack, that this is just Iraq all over again, and that even if they did get the nuke, they wouldn’t use it because of mutually assured destruction, and that the only reason they are attempting to get one is because of U.S. presence in the Middle East.
I very strongly disagreed. That is not at all the reason why Iran wants the bomb. There are already covert actions underway to try and take out the nuclear facilities:
“Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation’s fury.”
-Iranian President Ahmadinejad
Ahmadinejad also denies that the Holocaust ever happened.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the United Nations now claim Iran has the capability to create an atomic bomb, even as soon as the coming months.
His point about Iran not having the capability to attack from the air is also false. Iran does have missile capability:
And Iran is continually working on its long-range missile program:
But you forget that they don’t need a missile to set off a nuclear bomb. with how insecure our borders in, Iran can very easily go to their allies in Venezuela, and smuggle a nuclear weapon into the U.S. by way of Mexico. Our border security is a serious issue, and can very possibly be the next avenue terrorists use to infiltrate our country with a more deadly weapon.
His last response was also disturbing. I’m not talking about Iraq here. Iran is something entirely different. Now, here you have a religious madman, who literally believes that he is a prophet of Allah. He also believes that he cannot physically die here on earth, until he has destroyed the entire nations of Israel and America. Now, coming from Ahmadinejad, who openly prayed for this destruction on U.S. soil at the United Nations, and who repeatedly makes the same claim, how could you honestly question his motives? In addition, lets not forget about Iraq’s race to get a nuclear weapon in the 1990’s. Which was ended and an Israeli genocide averted, by the Israeli’s issuing a first-strike attack on Iraq’s nuclear reactors.
Ahmadinejad doesn’t care about mutually assured destruction! He believes in Jihad! It is their way of life. They believe that giving their lives, for the destruction of Christians and Jews, is their ticket into Paradise. To believe that a man who repeatedly vows to do what he says he is going to do, is not actually going to do it, is insanity. Why would he NOT do it? If he believes it is his God-given purpose?
Watch Ron Paul’s own explanation on his Iranian views in the latest Republican Presidential Debate:
In this clip, Ron Paul is asked that, even if he had solid intelligence that Iran had a nuclear weapon, as President of the United States, what would he do? If you notice, he dodges the question. He repeatedly claims that there is no evidence that Iran is trying to get a bomb, despite being asked the question repeatedly what he would do if they had 100% intelligence that they had it and intended on using it. He says that even in that instance, he would still take away all Iranian sanctions and let them be. Ron Paul is then asked what he would do if Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz for military purposes. Again, he does not answer the question.
If you watched the entire debate, you see that Ron Paul goes on to explain that he understands why Iran wants nuclear weapons, and that it wouldn’t be bad if they got one, because then we would ‘respect them.’ Later on, he likens Iran to Russia, saying that we need to use diplomacy. Again, this is a fatal misunderstanding of ideologies, and very mistakenly believing that the two nations believed the same thing. As I posted above, Iran does not care about diplomacy, and this can be seen in any of Ahmadinejad’s speeches. They have openly prayed for the destruction of the United States and Israel.
Ron Paul also wants to cut foreign aid to Israel, our staunchest ally in the Middle East, and that is something that I also have issue with. Christians are instructed to support Israel, and that we will be blessed if we support Israel, and those who do the opposite will be cursed.
Genesis 12:2–3 (NIV)
2 “I will make you into a great nation and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing. 3 I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you.”
You can read more about why Christians should support Israel here:
For a rating of the candidates based solely on their Iranian foreign policy, from Middle East expert Joel C. Rosenberg, check this out:
Ron Paul got an F rating on the issue.
I have also repeatedly heard the argument that Christians should not support war as it violates one of the ten commandments that says, ‘thou shall not kill.’ However, this is another very sore misinterpretation of what the Scripture actually says. Allow me to elaborate:
One of the biggest misconceptions about the Bible is the whole “Thou shall not kill” thing. It some whacko broke into my home and threatened my family, I would most definitely defend them at all costs. You would be correct, if the original Hebrew text actually meant ‘kill’ as in killing anything in absolutely any circumstance. But the actual Hebrew word, actually translates to ‘murder’ in English, not kill. It was just a translational thing in the King James version of the Bible, which was the first English translation. The original Hebrew word used was ‘ratsach,’ which means premeditated, unjustified killing, otherwise known as murder. So no, it doesn’t go against a commandment. So in this sense, the commandment is actually saying, ‘thou shall not murder’ (or premeditatedly kill without cause), which is much different than ‘kill.’ If you want to learn more about it, check this out.
I addressed my answer to this question in an earlier question, so I will repost that as well:
1072. Being a christian, how do you justify supporting war if you are against abortion? Is not all killing wrong?
I feel like this question can also be applied to issues such as the death penalty, so I will answer that as well. First off, I would prefer if there was no need for war at all. I don’t support war and killing, but I do support it when it needs to be done, which is not sinful when it is done in the right context, which I will explain.
But as for the death penalty, first, we must remember that God has instituted capital punishment in His Word; therefore, it would be presumptuous of us to think that we could institute a higher standard. God has the highest standard of any being; He is perfect. This standard applies not only to us but to Himself. Therefore, He loves to an infinite degree, and He has mercy to an infinite degree. We also see that He has wrath to an infinite degree, and it is all maintained in a perfect balance.
Second, we must recognize that God has given government the authority to determine when capital punishment is due (Genesis 9:6; Romans 13:1-7). It is unbiblical to claim that God opposes the death penalty in all instances. Christians should never rejoice when the death penalty is employed, but at the same time, Christians should not fight against the government’s right to execute the perpetrators of the most evil of crimes.
The death penalty should be, and in most cases is, employed only with the most evil of crimes. It was God who ordained the death penalty (Genesis 9:6) and it is God who gives governments the authority to enforce the death penalty (Romans 13:1-7).
If one person murders another person, the just penalty is to end the life of the murderer. This actually upholds the value of life. Anyone who violates life in premeditated murder should be put to death – proclaiming clear support for the value of life. Sometimes the best way to uphold the value of life is to end the lives of those seeking to destroy life.
Now, as for being pro-life, and still being in favor of killing in a war when it is necessary, there are no exceptions to the whole “thou shall not kill” thing. No, there are no exceptions. There’s a big, big difference between someone who goes around killing someone willy-nilly, and ending the life of someone who does go around killing the life that. Christians are commanded to be pro-life and support and fight for the value of life. If one person murders another person, the just penalty is to end the life of the murderer. This actually upholds the value of life. Anyone who violates life in premeditated murder should be put to death – proclaiming clear support for the value of life. Sometimes the best way to uphold the value of life is to end the lives of those seeking to destroy life.
We took Saddam Hussein out of power because he killed innocent people. We had to kill, in order to protect innocent life, and to put a terrorist regime out of power.
And lastly, so many people misinterpret the word ‘kill’ from the Bible. They see ‘thou shall not kill’ and think that applies to ALL forms of killing, which is not the case at all.
You would be correct if the original Hebrew text meant ‘kill’ as in killing anything in absolutely any circumstance. But the actual Hebrew word, actually translates to ‘murder’ in English, not kill. The original word used was ‘ratsach,’ which means premeditated, unjustified killing, otherwise known as murder. So no, it doesn’t go against a commandment. So in this sense, the commandment is actually saying, ‘thou shall not murder,’ which is much different than ‘kill.’ If you want to learn more about it, check this out.
And for a more in depth look at what the Bible actually says about war, read this article:
Anyway, I’ve given you some of my thoughts on Ron Paul now. I want to make clear that I am not looking for war, even if it seems that I am making the case that that is what’s needed. I’m actually in favor of covert operations in Iran to take out their nuclear programs before it is too late. I also would support an Israeli first strike, if that is what happened. Put yourself in their shoes. They already had one holocaust where 6,000,000 Jews were slaughtered. Except this time another 6,000,000 could be annihilated instantly. If I’m Israel, and I hear Iran repeatedly vowing on international television that they will wipe us ‘off the map,’ then I will do whatever it takes to ensure Iran does not have that opportunity. Also keep in mind, that Iran has been at war with the United States since the Iranian Revolution in 1979. I do not wish for another war, but sadly, I see another one coming. And that’s not just from me, but also from Biblical Eschatology. (Look up the War of Gog and Magog, described in Ezekiel Chapters 36-39, which the Bible says will take place in the Last Days before Christ’s return).
And to answer your last question if I think he will win the nomination, no I do not think he will. I think he has a decent shot at winning a few states, such as Iowa, but in the long run, I do not see him winning the GOP nomination. I think it will be Romney. One thing that I cannot in anyway support though, is that if Ron Paul decides to go and run as and Independent third party. That would be disastrous, and would automatically ensure that the incumben was re-elected again, just like it has every other time throughout history. If Ron Paul does not get the nomination, and truly cares about America like he says he does and truly wants to get President Obama out of the White House, he will not run Independently, and should throw his support behind whichever GOP candidate gets the nomination.
Now for Newt Gingrich:
Here is what Michael Farris had to say on him:
“Newt Gingrich wants to be remembered in history. He has succeeded. History will long remember that Gingrich’s refusal to leave the contest cost Santorum the nomination, which in turn delivered the nomination to Romney, which guaranteed the election of Barack Obama. Obama will then have led to the demise of a free America into a deep descent into socialism. Newt will deserve all of the credit and will long be remembered for his vain decision to stay in the race.”
That is definitely a con for Conservatives, as Gingrich did split the Conservative vote, which forced Santorum to drop out. Another con of Gingrich is as everyone knows, his many failed marriages, cheating on his wife, adultery, etc. However, I’d like to point you to the fact that Ronald Reagan was also divorced, and he ended up being the one of the most successful and beloved Conservative President’s in history, and nowadays everyone is always trying to invoke Ronald Reagan while campaigning. But how would I respond to the following accusation, which I previously answered on my site?
1512. so in response to your last answer regarding divorce, how could you possibly support newt gingrich? it’s a complete double standard. he hasn’t been divorced just once but twice and partook in adultery while condemning bill clinton over monica lewinsky!
First, I do not yet know who I am throwing my support behind.
Second, do you believe in the power of forgiveness?
Ephesians 1:7 (ESV)
7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace
If you yourself are a Christian, and deny the fact that ANY person can be forgiven by God if they are earnest, then you have some backwards beliefs yourself.
Third, every single one of us is a sinner. No one sin is greater than the other. In God’s eyes, sin is sin, and every sin is deserving of punishment in Hell, until we ask for forgiveness.
Ecclesiastes 7:20 (ESV)
20 Surely there is not a righteous man on earth who does good and never sins.
Romans 6:23 (ESV)
23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Fourth, if it came down to Obama vs. Gingrich in the general election, I would 100% throw my support behind Gingrich. At least Gingrich admits that he has sinned and admits that he has sought God and asked for forgiveness for his wrongs. But you want to talk about double standards? Take a look at President Obama and abortion.
Jeremiah 1:5 (ESV)
5 “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you;
13 For you eformed my inward parts;
you fknitted me together in my mother’s womb.
14 I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made.1
gWonderful are your works;
my soul knows it very well.
15 hMy frame was not hidden from you,
when I was being made in secret,
intricately woven in ithe depths of the earth.
16 Your eyes saw my unformed substance;
in your jbook were written, every one of them,
the days that were formed for me,
when as yet there was none of them.
And in fact, the penalty for ‘abortion’ during the Old Testament was the death penalty!
22 “When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23 But if there is harm,4 then you shall pay life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
I can not in good conscious, ever support a politician who is pro-abortion. And President Obama has the most pro-abortion record in history. Seriously. Have you ever heard of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act? Did you know that then-Senator Obama fought for a woman’s right to kill her child, AFTER it was born and out of the womb? THAT is what is messed up. Advocating infanticide and outright murder, and that is the definition of morally messed up. And for anyone who knows this little-known truth about our President and continues to support him, I think you might want to do a little evaluating of your own morals as well. For all of the evidence, senate voting records, transcripts, and more on this topic, check out:
I don’t recall President Obama ever asking forgiveness for his public ‘sins’ as Gingrich did. So you tell me, if you are going off of morals…Would you rather have a President who was an admitted adulter and asked for forgiveness with a sincere heart? Or one who advocated, and allowed the continued murder of children inside and OUTSIDE of the womb, continues to stand by this stance to this day, and has sought no repentance?
Other pros of Gingrich, are that he is incredibly intelligent. I would pay money to see him debate Barack Obama. He kills it on the debate floor, and gives very well-thought, thorough, common sense solutions. I do believe that if he ever got to be President (which he won’t) that he would do a lot to advance the Conservative agenda. He is after all the only House Speaker who ever balanced the budget, and he did organize the first Republican takeover of the House in decades. He is obviously good at what he does.
However, another con is that he is very arrogant. I do think he has gotten better getting his attitude under control over the years, but it is still very apparent at times that he still has an arrogance problem. Part of his being so arrogant though, is the fact that he often knows much, much more information than any of the other candidates, and knows a lot more about the history of America, and what works and what doesn’t.
And now for Mitt Romney.
Ironically, I will post the least amount of information about him, compared to the other candidates, because honestly, it doesn’t make much of a difference now. Mitt Romney IS going to be the Republican nominee for President of the United States. I expounded on Romney a bit at the very start of this blog, and the truth is that Mitt Romney is perceived as more of a moderate. There is a justifiable reason for this as well.
Mitt Romney’s record as Governor of Massachusetts was incredibly liberal. RomneyCare passed, which was used as a model for ObamaCare. Homosexual marriage was legalized. Spending increased and tax revenues shot up. Romney had the opportunity to appoint dozens of judicial appointments, and about 75% of them were very liberal. So you have to ask, if you are a Conservative, why all of this?
Another problem that some Christians might have with Mitt Romney is his Mormon belief, which many Christians view as not Christian, and somewhat of a cult.
However, what Romney has going for him now, is that his views do appear to have changed from what they were when he was Governor. The Republican Party is finally starting to coalesce around him, and Romney IS a very successful businessman. And what most people are concerned about with this election, IS the economy. That, and if Romney were to win the Presidency, there is NO WAY that he could pass some of the same policies that he did in liberal Massachusetts. He would be a one-term President. He would be forced to act upon many of his campaign promises, as he wouldn’t be able to afford to tick off and isolate the Conservatives in the country, which got him to where he is. That, and Mitt Romney will likely appoint a very Conservative Vice Presidential nominee. As of right now, it is appearing more and more likely that it will be Senator Marco Rubio from Florida, whom I actually do like very much.
Romney has an uphill climb in defeating Obama, especially with his past as a Moderate, and Moderates typically do not win. However, polls last week had Romney up over Obama by 5 points, which is a pretty wide lead. Those will continue to fluctuate though up until the election. What Romney has going for him is Obama’s unpopularity right now, and how unsuccessful Obama has been at getting the economy growing. If Romney does appoint a very Conservative VP, if the economy is still dragging along, and if Obama continues to be unpopular, then Mitt Romney does have a chance at beating Barack Obama in November.