Ideas have consequences, and so do national policies. Ten years after our invasion of Iraq, many Americans remain largely unaware of the negative consequences of the interventionist foreign policy shared by our current President and his predecessor. Not least among these consequences is the increased persecution of Christians in Arab nations.
Andrew Noran’s recent article from The American Conservative, entitled How the Iraq War Became a War on Christians, shines much needed light on this particular fruit of American intervention overseas:
[O]n March 19, 2003, Operation Iraqi Freedom commenced. Shortly after combat operations concluded on May 1, the real conflict began. Amid the chaos and sectarian violence that followed, Iraq’s Christians suffered severe persecution. Neither the military nor the State Department took action to protect them. In October 2003, human rights expert Nina Shea noted that religious freedom and a pluralistic Iraq were not high priorities for the administration, concluding that its “diffidence on religious freedom suggests Washington’s relative indifference to this basic human right.” Shea added, “Washington’s refusal to insist on guarantees of religious freedom threatens to undermine its already difficult task of securing a fully democratic government in Iraq”—more prescience that would be likewise disregarded.
The article goes on to show how the democratic governments we installed in the Middle East have been, for the most part, worse than the regimes they replaced. And how our country—during Republican as well as Democratic administrations—has refused to acknowledge the plight of Arab Christians as religious persecution, even as we continue to pursue a course of action in Syria that is resulting in the same consequences there.
For the record, I don’t believe that there has been malicious intent toward Middle Eastern Christians from either President Bush or President Obama, nor from the many American citizens who also support an interventionist foreign policy. Rather, I believe that the persecution being faced by our brothers and sisters in places like Iraq and Egypt is truly an unintended consequence. But there’s a difference between unintended and unforeseen. There were those who predicted such consequences prior to the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom, and have been consistently warning us about where such policies will lead us.
In my last post, I demonstrated through historical documents what I believe to be clear: that the 2nd Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights with the express purpose of giving American citizens the ability to defend themselves against all aggressors, particularly the American military. Today I want to say just a few things about specific gun-related issues that have come to the forefront of public discussion in the last month.
On Banning “Assault Weapons”
Most of the debate lately has been centered on various efforts to introduce legislation restricting the sale, transfer, and manufacture of so-called “assault weapons”, particularly the proposed Assault Weapons Bill from Senator Dianne Feinstein. Naturally, emotions tend to run very high on this issue. I can certainly understand the Senator’s especially passionate abhorrence of gun violence; being a witness to the aftermath of the grisly murders of two colleagues is bound to leave a mark. Still, emotions must not be allowed to cloud judgment on either side of the gun control debate.
So first off, let me say a word about the terminology used in the debate. It’s important to note that the term “assault weapon” didn’t exist before 1989, though the purveyors of Newspeak who created the term have done an excellent job convincing many that the weapons in this category — chosen arbitrarily based on their cosmetic appearance rather than on functionality — are particularly “dangerous”. The truth about “assault weapons” is that there is nothing inherent in them that makes them better suited for “assault” than for any other use (defense, sporting, hunting, etc).
Incidentally, the “AR” in the oft-villified AR-15 does NOT stand for “Assault Rifle”. It is the designation for the gun’s designer, ArmaLite.inc, which uses the AR prefix on all of their handguns and rifles (not just the scary-looking ones).
Personally, I’d like to see the term “assault weapon” reserved for weapons that have actually been used in assaulting someone. For instance, the revolver used to kill George Moscone and Harvey Milk was an assault weapon. The revolver used by a mother to ward off an intruder in her Georgia home recently was a defensive weapon.
By my definition, I would say that we do need a ban on “assault weapons”. But, of course, we already have that. Using a weapon to perpetrate a crime is already illegal in all 50 states. I am all for stricter enforcement of laws prohibiting rape, murder, burglary (etc.) and harsher punishments for those who commit them. But banning more weapons and adding more gun control laws only takes the means of defense away from law-abiding citizens.
“Nobody Is Trying to Take Guns from Hunters”
One thing the gun control advocates keep throwing out there is the “reassurance” that they have no intention of taking guns away from hunters. They only want to take away the guns that are meant to kill people. You know, like AR-15′s.
So, of course, gun owners are quick to argue that some people do hunt with AR-15′s. True as that may be, why is it that they feel the need to offer that defense in the first place? It only validates the false premise that guns intended for protection from people are not covered by the second amendment.
Of course, no law-abiding citizen wants to use a weapon against a person. The vast majority of guns owned by Americans arenever needed in defensive situations (as it should be!). But the fact remains that there are bad people in the world. If there weren’t, there would be no need for anyone to own a weapon — including the police and military.
So what happens when the police and the military are the bad guys?
Please note that I am NOT saying that this is a present reality; but I AM saying that this is precisely the potential reality against which the 2nd Amendment was designed to protect. Lest we think that this could never happen, consider the sobering reality that death by governmentwas the #1 cause of death worldwide in the 20th century, and that the modus operandi of tyrannical governments always includes attempting to disarm the people… including His Majesty King George, whose soldiers marched on Lexington and Concord in 1775. (Think the men who wrote our Constitution and Bill of Rights didn’t know a gun could kill a man as well as a deer?)
With that being the case, what is wrong with saying that you know exactly what purposes a gun can serve, and that its ability to neutralize a threat — including the threat of hostile, well-trained and well-armed agents of one’s own government — is exactly the reason you want it?
How YOU Benefit from Concealed Carry Rights
While the “gun control” and “gun rights” camps engage in a duel of statistics to try to prove their respective cases, the most important statistic relative to gun violence is one that can’t be reported because it can’t be known: the number of crimes that are not committed due to the deterrent factor of CCW rights.
How many homes are not burgled because the residents might be armed? How many women are not raped because they might have guns? How many public gatherings are not the scenes of mass shootings because someone, anyone might have the means to stop it? There’s simply no way to know.
What we do know is that the vast majority of “successful” (in the worst sense of the word) mass shootings in the last several decades have taken place in locations in which guns were banned, meaning that all law-abiding citizens were unarmed. I don’t know… maybe it’s a coincidence.
And this is to say nothing of the countless (and largely unreported) instances each year in which responsible gun owners are able to defend themselves and others from would-be attackers — in most cases without firing a shot (as in this instance right here in TN just a few days ago). Whether they realize it or not, all American citizens benefit from the presence and discipline of millions of responsible gun owners. For the record, I would say that whether I was personally a gun owner or not.
Which, by the way, I won’t say; not online. It seems that most on the “gun rights” side of the issue tend to either proudly identify themselves as gun owners, or are quick to clarify that they feel strongly about the issue though they choose not to own weapons themselves. I am thankful that Americans have the right to decide for themselves whether they want to own or carry a gun, and I respect the decisions of others to follow their own convictions. But honestly, I’d rather just not say. When criminals know you’re unarmed, you become a target. The same is true when they know that you are armed (as seen recently where names and addresses of gun owners were published by a terribly irresponsible newspaper). The security is in the uncertainty.
The Last Word (for now…)
My greatest wish in all this is that both sides would tone down the vitriol, and start reasoning together from common ground. Everyone involved in this debate — from Mitch McConnell to Dianne Feinstein, from Sean Hannity to Piers Morgan, from the President of the NRA to the President of the USA — everyone agrees on one goal: reducing gun violence in America. Sure, they disagree vehemently on the strategies for doing so, and on their interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, but the one thing that is sure to not work is maintaining the status quo. And until we can move past the rhetoric of vilification and have an honest, thoughtful, passionate debate with the goal of working together toward somethingwe all want, we’re going nowhere.
With less than a month to go before the election, political blog posts are popping up everywhere, as expected. My blog is certainly no exception, though I expect that from here on out I’ll turn my attention back toward other matters for a little while.
Today, though, I just want to highlight some prominent Christian thinkers/authors who have written strong arguments in favor of a particular viewpoint of how Christians should approach the election. There seem to be only two real options out there, with a few varieties of each: 1) Voting against Obama (as opposed to voting for Romney), or 2) Voting your conscience (either a third-party candidate or abstaining).
It comes as no surprise that I’ve not seen any posts titled “Why Conservatives Should Vote for Obama”, but I think it’s telling that I also haven’t seen anyone really talking about how much they love Mitt Romney. Maybe I just don’t run in that crowd. If you’re aware of a staunchly pro-Romney article from an evangelical perspective, I’d love to see it.
Here are some of the best representative articles of what our options appear to be:
In the current political system in the United States, every vote for every candidate is much more a vote for one party or another than for the candidate. This is because laws are not passed by individuals but only by one political party the other, under the leadership of that party’s elected officials. Therefore Americans need to choose which column best represents their view, and then vote for candidates in the party that represents that column.
You want to make a difference? Vote for the only candidate with any possibility of making any positive difference in any of the categories I’ve outlined. That would be — much as I regret to have to say it — Mitt Romney.
Phillips’ fellow Pyromaniac Frank Turk makes a similar argument, utilizing mathematics. Primaries, he says, are the place to vote your conscience. But in the general elections,
You have to vote for someone with a mathematical likelihood of winning if you really want to affect change… a vote against Obama but not for Romney ensures Obama’s victory.
One variation on this theme is seen in those who argue explicitly against voting for the Democratic Platform, without actually endorsing a candidate. This is best represented in this John MacArthur clip from last Sunday:
Voting Your Conscience
What of those who can’t bring themselves to pull the trigger for Romney, yet know they can’t vote for Obama?
Douglas Wilson attempts to carve out a position in which he can prefer a Romney win on one level, yet not vote for him to help make it happen. Though many have critiqued this as an illogical viewpoint, he makes a good case for it. And while he thinks that Obama will lose, he feels “we will deserve everything we get” if Obama wins.
So I grant that Obama is bad and that double Obama will be double bad. Got it. And I grant that Obama will be far worse than Romney if you placed them side by side and kept them there. But who is going to follow Romney? Will it be eight years of Romney, then eight years of Ryan, and then the millennium? Come on. Republicans will do what Republicans do, which is to say, they will screw it up somehow. They always seek to propitiate the gods of bipartisanship.
Thabiti Anyabwile says that he won’t vote. In his first argument for why not, he turns to W.E.B. DuBois for justification in protesting a “helpless vote” by not voting. After taking a lot of heat he wrote an excellent follow-up article, the best part of which is his insistence that Christians need to “care about abortion and more than abortion.” I couldn’t agree more!
It’s not rhetoric I want in my candidate, or invented lives and embellished pasts, faux images and focus-group-tailored soundbites. I want to elect a free man, someone who stands flat-footed and leans into the cross-current of moral drift with conviction and courage. If he’s out there, he has my vote. And if a two-party system denies a righteous man opportunity to stand for justice then the system itself is the evil we need to oppose.
Principles for Voting
Perhaps the most helpful thing to keep in mind this November are certain Biblical principles which should guide our voting. Many Christian leaders have spoken on this without endorsing any candidate or platform (which, by the way, is the best way for a pastor to address politics from the pulpit, in my opinion). The best succinct version of this is R.C. Sproul’s article Principles for Voting, much of which is taken from his excellent book on Abortion.
Another excellent resource is Tony Evans’ new book How Should Christians Vote?The book is this month’s free download from ChristianAudio. I listened to it this weekend. I’ll try to get a full review posted sometime this week, but for now I commend it to you. It’s less than two-and-a-half hours from start to finish, and will be well worth your time.
As for me, I’ve all but made up my mind, but I’m probably not going to tell you who I’m voting for. In fact, I’m probably not going to write much more about the election until it’s over. I am interested in hearing your take on these articles, though. Who speaks for you? Are there any viewpoints I’m missing?
As debates go, last night was a bloodbath. Mitt Romney somehow (maybe it was the chipotle?) transformed himself into a master of disputation. He looked confident, spoke well, maintained eye contact, and kept the incumbent on his heels all night.
That said, did he persuade me last night that he’d make a great leader for our country? No. But today I want to do something that may surprise you… and it’s sort of surprising me, too. But because I really do believe what I said in my last post, I have to be willing to question my convictions and make sure that something as important as my vote can be done with integrity. So I’m looking at reasons why an enthusiastic Ron Paul supporter might want to vote for a man whom Paul himself refuses to endorse.
I’m going to do this by way of interacting with a post Dan Phillips published yesterday, which represents the more persuasive arguments I’ve yet read in favor of voting for Romney despite my many objections to his positions on the role and size of government, the economy, foreign policy, etc. Phillips is brash and condescending, but the points he makes are worthy of reflection. I encourage you — especially those of you who, like me, are conservative Christians who throw up in your mouth a little bit at the thought of voting for Romney this Fall — to read his post. If our convictions are based on a true foundation, they can stand up to this kind of questioning:
Phillips’ analysis of reasons why many Christians choose to vote third-party is pretty accurate. The promise of immediate “fixes” to the ailments of government is alluring but impractical. What he calls “incrementalism” is indeed what is needed. Those who think a third-party candidate could instantly reverse decades of decay are kidding themselves. That said, guys like Gary Johnson and Ron Paul are talking about making incremental rather than drastic changes. More on this later.
Also in this opening section is a link to a clip from a John MacArthur sermon that shouldn’t be missed. He’s a pastor who never talks about politics, but his comparison of the 2012 Democratic Party platform to the “unrighteousness” described in Romans 1:18-32 is incisive and damning. Whatever options are before us as Christian conservatives this Fall, Obama cannot be one of them!
Why a third-party vote this year is foolish and irresponsible
Here Phillips raises six points:
The “Lesser of Two Evils” Argument — In one sense, this is absolutely correct. All political candidates are fallen and fallible, and that must be taken into consideration. At the same time, is there a difference between saying “the lesser of two evils” and “the lesser of two sinners“? I think so. As someone who has used that phrase before, perhaps I should clarify. I’m a firm believer in the power of the free market, and do consider economics to be a serious ethical issue. So when I say “the lesser of two evils“, what I really mean is “the lesser of two big-government Keynesians“, but that doesn’t quite have the same ring.
Politics Is the Art of the Possible — Phillips is right that in this Fall’s election, there are only two teams on the field. No third-party candidate has a snowball’s chance in hell of becoming president. And I’m willing to concede that the consequences of one side’s victory are more catastrophic than the other’s. The real problem is that I’m tired of playing this game! However, the point is well taken that this is a Republic, and the likelihood of a viable third party is not in our near future… which is why I applaud the efforts of the “Tea Party” and those such as Ron and Rand Paul who have focused their efforts on bringing reform to the GOP rather than trying to go it alone.
Third-Party Candidates Will Accomplish Nothing — First off, since when does winning an election mean campaign promises are going to be kept? Obviously the President can’t do things on his own, which is why the executive must be willing to work with his legislature (something Romney does have in his favor) to accomplish anything. But it’s unfair to say that third-party candidates can’t do this. Gary Johnson has a great track record of getting things done in a bipartisan manner while Governor of New Mexico, and Ron Paul has shown that it is very possible to work with people on both sides of the Congressional aisle.
All Third-Party Candidates Are Immature, Fools, or Liars — This is true if we accept the presupposition that the only purpose in running for office is to win. But it’s often in a “losing” effort that the seeds are planted for future victories (see the Republican Party of the 1850′s, for example). I can’t speak for others, but I think most third-party voters understand that their candidate has no chance of winning. Those who believe strongly enough in a message are willing to invest in its propagation even when they know most won’t receive it… yet.
I Want to Make a Difference, not a Gesture — When I’m being totally honest with myself, this is what gives me the most pause. What is my motive for wanting to vote third-party? Is it because I genuinely believe I can make a difference, or is it really all about me? Ultimately, though, this comes down to strategy. Assuming I believe that making a difference and making a gesture are not mutually exclusive, what is the best way for me to make a difference? I have one vote, and one voice. Am I best serving the “cause” by voting a particular short-term outcome, or by consistently advocating for better policies? Can I have it both ways? These are tough questions.
Abortion and Supreme Court Justices — I share Phillips’ concern here. Typically I think the “this is the most important election EVER” rhetoric (which we hear every four years) is totally bunk, but with three SCOTUS members entering their 80′s in the next four years (and another in his late 70′s), this really is a potentially momentous election, as the makeup of our nation’s top court could radically change very quickly, and for a long time. There’s no guarantee Romney would make great appointments (John Roberts, anyone?), but we already know Obama won’t.
So what about not voting?
Is Phillips guilty of a little fear-mongering here? Maybe, but he’s right. Staying on the sidelines is the worst decision you could make (unless you like Obama, in which case not voting is perfectly acceptable). Get involved!
But I’m voting my conscience!
While I agree that Christians often over-use the “conscience card”, and that the conscience can be wrong (1 Tim. 4:2, etc.), I also contend that there is a proper use of the conscience. I believe that people can act with wisdom and obedience to God’s Word, arriving at different conclusions with a clear conscience, without sinning. That said, as of this moment there is not a single name on the presidential ballot for which I could vote with a totally clear conscience… which is why I’m still in the process of informing my conscience.
Romney’s pro-life credentials
There are many reasons I don’t like Mitt Romney, but this isn’t one of them. Sure, he hasn’t had the most consistent past in this area, but that doesn’t mean his conversion to the pro-life cause isn’t genuine. And I actually agree with Romney that putting abortion laws back in the hands of the states is the best strategy to fight abortion.
But he’s a Mormon!
This is the stupidest reason not to vote for Romney. Phillips is exactly right about seeing Romney’s Mormonism as an opportunity for evangelical Christians to explain the true gospel in contrast to Romney’s views.
Where does this leave me?
Still somewhat undecided, for a couple reasons:
None of the third-party candidates are particularly appealing. Politically I have most in common with Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson, but his stance on abortion rules him out in my book — it’s one of the reasons I liked Dr. Paul so much. Pro-life libertarians are a rare breed, but he has been 100% consistent in saying that being pro-life is essential to liberty for his entire political career. The only other third-party candidate that even remotely comes close to matching my political convictions is Virgil Goode of the Constitution Party… a singularly unexciting man who has many policy issues I don’t share.
I still haven’t forgiven the RNC for their blatant disregard for grassroots voters and party rules.The GOP will continue to employ those type of shenanigans as long as it feels enough disgusted conservatives will vote for them anyway.
There are still some things that Mitt Romney could do that would win me fully over into his camp. If he gave assurances that the libertarian-leaning wing of the GOP would have some input in his administration (how about Ron Paul for Treasury Secretary and Andrew Napolitano for Attorney General?) voting for him would be a lot easier.
What it finally comes down to for me is this: Is this election really the most critical election of my lifetime? I’m not convinced that it is. For the GOP to change into a truly conservative party, it will have to lose another election to see that guys like Romney, McCain, George Bush (take your pick) and Bob Dole aren’t going to cut it. A Romney win in 2012 puts a “real” change off by at least 8 years… years which will see our national debt continue to skyrocket beyond its already unsustainable levels. Can we afford that?
On the other hand, change can come much quicker in the Legislature than in the Oval Office. As liberty-minded citizens continue to get more and more active in local, state, and Congressional races, the people can begin to wrest power back from the federal government. Perhaps Rand Paul is the future of the Ron Paul Revolution… endorsing an awful Republican candidate in the hopes of having greater influence on the party down the road. At the very least, Romney would be less hostile to liberty than the alternative, if only marginally so.
If Ron Paul had decided to run as an Independent, he’d have my vote in a heartbeat, and my conscience would be totally clear regardless of who won the election. As it stands, though, I can’t quite rule Romney out, much as it sickens me to say so. But if I do vote for him, don’t expect me to be happy about it. He may get my vote after all (still doubtful), but he won’t get my endorsement.
I’m not usually a big fan of online polls/quizzes, but came across one today that is very thorough and, in my case at least, quite accurate. The website iSideWith.com has put together a quiz designed to show you how you line up ideologically with the different political candidates. It’s nice that you have the option of taking it as a fast quiz, with simple “yes” or “no” answers to a few questions on important issues, but there are options to “choose another stance” with a more detailed answer, as well as identifying how important a given topic is to you. As if that weren’t enough detail, for many categories you can click an option to see more questions.
I’m fairly certain that no one is going to be surprised at my results, which easily identified my top choice in the upcoming presidential election:
Click to enlarge
After you take the quiz, you will see even more details about your results. For instance, you can see exactly how each candidate answers each question in the quiz, and how you line up with others in your state.
Whether or not your vote this Fall is already determined, you might learn a few things you didn’t know about some of the candidates. Take the quiz, and if you like, leave a comment with your results!
