The Emotional Argument for War

Recently Janet Parshall–whose commitment to the Republican Party seems to overshadow her commitment to Scriptures– brought on a young lady who fled the tyranny of Saddam to the US to bathe in the splendor of the American Dream. Parshall without hesitation used that emotional scenario to propagate the oft repeated argument: The World is better off without Saddam, therefore Bush was correct to invade Iraq. This unfortunate argument (also used by radio stars like Sean Hannity) is not only misleading, but harmful. This reminds us again that when you repeat something long enough you are undoubtedly going to take some with you. This line of thinking has been so abused that those who are avowed Bush supporters have forgotten the original reason for the invasion: WMD’s. Remember those? But of course, once that theory was abolished, something had to replace it. Hence, the world is better off without Saddam. As I have stated elsewhere, Saddam needs to be judged quickly and put to death quickly, but to invade a nation on false pretense is unbiblical and unconstitutional. The US has no right or authority to police the world and take down dictators at her own pleasure. The emotional argument of a young teen will not replace the ethical and moral responsibilities of a nation. Perhaps taking down our own “dictators” will be a more responsible task.

About these ads

About Uri Brito

I am the Pastor of Providence Church (CREC) in Pensacola, Fl.
This entry was posted in War. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to The Emotional Argument for War

  1. Anonymous says:

    How is it unbiblical? Show me the scriptures man.

  2. U.T. Brito says:

    You ask how is it unbiblical? I ask how is it Biblical? Show me the Scriptures! The burden of proof is on those who favor the war. Since this decision to go to war has affected many lives it rests upon those who favor it to establish a Biblical, Constitutional, and ethical basis for doing so. Thus far, I have found nothing. If God ordains according to Romans 13 that a nation is to protect its own citizens, not to spread “democracy (which by the way is not the government of our nation-we are a republic…just count up to the 16th word of our Pledge of Allegiance) around the world or to protect those who do not wish to abide by our terms of citizenship as I stated in a previous article. Scroll back to an article entitled: Bahnsen on War for further expose.
    It is unbiblical to pursue terms that are highly ethical in orientation and highly unbiblical in nature. I can’t give you more for what I have already made clear. Plese interact!

  3. Pingback: What happened to the Christians in Iraq? « Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s