Dear Editor,

I saw an article in the American Family Association Journal entitled "Christians wrestle with weighty war issues." The first header in the article exclaimed "Celebrity prattle may grab headlines, but Christians add substance to debate." Well after scanning the article I was unable to find anything said by any Christian in the whole of it that was adding one cubit to the stature of the debate on the Iraq war by their taking thought. These so-called theological minds merely regurgitated the tired worn out tripe that we have been inundated with on the air ways, news papers and internet.

I liken their contribution to the debate to be no more solid or historical than what the Hollywood celebrities have added. Let’s not forget too that modern broke down and occulted mainstream Christian churches also produce their "Celebrities," Hal Lindsey, Chuck Colson, John Hagie, James Kennedy and Gary Bauer, to name just a few. These Christian Celebrities, all together, have added as little to the debate of the attack upon Iraq as all the empty headed Hollywood celebrities. I want to give you just a taste of so-called Conservative Christian "prattle" they spit up:

  1. Just cause - Iraq has attacked Kuwait, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Israel and the Kurds, their own people.
  2. Just intent - We are going to liberate them and unify them not destroy, conquer or exploit them.
  3. Last Resort – Saddam ignores UN Security Council resolution.
  4. Legitimate Authority – US can ignore UN Security Council because we are "only necessary authorizing vehicle."
  5. Limited Goals – Bush plan to disarm and destroy weapons and liberate Iraq justifies war.
  6. Noncombatant Immunity - Bush will minimize noncombatant casualties.
  7. Proportionality – The human cost of the armed conflict to both sides will be proportionate to the stated objectives and goals. Cost of "not dealing" with Saddam will be more expensive in the future.

Does that sound like scholarship to you? That prattle can be shown to be fallacious with cowboy logic: 1. Why attack a country 10 years after the fact when all their neighbors could care less? Our desire to finish job left undone is no cause. I think we should finish the British off too. What’s 10 years or 100 years? 2. " We are going to liberate the Iraqis and unify them? Who are the great orators of liberty that we aid in Iraq? Name somebody like our old ambassador to France, Benjamin Franklin. 3 and 4. Saddam ignores UN Security Council Resolution and for that Bush ignores a UN Security Council Resolution to force Saddam into compliance. This is outrageous! 5. Bush plan to disarm and destroy weapons not found by the UN justifies war? If they found the weapons would that also mean that Bush was going to punish Iraq? Iraq was doomed either way under King George Bush. 6. All a King has to do is say he’s going to minimize non-combatant deaths and that becomes legal ground to attack any nation? 7. I love this one. Deaths on both sides has been planned to be proportional to the objectives and goals. What are we doing buying a car? Or are we planning a new corporate merger? What kind of Christian talk is that? Low cost war is OK. No better yet, balanced death toll is OK. Even better yet, if we can show some nation may have ability in the future to resist us, we can "Shock and Awe" them into liberation!

I am alarmed at what so called "conservative Christian" influence in society has become. The article mentioned the Principles of Just War several times and its Biblical foundation. The article went on, " Because it is not a strict ethical framework, the principles themselves are open to broad interpretation. But most Christian thinkers see their value in pointing to the right questions and thus helping to focus debate on the relevant problems."

The article mentioned the liberal views as against the war and the conservative views as for the war. My view is that neither side of the Christian spectrum focused on the relevant problems. There was no mention of the Christian contributions to the principles of civil government in the following areas critical to a real debate on Iraq:

    1. No mention of Thomas Hobbes the Christian Father of Political Science who stated in his book, The Leviathan, that the Kingdom of Heaven had been established upon Earth and that the principles of government in it were capable of being derived.
    2. No mention of the Christian patriot Algernon Sidney, beheaded for his book, Discourses Concerning Government, against monarchy in general.
    3. No mention of the landmark work, the foundation of the US Constitution, The First and Second Treatise of Civil Government by the Christian, John Locke.
    4. No mention of The Law by the Christian Frederic Bastiat, a powerful indictment against the perversion of the purpose of law to serve the greedy. This work could be called John Locke with attitude.

Because these four little Christians were not mentioned modern Christians, liberal and conservative, had no way to contribute anything beyond more of the same irrelevant tripe pumped out by the New World Order. It just so happens that all the real questions concerning this Iraq mess could have been determined with ease with knowing only these men and their work since 1650.

The relevant problems to be pointed out are that, unlike the so called Biblical "principles of a Just War" alluded to in the article, the US Constitution is crystal clear that:

    1. Only Congress has authority to Declare War.
    2. Congress cannot pass its authority to Declare or Make War to the President with a resolution without changing the form of government consented to by the people and resulting in a dissolution of the government.
    3. The UN is totally without authority in any nation because the people of sovereign nations do not pass their powers beyond their own legislatures to a foreign body. All UN Resolutions are irrelevant.
    4. George Bush and the US Congress are operating outside the law of the land and no longer have legal authority nor are inhabitants of this land under any obligation whatsoever to obey their future directives.

Have we not all heard these weak "conservative" points until we are absolutely blue in the face? Who has the oxygen? Our forefathers and Christian patriots have the oxygen. I also reviewed the 8 websites they gave in the article and found nothing at all concerning the principles of civil government. Finally, let me say that our Christian forefathers and the principles of civil government that they learned from the Christian patriots preceding them dismiss those seven points and protect Americans from the fatality of being misled by such ramblings. It becomes obvious that it is not logic or principle that drives our nation but media and its power to pound the inhabitants into idiots upon the anvil of repetition.


Ronald F. Avery