Christian Leaders Say No To Christian Militia
I have previously attempted to explain and rebuke the pacifist sickness that affects the Christian Church, but it seems that the examples of said sickness are sadly numerous and still surfacing. Apparently, many Christian leaders would rather see their parishioners and congregants beheaded than defended.
The Kurdish government wants to give weapons to Iraqi Christians so that they can defend themselves, but there are (not surprisingly) Christian leaders who are actually against the giving of arms.
The lending of guns to the Christians is desired by President Masud Barzani of the Autonomous Region of Kurdistan, who said he is willing to commit to the idea. But Chaldean Patriarch Louis Raphael Sako I responded that the idea of weapons to the Christians would be destructive, saying "the forces of the state should take charge of this defense" and that such a diversity of militias "can destroy Iraq".
Lebanese Maronite Patriarch Bechara Boutros Rai also gave his objections to the idea of a Christian militia, saying that it would be "illegitimate" and that it would result in "law of the jungle and an increase in crime."
Both Catholic and Evangelical voices objected to the protest of the Patriarch on giving weapons to the Christians. Kishore Jayabalan, Rome director of the Catholic organization, Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty, said
I understand why the patriarch doesn't want to see Christian militias in place of the state's protection of all its citizens, as it is a fundamental duty of a state to do so… But the problem is that [state protection] isn't happening, and something has to be done to stop the gruesome attacks of the Islamic State.Jayabalan also made it clear that a militia is the only choice for the Christians because no nation is helping them:
What authority can they appeal to? Western governments won't act effectively because they fear being seen as sectarianEvangelical pastor Michel Youssef, an advocate of armed Christian civilians in Iraq, said:
only way to protect our families and friends from attacks, because we are tired of waiting for an action from the government, which is preoccupied with politics and never looks after us.Benjamin Harnwell, founder of the Catholic Rome-based think tank the Dignitatis Humanae Institute, said
The right to defend oneself is a clear doctrine; it's a fundamental human right, an inalienable right, and people lend the exercise of that right to the state…The first duty of the state is to protect the people, but if the state is unable to fulfil this, then the right to defend oneself reverts to the person, because such a right cannot ever be taken from that person — and nor can it ever be given away; it cannot be 'alienated.' This is literally what we mean when we say the right to defend oneself is inalienable … The fact that the state is unable to defend its citizens means there is already the law of the jungle in operation — it's the perfect example of lawlessness… And preventing minorities who are being systematically wiped out from defending themselves will only work in favor of the aggressor.
One source close to the Vatican even said that the objections toward a Christian militia was a sign of appeasement and acquiescence to ISIS.
Christians definitely need to form a militia, under the liberty of God and the natural law of man, they must become militant.
But sadly, they won't. They have waited too late to "weapon up." And witness what happens without self defense. Pat Dollard links a Live Leak video in which ISIS fighters promise a "Christian" (I have no idea if he really was a Christian) converting to Islam that Allah is merciful and he will be spared. The man converts, and the ISIS fighters promptly behead him anyway.
There is one thing in particular that needs to be corrected in the perspective cited above, and it is that "The first duty of the state is to protect the people, but if the state is unable to fulfil this, then the right to defend oneself reverts to the person, because such a right cannot ever be taken from that person …"
No, and a thousand times no. It is not either-or, it is both-and, and the order is wrong. The state is responsible, to be sure, for protecting nations against invasion, and our pitiful nation refuses to meet even the simplest of responsibilities like this by securing the Southern border.
But let's be clear. The first duty to protect rests with a man and his home, not the state protection for the man or his family.
Do you understand?
Guns,Religion
Christian Leaders Say No To Christian Militia | From the Trenches World Report
The Captain's Journal » Are The Kurds Preparing To Weapon Up For ISIS? Guess Who Supports Gun Control?
The Captain's Journal » Gun Control And The Boko Haram Massacre
On August 27, 2014 at 5:12 am, Mark said:
You start a quote on the "first duty of a state" that is not completed. Who said it? From where does it come?
On August 27, 2014 at 8:16 am, Paul B said:
The constitution of the United States is the first time that right is defined.
I do not give up my right to self defense. if the state fails to the point I have rag heads in my front yard waving a black flag, game on. It won't be over till they are dead or I an down to my last bullet.
It sickens me to see the death cult that the Christians in Irag and Syria have become. But not as much as ISIS sickens me.
On August 27, 2014 at 3:32 pm, Bill Daigle said:
Speaking to the conversion point…if I threaten a guy and he caves and converts to what I tell him to, what happens when he's threatened again ?? The Christians in my opinion should have already been armed. I'm not there, I don't know what they are thinking, I suppose at some point it's a desire to hide and hope it goes away…it won't. We in america are so fortunate that we had forefathers who foresaw this kind of thing.
We are somewhat ready, at least more so than the guys being chopped up.
I really don't think Americans have a good idea of what gun confiscation or ISIS invasion would be like. So many of us have a safe full of light weapons with some extra rounds…which will amount to pop guns when confronted by any type of military onset. We just might find ourselves in the same plight as the Middle East Christians in short order.
Come quickly Lord Jesus.
On August 28, 2014 at 2:42 pm, Robo said:
To call these morons leaders is wrong.
On August 29, 2014 at 2:24 am, joedeats said:
Killing in self defense is justified, God said though shalt not murder, not though shalt not kill. Jesus said if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one….why would Jesus say this if he didn't want Christians to defend themselves why say this?
Some modern Christians have been fed a load about being pacifists based on false teachings, they better snap out of it and fast.
On August 29, 2014 at 12:20 pm, madoradataman said:
We forget that there was a War in Heaven before we all came here. We are here because we made correct choices; but the War continues against those who did not … and it often involves the shedding of blood.
The Eternal Worlds are not pacific places; and neither is this one.
You are currently reading "Christian Leaders Say No To Christian Militia", entry #12671 on The Captain's Journal.
This article is filed under the category(s) Guns,Religion and was published August 26th, 2014 by Herschel Smith.