For moral, ethical and biblical reasons, the United States should not drop bombs on Syria.
To cross Syria’s boundary, a country which has not attacked us, is to show a profound lack of respect for its national sovereignty. Had Syria attacked us, we would of course have the moral right to use whatever military force is necessary to neutralize the threat to our own sovereignty. But absent the moral justification of self-defense, we have no right to be there.
The Scriptures are clear that the boundaries of the world’s nations are established by God (Acts 17:26), and those boundaries should only be crossed either by permission of the host country or in self-defense as a response to a military attack. The government of Syria has certainly not invited us in, nor has the government of Syria attacked us. We have no national interest at stake in Syria, and no ethical justification to invade.
As 9/11 so horrifically illustrated, we do not want foreign armies or militants crossing our borders, no matter how just their cause may be in their own eyes. The Golden Rule would dictate that we show the same courtesy to the other nations of the world.
This, of course, is not to say that what is going on Syria, the use of chemical weapons to gas innocent civilians, is not a humanitarian catastrophe. It is. But the same folks arguing with such urgency for immediate bombing runs showed no compassion when the first 100,000 victims fell through conventional means. Where is the moral consistency here? Dead is still dead, whether it’s a bullet to the brain or a toxin to the nerve system.
And at this point, we do not have the smoking gun that even proves which side used these neurotoxins. There is as much, if not more, reason to believe the militant Islamic rebels gassed their own people as there is to believe that Assad is behind it. It is impulsively premature to act absent clear and convincing proof.
Continue Reading at JanMorganMedia.com