Ron Paul, The Only Candidate My Conscience Would Have Allowed Me To Vote For, On Abortion

Ron Paul on Abortion

Republican Representative (TX-14); previously Libertarian for President

Abortion is murder

A popular academic argument for abortion demands that we think of the child in the womb as a parasite.but the same argument justifies infanticide, since it applies just as well to an infant outside the womb.newborns require even more attention & care.

People ask an expectant mother how her baby is doing. They do not ask how her fetus is doing, or her blob of tissue, or her parasite. But that is what her baby becomes as soon as the child is declared to be unwanted.

Source: The Revolution: A Manifesto, by Ron Paul, p. 59-60 Apr 1, 2008

Roe v. Wade decision was harmful to the Constitution

The federal government should not play any role in the abortion issue, according to the Constitution. Apart from waiting forever for Supreme Court justices who rule in accordance with the Constitution, Americans do have some legislative recourse. Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to strip the federal courts of jurisdiction over a broad categories of cases. Source: The Revolution: A Manifesto, by Ron Paul, p. 60 Apr 1, 2008

Define life at conception in law, as scientific statement

On the right-to-life issue, I believe, I'm a real stickler for civil liberties. It's academic to talk about civil liberties if you don't talk about the true protection of all life. So if you are going to protect liberty, you have to protect the life of the unborn just as well.

I have a Bill in congress I certainly would promote and push as president, called the Sanctity of Life Amendment. We establish the principle that life begins at conception. And someone says, 'oh why are you saying that?' and I say, 'well, that's not a political statement -- that's a scientific statement that I'm making!"

I know we're all interested in a better court system and amending the constitution to protect life. But sometimes I think that is dismissing the way we can handle this much quicker, and my bill removes the jurisdiction of the federal courts from the issue of abortion, if a state law says no abortion, it doesn't go to the supreme court to be ruled out of order

Source: Speeches to 2008 Conservative Political Action Conference Feb 7, 2008

Protecting the life of the unborn is protecting liberty

Liberty is the most important thing, because if we have our liberties, we have our freedoms, we can have our lives. But it's academic to talk about civil liberties if you don't talk about the true protection of all life. So if you're going to protect liberty, you have to protect the life of the unborn just as well. I have a bill in Congress which I would certainly promote and push as President. But it's been ignored by the right-to-life community. My bill is called the Sanctity of Life bill. What it would do is it would establish the principle that life begins at conception. That's not a political statement, but a scientific statement that I'm making. We're all interested in a better court system, and amending the Constitution to protect life--but sometimes that is dismissing the way we can handle this much quicker. My bill removes the jurisdiction of the federal courts from the issue of abortion. If a state law says "no abortion," it doesn't go to the Supreme Court to be ruled out of order. Source: Speeches to 2008 Conservative Political Action Conference Feb 7, 2008

Get the federal government out of abortion decision

Q: If abortion becomes illegal and a woman obtains an abortion anyway, what should she be charged with? What about the doctor who performs the abortion?

A: The first thing we have to do is get the federal government out of it. We don't need a federal abortion police. That's the last thing that we need. There has to be a criminal penalty for the person that's committing that crime. And I think that is the abortionist. As for the punishment, I don't think that should be up to the president to decide.

Source: 2007 GOP YouTube debate in St. Petersburg, Florida Nov 28, 2007

Delivered 4000 babies; & assuredly life begins at conception

Q: What will you do to restore legal protection to the unborn?

A: As an O.B. doctor of thirty years, and having delivered 4,000 babies, I can assure you life begins at conception. I am legally responsible for the unborn, no matter what I do, so there's a legal life there. The unborn has inheritance rights, and if there's an injury or a killing, there is a legal entity. There is no doubt about it.

Source: 2007 GOP Values Voter Presidential Debate Sep 17, 2007

Sanctity of Life Act: remove federal jurisdiction

I'm surprised that I don't have more co-sponsors for my Sanctity of Life Act. It removes the jurisdiction from the federal courts & allows the states to pass protection to the unborn. Instead of waiting years for a Constitutional Amendment, this would happen immediately, by majority vote in the Congress and a president's signature. It's a much easier way to accomplish this, by following what our Constitution directs us. Instead of new laws, let's just use what we have & pass this type of legislation. Source: 2007 GOP Values Voter Presidential Debate Sep 17, 2007

Nominate only judges who refuse to legislate from the bench

Q: Will you nominate only judges who are demonstrably faithful to the judicial role of following only the text of the Constitution, and who not only refuse to legislate from the bench, but are committed to reversing prior court decision where activist judges strayed from the judicial role and legislated from the bench?

• HUCKABEE: Yes.
• TANCREDO: Yes.
• COX: Yes.
• BROWNBACK: Yes.
• PAUL: Yes.
• HUNTER: Yes.
• KEYES: Yes.

Source: 2007 GOP Values Voter Presidential Debate Sep 17, 2007

Save "snowflake babies": no experiments on frozen embryos

Q: Our children were adopted as embryos. They were snowflake babies, which means that for the first part of their lives, they were frozen embryos. Can you look at them now and honestly tell me that it would be OK with you if someone used them in medical experiments and snuffed out their little lives? Is that your position?

• HUCKABEE: No.
• TANCREDO: No.
• COX: No.
• BROWNBACK: No.
• PAUL: No.
• HUNTER: No.
• KEYES: No.

Source: 2007 GOP Values Voter Presidential Debate Sep 17, 2007

No tax funding for organizations that promote abortion

Q: The Mexico City Policy states that as a condition for a foreign organization to receive federal funds, they will neither "perform nor actively promote abortion." Would you work to apply this Mexico City policy to organizations within the US?

HUCKABEE: Are we being asked to apply a Mexican law to the US?

Q: It's the principle of not giving our tax dollars to organizations within our country that actively promote or provide abortions. It's an American law.

BROWNBACK: This is Ronald Reagan' policy that we wouldn't use federal funds to support organizations that promote abortions overseas.

HUNTER: It's actually a UN policy.

KEYES: Actually, it was a policy of the Mexico City Population Conference. I was the deputy chairman. I actually negotiated the language into the final resolution at that conference.

Q: I want to know, will you defund Planned Parenthood?

• HUCKABEE: Yes.
• TANCREDO: Yes.
• COX: Yes.
• BROWNBACK: Yes.
• PAUL: Yes.
• HUNTER: Yes.
• KEYES: Yes.

Source: [Xref Keyes] 2007 GOP Values Voter Presidential Debate Sep 17, 2007

Embryonic stem cell programs not constitionally authorized

Q: Would you expand federal funding of embryonic stem cell research?

A: Programs like this are not authorized under the Constitution. The trouble with issues like this is, in Washington we either prohibit it or subsidize it. And the market should deal with it, and the states should deal with it.

Source: 2007 GOP primary debate, at Reagan library, hosted by MSNBC May 3, 2007

Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines.

Allows federal funding for research that utilizes human embryonic stem cells, regardless of the date on which the stem cells were derived from a human embryo, provided such embryos:

1. have been donated from in vitro fertilization clinics;
2. were created for the purposes of fertility treatment;
3. were in excess of the needs of the individuals seeking such treatment and would otherwise be discarded; and
4. were donated by such individuals with written informed consent and without any financial or other inducements.

Proponents support voting YES because:

Since 2 years ago, the last Stem Cell bill, public support has surged for stem cells. Research is proceeding unfettered and, in some cases, without ethical standards in other countries. And even when these countries have ethical standards, our failures are allowing them to gain the scientific edge over the US. Some suggest that it is Congress' role to tell researchers what kinds of cells to use. I suggest we are not the arbiters of research. Instead, we should foster all of these methods, and we should adequately fund and have ethical oversight over all ethical stem cell research.

Opponents support voting NO because:

A good deal has changed in the world of science. Amniotic fluid stem cells are now available to open a broad new area of research. I think the American people would welcome us having a hearing to understand more about this promising new area of science. As it stands today, we will simply have to debate the bill on the merits of information that is well over 2 years old, and I think that is unfortunate.

The recent findings of the pluripotent epithelial cells demonstrates how quickly the world has changed. Wouldn't it be nice to have the researcher before our committee and be able to ask those questions so we may make the best possible judgment for the American people?

Reference: Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act; Bill HR 3 ("First 100 hours") ; vote number 2007-020 on Jan 11, 2007

Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research.

To provide for human embryonic stem cell research. A YES vote would:

• Call for stem cells to be taken from human embryos that were donated from in vitro fertilization clinics
• Require that before the embryos are donated, that it be established that they were created for fertility treatment and in excess of clinical need and otherwise would be discarded
• Stipulate that those donating the embryos give written consent and do not receive any compensation for the donation.

Reference: Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act; Bill HR 810 ; vote number 2005-204 on May 24, 2005

Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions.

To prevent the transportation of minors in circumvention of certain laws relating to abortion, and for other purposes, including:

• Allowing for exemptions to the law if the life of the minor is in danger or if a court in the minor's home state waive the parental notification required by that state
• Allocating fines and/or up to one year imprisonment of those convicted of transporting a minor over state lines to have an abortion
• Penalizing doctors who knowingly perform an abortion procedure without obtaining reasonable proof that the notification provisions of the minor's home state have been satisfied
• Requiring abortion providers in states that do not have parental consent laws and who would be performing the procedure on a minor that resides in another state, to give at least a 24 hour notice to the parent or legal guardian
• Specifying that neither the minor nor her guardians may be prosecuted or sued for a violation of this act

Reference: Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act; Bill HR 748 ; vote number 2005-144 on Apr 27, 2005

Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime.

Vote to pass a bill that would make it a criminal offense to harm or kill a fetus during the commission of a violent crime. The measure would set criminal penalties, the same as those that would apply if harm or death happened to the pregnant woman, for those who harm a fetus. It is not required that the individual have prior knowledge of the pregnancy or intent to harm the fetus. This bill prohibits the death penalty from being imposed for such an offense. The bill states that its provisions should not be interpreted to apply a woman's actions with respect to her pregnancy. Reference: Unborn Victims of Violence Act; Bill HR 1997 ; vote number 2004-31 on Feb 26, 2004

Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life.

Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003: Vote to pass a bill banning a medical procedure, which is commonly known as "partial-birth" abortion. The procedure would be allowed only in cases in which a women's life is in danger, not for cases where a women's health is in danger. Those who performed this procedure, would face fines and up to two years in prison, the women to whom this procedure is performed on are not held criminally liable. Reference: Bill sponsored by Santorum, R-PA; Bill S.3 ; vote number 2003-530 on Oct 2, 2003

Voted NO on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research.

Vote to pass a bill that would forbid human cloning and punish violators with up to 10 years in prison and fines of at least $1 million. The bill would ban human cloning, and any attempts at human cloning, for both reproductive purposes and medical research. Also forbidden is the importing of cloned embryos or products made from them. Reference: Human Cloning Prohibition Act; Bill HR 534 ; vote number 2003-39 on Feb 27, 2003

Voted YES on funding for health providers who don't provide abortion info.

Abortion Non-Discrimination Act of 2002: Vote to pass a bill that would prohibit the federal, state and local governments that receive federal funding from discriminating against health care providers, health insurers, health maintenance organizations, and any other kind of health care facility, organization or plan, that decline to refer patients for, pay for or provide abortion services. In addition the bill would expand an existing law "conscience clause" that protects physician training programs that refuse to provide training for abortion procedures. Reference: Bill sponsored by Bilirakis, R-FL; Bill HR 4691 ; vote number 2002-412 on Sep 25, 2002

Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad.

Vote to adopt an amendment that would remove language reversing President Bush's restrictions on funding to family planning groups that provide abortion services, counseling or advocacy. Reference: Amendment sponsored by Hyde, R-IL; Bill HR 1646 ; vote number 2001-115 on May 16, 2001

Voted NO on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes.

Vote to pass a bill that would make it a federal crime to harm a fetus while committing any of 68 federal offenses or a crime under military law. Abortion doctors and women whose own actions harmed their fetuses would be exempt. Reference: Bill sponsored by Graham, R-SC; Bill HR 503 ; vote number 2001-89 on Apr 26, 2001

Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions.

HR 3660 would ban doctors from performing the abortion procedure called "dilation and extraction" [also known as “partial-birth” abortion]. The measure would allow the procedure only if the life of the woman is at risk. Reference: Bill sponsored by Canady, R-FL; Bill HR 3660 ; vote number 2000-104 on Apr 5, 2000

Voted NO on barring transporting minors to get an abortion.

The Child Custody Protection Act makes it a federal crime to transport a minor across state lines for the purpose of obtaining an abortion. Reference: Bill sponsored by Ros-Lehtinen, R-FL; Bill HR 1218 ; vote number 1999-261 on Jun 30, 1999

No federal funding of abortion, and pro-life.

Paul adopted the Republican Liberty Caucus Position Statement:

Q: What is the RLC’s position on abortion?

A: Neutral. We have both pro-lifers to pro-choicers, and in between. As far as libertarian groups go, you’ll find that we are probably the most tolerant of the pro-life viewpoint. Our immediate past chairman, Cong. Ron Paul (R-TX, 14th Dist.) is very pro-life. Many other members are pro-choice. As libertarians, we oppose Federal funding of abortion under any circumstances. It is not a litmus test, and it is not an issue that is often debated internally. However, the California RLC website www.LibertyCaucus.org, has sponsored a debate on the issue between two prominent members.

Source: Republican Liberty Caucus Position Statement 00-RLC14 on Dec 8, 2000

Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record.

Paul scores 0% by NARAL on pro-choice voting record

For over thirty years, NARAL Pro-Choice America has been the political arm of the pro-choice movement and a strong advocate of reproductive freedom and choice. NARAL Pro-Choice America's mission is to protect and preserve the right to choose while promoting policies and programs that improve women's health and make abortion less necessary. NARAL Pro-Choice America works to educate Americans and officeholders about reproductive rights and health issues and elect pro-choice candidates at all levels of government. The NARAL ratings are based on the votes the organization considered most important; the numbers reflect the percentage of time the representative voted the organization's preferred position.

Source: NARAL website 03n-NARAL on Dec 31, 2003

Rated 56% by the NRLC, indicating a mixed record on abortion.

Paul scores 56% by the NRLC on abortion issues

OnTheIssues.org interprets the 2006 NRLC scores as follows:

• 0% - 15%: pro-choice stance (approx. 174 members)
• 16%- 84%: mixed record on abortion (approx. 101 members)
• 85%-100%: pro-life stance (approx. 190 members)

About the NRLC (from their website, www.nrlc.org):

The ultimate goal of the National Right to Life Committee is to restore legal protection to innocent human life. The primary interest of the National Right to Life Committee and its members has been the abortion controversy; however, it is also concerned with related matters of medical ethics which relate to the right to life issues of euthanasia and infanticide. The Committee does not have a position on issues such as contraception, sex education, capital punishment, and national defense. The National Right to Life Committee was founded in 1973 in response to the Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court decision, legalizing the practice of human abortion in all 50 states, throughout the entire nine months of pregnancy.

The NRLC has been instrumental in achieving a number of legislative reforms at the national level, including a ban on non-therapeutic experimentation of unborn and newborn babies, a federal conscience clause guaranteeing medical personnel the right to refuse to participate in abortion procedures, and various amendments to appropriations bills which prohibit (or limit) the use of federal funds to subsidize or promote abortions in the United States and overseas.

In addition to maintaining a lobbying presence at the federal level, NRLC serves as a clearinghouse of information for its state affiliates and local chapters, its individual members, the press, and the public.

Source: NRLC website 06n-NRLC on Dec 31, 2006

Click here for definitions & background information on Abortion. Click here for policy papers on Abortion. Click here for a profile of Ron Paul. Click here for Ron Paul on all the issues. Click here for VoteMatch responses by Ron Paul. Agree? Disagree? Voice your opinions on Abortion or about Ron Paul in The Forum.
Other candidates on Abortion:	Ron Paul on other issues:
Frontrunners: GOP: Sen.John McCain Democrat: Sen.Hillary Clinton Democrat: Sen.Barack Obama GOP V.P. Possibilities: Gov.Haley Barbour(MS) Gov.Charlie Crist(FL) Mayor Rudy Giuliani(NYC) Gov.Mike Huckabee(AR) Sen.Joe Lieberman(CT) Gov.Tim Pawlenty(MN) Gov.Mitt Romney(MA) Gov.Mark Sanford(SC) Third Parties: Constitution: Chuck Baldwin Libertarian: Rep.Bob Barr Libertarian: Sen.Mike Gravel Constitution: Amb.Alan Keyes Liberation: Gloria La Riva Green: Rep.Cynthia McKinney Socialist: Brian Moore Independent: Ralph Nader Libertarian: Rep.Ron Paul	Abortion Budget/Economy Civil Rights Corporations Crime Drugs Education Energy/Oil Environment Families/Children Foreign Policy Free Trade Govt. Reform Gun Control Health Care Homeland Security Immigration Infrastructure/Technology Jobs Principles/Values Social Security Tax Reform War/Iraq/Mideast Welfare/Poverty

Ron Paul, The Only Presidential Candidate My Conscience Will Allow Me To Vote For

Ron Paul on War & Peace

Republican Representative (TX-14)

Sub-sections under War & Peace:
• Iraq War
• Voting Record
• Other issues under War & Peace

If Iran invaded Israel, it's up to Congress to declare war

Q: If Iran invaded Israel, what do we do? A: Well, they're not going to. That is like saying "Iran is about to invade Mars." They don't have an army or navy or air force. And the Israelis have 300 nuclear weapons. Nobody would touch them. But if it were in our national security interests, Congress could say, "This is very, very important; we have to declare war." Presidents don't have the authority to go to war. You go to the Congress and find out if they want a war, and do the people want the war.
Source: Meet the Press: 2007 "Meet the Candidates" series Dec 23, 2007

Israeli government & the neocons want US to bomb Iran

Q: This is what you said about Israel. "Israel's dependent on us for economic means. We send them billions of dollars. They say, 'We don't like Iran. You go fight our battles. You bomb Iran for us.' And they become dependent on us." Who in Israel is saying "Go bomb Iran for us"? A: Well, I don't know the individuals, but we know that their leadership--you read it in the papers on a daily basis--about the government of Israel encouraging Americans to go into Iran. I don't think that's top secret.
Q: That the government of Israel wants us to bomb Iran?
A: I don't think there's a doubt about that, that they've encouraged us to do that. And of course the neoconservatives have been anxious to do that for a long time.
Source: Meet the Press: 2007 "Meet the Candidates" series Dec 23, 2007

Every country ended slavery without civil war; US could have

Q: I was intrigued by your comments about Abe Lincoln. "According to Paul, Abe Lincoln should never have gone to war; there were better ways of getting rid of slavery." A: Absolutely. Six hundred thousand Americans died in a senseless civil war. No, he shouldn't have gone to war. He did this just to enhance and get rid of the original intent of the republic. I mean, it was that iron fist..
Q: We'd still have slavery.
A: Oh, come on. Slavery was phased out in every other country of the world. And the way I'm advising that it should have been done is do like the British empire did. You buy the slaves and release them. How much would that cost compared to killing 600,000 Americans and where the hatred lingered for 100 years? Every other major country in the world got rid of slavery without a civil war. I mean, that doesn't sound too radical to me. That sounds like a pretty reasonable approach.
Source: Meet the Press: 2007 "Meet the Candidates" series Dec 23, 2007

Non-intervention means Congress declares war when threatened

Q: Sen. McCain criticized you for an "attitude of isolationism and appeasement," concerning Iraq in the YouTube debate. A: McCain was awfully confused about isolationism versus non-intervention. There is a big difference. Isolationism isn't what I advocate. I advocate non-intervention, not getting involved in the internal affairs of other nations.
Q: Under what circumstances, if you were president, would you intervene outside the borders of the US in some sort of crisis around the world?
A: When Congress directed me to in the act of war. If our national security was threatened and we went through the proper procedures, Congress would say, "Our national security is involved, it is threatened and we have to act." And Congress has that responsibility. The president is the commander in chief, and then he acts.
Source: CNN Late Edition: 2007 presidential series with Wolf Blitzer Dec 2, 2007

Congressional authorization needed to attack Iran's nukes

Q: If you were president, would you need to go to Congress to get authorization to take military action against Iran's nuclear facilities?ROMNEY: You sit down with your attorneys and tell you what you have to do.
HUNTER: It depends on one thing: the president does not need that if the target is fleeting.
PAUL: Absolutely. This idea of going & talking to attorneys totally baffles me. Why don't we just open up the Constitution & read it? You're not allowed to go to war without a declaration of war. Now, as far as fleeting enemies go, yes, if there's an imminent attack on us, we'd never had that happen in 220 years. The thought that the Iranians could pose an imminent attack on the US is preposterous. There's no way.
HUNTER: Not an imminent attack a fleeting target.
PAUL: This is just continual war propaganda, preparing this nation to go to war and spread this war, not only in Iraq but into Iran, unconstitutionally. It's a road to disaster if we don't read the Constitution once in a while.
Source: 2007 Republican debate in Dearborn, Michigan Oct 9, 2007

Radicals come to kill us because we occupy their lands

Q: What's your strategy to protect our American way of life from the designs of radical Islam?A: We indeed do have a problem, but if we go at this incorrectly, we are going to do more damage to ourselves than we are to our enemies. We have to understand the motives of those who come here & kill us. If we don't understand that, we are not going to win this fight. They come here & kill us because we occupy their lands, and they rationally reason [that] we have to do something about it.
Source: 2007 GOP Values Voter Presidential Debate Sep 17, 2007

Talk to Iran like we talked to Soviets during Cold War

Q: Would you go to war with Iran if they developed nuclear weapons and threatened Israel?A: Well, one thing I would remember very clearly is the president doesn't have the authority to go to war. He goes to the Congress.
Q: So what do you do?
A: He goes to the Congress and finds out if there's any threat to our national security. And thinking back to the 1960s, when I was in the Air Force for five years, and there was a Cold War going on, and the Soviets had 40,000, and we stood them down, & we didn't have to have a nuclear confrontation, I would say that we should go very cautiously. We should be talking to Iran right now. We shouldn't be looking for the opportunity to attack them. They are at the present time, according to the IAEA, cooperating. I think that we ought to be talking about how to get along with some people that are deadly, like the Soviets and the Chinese and the many others. We don't have to resort to war every single time there is a confrontation.
Source: 2007 GOP debate at UNH, sponsored by Fox News Sep 5, 2007

US has fought 70 engagements since 1945

It should be harder to promote war, especially when there are so many regrets in the end. In the last 60 years, the American people have had little to say over decisions to wage war. We have allowed a succession of presidents and the U.N. to decide when and if we go to war, without an express congressional declaration as the Constitution mandates. Since 1945, our country has been involved in over 70 active or covert foreign engagements. On numerous occasions we have provided weapons and funds to both sides in a conflict. It is not unusual for our so-called allies to turn on us and use these weapons against American troops. In recent decades we have been both allies and enemies of Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, and the Islamists in Iran. And where has it gotten us?
The endless costs resulting from our foolish policies, in human lives, injuries, tax dollars, inflation, and deficits, will burden generations to come. For civilization to advance, we must reduce the number of wars fought.
Source: A Foreign Policy of Freedom, by Ron Paul, p.363 Jun 15, 2007

Limit wars debunking glorification of war

For civilization to advance, we must reduce the number of wars fought. Two conditions must be met if we hope to achieve this. First, all military (and covert paramilitary) personnel worldwide must refuse to initiate offensive wars beyond their borders This must become a matter of personal honor for every individual.
Second, the true nature of war must be laid bare, and the glorification must end. Instead of promoting war heroes with parades and medals for wars not fought in the true defense of our country, we should more honestly contemplate the real results of war: death, destruction, horrible wounds, civilian casualties, economic costs, and the loss of liberty at home.
The neoconservative belief that war is inherently patriotic, beneficial, manly, and necessary for human progress must be debunked. These war promoters never send themselves or their own children off to fight. Their hero, Machiavelli, must be buried once and for all.
Source: A Foreign Policy of Freedom, by Ron Paul, p.363-364 Jun 15, 2007

Ronald Reagan had the courage to turn tail & run in Lebanon

Ronald Reagan in 1983 sent Marines into Lebanon, and he said he would never turn tail and run. A few months later, the Marines were killed, 241 were killed, and the Marines were taken out. And Reagan addressed this subject in his memoirs. And he says, "I said I would never turn tail and run." He says, "But I never realized the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics," and he changed his policy there. We need the courage of a Ronald Reagan. Source: 2007 Republican Debate in South Carolina May 15, 2007

Intervention abroad incites hatred & attacks like 9/11

Q [to Paul]: Should the 9/11 attacks have changed our non-interventionist policies?PAUL: No. [Abandoning our tradition of] non-intervention was a major contributing factor. Have you ever read the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we've been over there; we've been bombing Iraq for 10 years.
Q: Are you suggesting we invited the 9/11 attack?
PAUL: I'm suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it.
GIULIANI: That's an extraordinary statement, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don't think I've heard that before, and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th. And I would ask the congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn't really mean that.
PAUL: If we think that we can do what we want around the world and not incite hatred, then we have a problem. They don't come here to attack us because we're rich and we're free. They come and they attack us because we're over there.
Source: [X-ref Giuliani] 2007 Republican Debate in South Carolina May 15, 2007

When we go to war carelessly, the wars don't end

Q [to Paul]: You are the only man on the stage who opposes the war in Iraq. Are you out of step with your party? Or is your party out of step with the rest of the world? PAUL: I think the party has lost its way, because the conservative wing of the Republican Party always advocated a noninterventionist foreign policy. There's a strong tradition of being anti-war in the Republican party. It is the constitutional position. It is the advice of the Founders to follow a non-interventionist foreign policy, and stay out of entangling alliances, be friends with countries, negotiate and talk with them and trade with them. Just think of the tremendous improvement in relationships with Vietnam. We lost 60,000 men [during the Vietnam war]. We came home in defeat. Now we go over there and invest in Vietnam. So there's a lot of merit to the advice of the Founders and following the Constitution. And my argument is that we shouldn't go to war so carelessly. When we do, the wars don't end.
Source: 2007 Republican Debate in South Carolina May 15, 2007

---

Ron Paul on Iraq War

Different view on war because I adhere to the Constitution

Q: You have a different point of view on the war than your GOP colleagues, don't you?A: I do. I definitely have a different point of view, because we weren't justified in going over there. We did not declare the war. You might ask the question, why is it that I have a different view point on foreign policy? Because I adhere to the Constitution and the advice of the founders to stay out of the entangling alliances, the internal affairs of other nations.
Source: 2007 Republican primary debate on Univision Dec 9, 2007

Iraq is not Nazi Germany; WWII opposition did not cause WWII

Q: John McCain said in the YouTube debate that you "talk about the war in Iraq and how it has failed. And I want to tell you that that kind of isolationism, sir, is what caused World War II. You allowed Hitler to come to power with that kind of attitude of isolationism and appeasement." You were shaking your head as you heard the final words. I want you to elaborate this morning.A: Well, first off, Iraq is not Nazi Germany. And besides, I thought it was Hitler that caused World War II, not the American people who opposed going in. So it didn't make any sense. And then he was awfully confused about isolationism versus non-intervention. There is a big difference. Isolationism isn't what I advocate. I advocate non-intervention, not getting involved in the internal affairs of other nations, and not pretending a country like Iraq is equivalent to Nazi Germany. Iraq had no army, no navy, no WMD, had nothing to do with 9/11, so the comparison makes no sense.
Source: CNN Late Edition: 2007 presidential series with Wolf Blitzer Dec 2, 2007

Anger abroad at US for planning 14 permanent bases in Iraq

Q: John McCain said after the YouTube debate, "I tried to point out to Rep. Paul that the soldiers in Iraq believe that they are winning & they don't agree with his description of the motives for which we went to war in Iraq." You want to respond to him? A: Well, yes, we do disagree on this. I don't believe we went to the war for the right reason. There were no weapons of mass destruction. It had nothing to do with 9/11. So we were there for the wrong reason and he doesn't understand the motivations for why they want to come here. It's not because we are wealthy and prosperous and free. They come here because we are in their country. And even if there is an improvement, which we all hope there is, we plan to keep 14 bases over there, a huge Naval base, and we have this huge embassy. We have a permanent plan to stay there and take over these $30 trillion worth of oil in that region. And the people in those countries know that and that's why they are very angry. And to deny that is folly.
Source: CNN Late Edition: 2007 presidential series with Wolf Blitzer Dec 2, 2007

Mercantilist oil dependency was reason for war

Q: Would we have gone to war in Iraq if we weren't so dependent on Middle East oil?A: Probably not, but that should not be a reason. That's an old theory. It's mercantilistic. It's neocolonialism that you have to maintain your supply routes and your natural resources. But I think there's still a lot of those kind of people around. You know, we were told it was about oil and jobs when it first started in 1990, and this is just a continuation of that war.
Source: 2007 Republican debate in Dearborn, Michigan Oct 9, 2007

We went into Iraq under false pretenses of WMD and 9/11

Q: Regarding declining minority enlistment, what do you say to minorities who are overwhelmingly opposed to the continuation of this war?A: The most important promise we keep is the oath to obey the Constitution. We just shouldn't be going to all these wars. We shouldn't have so many injured and in our hospitals because we shouldn't go to war unless it's declared. If it's declared, we should go win it and get it over with. We went in under false pretense. There were no weapons of mass destruction There are still people who believe that Iraq had something to do with 9/11, yet 15 of the people were from Saudi Arabia. We need to live up to our principles so there are less injured veterans, but when they come home we better jolly well take care of them, and we're not doing a very good job right now, because all the money's going overseas. We're broke. We got to do something about it. And we can't perpetuate a welfare state AND police an empire without going bankrupt.
Source: 2007 GOP Presidential Forum at Morgan State University Sep 27, 2007

Preemptive war is against Christian doctrine of just war

Q: Tell us about your personal faith, and what it means to your life.A: I get to my God through Christ. Christ, to me, is a Man of peace. He is for peace, He is not for war. He doesn't justify preemptive war. I strongly believe that there is a Christian doctrine of just war. And I believe this nation has drifted from that. No matter what the rationales are, we have drifted from that, and it's very, very dangerous, and I see in many ways being unchristian. Christ is for love, and forgiveness, and turning the other cheek for peace. And to justify what we do in the name of Christianity I think is very dangerous, and not part of what Christianity is all about. Christ came here for spiritual reasons, not secular war and boundaries and geography. And yet, we are now dedicating so much of our aggressive activity in the name of God, but God, he is the Prince of Peace. That is what I see from my God and through Christ. I vote for peace.
Source: 2007 GOP Values Voter Presidential Debate Sep 17, 2007

No US role in autonomy for Christians in Iraq Nineveh region

Q: US policy has thus far failed Christians & other non-Muslim minorities in Iraq; their very existence is threatened. This would be a tragic and ironic outcome of Iraq's liberation. Do you support their political goals by endorsing the creation of an autonomous administrative area in their ancestral homeland of the Nineveh plains, as permitted by Article 125 of the Iraqi Constitution?

• HUCKABEE: Yes.
• TANCREDO:Yes.
• COX: Yes.
• BROWNBACK:Yes.
• PAUL: No.
• HUNTER:Yes.
• KEYES: Yes.

Source: 2007 GOP Values Voter Presidential Debate Sep 17, 2007

People saying "bloodbath" said "cakewalk": listen to dissent

Q: Your position on the war is pretty simple: Get out. What about trying to minimize the bloodbath that would certainly occur if we pull out in a hurry?A: The people who say there will be a bloodbath are the ones who said it will be a cakewalk or it will be a slam dunk, and that it will be paid for by oil. Why believe them? They've been wrong on everything they've said. So why not ask the people who advised not to go into the region and into the war? The war has not gone well one bit.
Source: 2007 GOP debate at UNH, sponsored by Fox News Sep 5, 2007

Take marching orders from Constitution; not from al Qaeda

Q: [to Paul]: Your position on the war is pretty simple: Get out. PAUL: Yes, I would leave. I would leave completely. Why leave the troops in the region? The fact that we had troops in Saudi Arabia was one of the three reasons given for the attack on 9/11. So why leave them in the region? They don't want our troops on the Arabian Peninsula. We have no need for our national security to have troops on the Arabian Peninsula.
Q: You're basically saying that we should take our marching orders from Al Qaida? If they want us off the Arabian Peninsula, we should leave?
PAUL: No! I'm saying we should take our marching orders from our Constitution. We should not go to war without a declaration. We should not go to war when it's an aggressive war. This is an aggressive invasion. We've committed the invasion of this war. And it's illegal under international law. That's where I take my marching orders, not from any enemy.
Source: 2007 GOP debate at UNH, sponsored by Fox News Sep 5, 2007

How many more lives lost just to save face?

PAUL: [to Hunter]: We have lost over 5,000 Americans killed in Afghanistan & Iraq, plus the civilians killed. How many more you want to lose? How long are you going to be there? What do we have to pay to save face? That's all we're doing, is saving face. It's time we came home.HUNTER: Let me just tell you what they've done. In Anbar Province, we were having 1,350 attacks a month last October. By the blood, sweat and tears of the US Marines out there, we pulled it down 80%. They've pulled down civilian casualties 74%. We've got 129 battalions in the Iraqi army that we're training up. That's the right way to win. It's called victory. That's how we leave Iraq.
Q: No matter how long it takes?
HUNTER: If you think we're going to be there for a long time, you don't understand the determination of the US Marines and the US Army. We're going to turn it over.
Source: 2007 GOP debate at UNH, sponsored by Fox News Sep 5, 2007

Neocons hijacked our foreign policy to invade Iraq

Q: [to Huckabee]: Should we continue the troop surge?HUCKABEE: We have to continue the surge, and let me explain why. When I was a little kid, if I went into a store with my mother, she had a simple rule for me: If I picked something off the shelf at the store and I broke it, I bought it. Well, what we did in Iraq, we essentially broke it. It's our responsibility to do the best we can to try to fix it before we just turn away. whether or not we should have gone to Iraq is a discussion the historians can have, but we're there. We bought it because we broke it.
PAUL: The American people didn't go in. A few people advising this administration, a small number of people called the neoconservatives hijacked our foreign policy. They're responsible, not the American people. They're not responsible. We shouldn't punish them.
Source: 2007 GOP debate at UNH, sponsored by Fox News Sep 5, 2007

Iraq war is illegal; undeclared wars never end & we lose

Q: What would be your strategy for ending the war in Iraq?PAUL: Just come home. We just marched in. We can just come back. We went in there illegally. We did not declare war. It's lasting way too long. We didn't declare war in Korea or Vietnam. The wars were never really ended. We lose those wars. We're losing this one. We shouldn't be there. We ought to just come home. The #1 reason it's in our national self-interest & for our national security, think of our defenses now, how rundown they are. What is the morale of our military today when they're sent over there for 12 months and then they're kept for another three months? They come home and, with less than a year's rest, they're sent back again. Congress is currently trying to change the rules so we give these men an adequate rest. This war is not going well because the foreign policy is defective.
HUNTER: I'm tired of the Democrats and my colleague saying, "Come home." It's a race to see who could stampede for the exit the quickest.
Source: 2007 GOP Iowa Straw Poll debate Aug 5, 2007

Neocons promoted Iraq war for years; not about Al Qaida

I opposed the war a long time before it started. The neoconservatives promoted this war many, many years before it was started. It had nothing to do with Al Qaida. There was no Al Qaida in Iraq. There were no weapons of mass destruction. Just think of the weapons the Soviets had in the '60s. We did not have to go to nuclear war with them. There's no reason to go to war against these Third World nations.At the same time, those individuals who predicted these disastrous things to happen if we leave Iraq are the same ones who said, "As soon as we go in, it will just be duck soup, it'll be over in three months and it won't cost us anything because the oil will pay for it."
The individuals who predict [an Iraq] disaster, predicted the domino theory, in Vietnam. I served five years in the military in the '60s. When we left there, it was tough, yes. But now we trade with Vietnam. We can achieve much more in peace than we can ever achieve in these needless, unconstitutional, undeclared wars.
Source: 2007 GOP Iowa Straw Poll debate Aug 5, 2007

We're more threatened now by staying in Iraq

Q: If General Petraeus' strategy is not working so far in September, what do you do then?A: The sooner we come home, the better. If they declare there's no progress in September, we should come home. It was a mistake to go, so it's a mistake to stay. If we made the wrong diagnosis, we should change the treatment. The weapons weren't there, and we went in under U.N. resolutions. And our national security was not threatened. We're more threatened now by staying.
Source: 2007 GOP debate at Saint Anselm College Jun 5, 2007

Stop policing Iraq's streets; have Iraqis take over

Q: Considering the Iraqi people have lived under a dictatorship for the last 30 years or so, what are we going to do to make sure they have a government in place before we pull our troops out and they're able to help themselves? Otherwise we're just putting them in a position to accept another terrorist leader. A: Well, we've had four years to do this and it hasn't worked. The biggest incentive for them to take upon themselves the responsibility is just for us to leave. We don't need to lose 100 men and women every month, more than 1,000 per year. And so you want it done. You want them to take over. You've got to give them an incentive. So I think we should immediately stop patrolling the streets. That's a policeman's job. It's not the work of the Army. We're not fighting a military battle. We're in a different type of warfare right now. So the sooner we recognize that, the sooner we can make sure that no more Americans will die.
Source: 2007 GOP debate at Saint Anselm College Jun 3, 2007

We should have declared war in Iraq, or not gone in at all

Q: You're one of 6 House Republicans in 2002 who voted against authorizing Pres. Bush to use force in Iraq.A: Right.
Q: Now you say we should pull our troops out?
A: In 2002, I offered an amendment to declare war, up or down. Nobody voted for the war. And my argument there was, if we want to go to war, the Congress should declare it. We don't go to war like we did in Vietnam and Korea, because the wars never end. And I argued the case and made the point that it would be a quagmire if we go in.
Source: 2007 Republican Debate in South Carolina May 15, 2007

Opposes Iraq war and opposes path toward Iran war

Ron Paul strongly opposes the war in Iraq, and warns that President Bush is going down a dangerous path toward war with Iran. Source: Jill Morrison on KUHF, Houston Public Radio Jan 17, 2007

---

Ron Paul on Voting Record

Voted against war because Iraq was not a national threat

Q: You voted against the war. Why are all your fellow Republicans up here wrong?A: You might ask the question, why are 70% of the American people now wanting us out of there? I tried very hard to solve this problem before we went to war by saying, "Declare war if you want to go to war. Go to war, fight it and win it, but don't get into it for political reasons or to enforce U.N. resolutions or pretend the Iraqis were a national threat to us.
Source: 2007 GOP primary debate, at Reagan library, hosted by MSNBC May 3, 2007

Voted YES on redeploying US troops out of Iraq starting in 90 days.

To provide for the redeployment of US Armed Forces and defense contractors from Iraq. Requires within 90 days to commence the redeployment; and to complete such redeployment within 180 days after its commencement. Prohibits the use of DOD funds to increase the number of US forces serving in Iraq in excess of the number serving in Iraq as of January 1, 2007, unless specifically authorized by Congress. Authorizes retaining in Iraq US forces for providing security for diplomatic missions; for targeting al-Qaeda; and for training Iraqi Security Forces. Requires the President to transfer to the government of Iraq all interest held by the US in any military facility in Iraq. Proponents support voting YES because:
This war is a terrible tragedy, and it is time to bring it to an end. This is a straightforward bill to redeploy our military forces from Iraq and to end the war in Iraq. This bill does not walk away from the Iraqi people. It specifically continues diplomatic, social, economic, and reconstruction aid. Finally, this bill leaves all the decisions on the locations outside of Iraq to which our troops will be redeployed wholly in the hands of our military commanders.
Opponents support voting NO because:
This legislation embraces surrender and defeat. This legislation undermines our troops and the authority of the President as commander in chief. Opponents express concern about the effects of an ill-conceived military withdrawal, and about any legislation that places military decisions in the hands of politicians rather than the military commanders in the field. The enemy we face in Iraq view this bill as a sign of weakness. Now is not the time to signal retreat and surrender. It is absolutely essential that America, the last remaining superpower on earth, continue to be a voice for peace and a beacon for freedom in our shrinking world.
Reference: Out of Iraq Caucus bill; Bill H R 2237 ; vote number 2007-330 on May 10, 2007

Voted NO on declaring Iraq part of War on Terror with no exit date.

Voting YES would support the following resolution (excerpted):
• Whereas the United States and its allies are engaged in a Global War on Terror, a long and demanding struggle against an adversary that is driven by hatred of American values and that is committed to imposing, by the use of terror, its repressive ideology throughout the world;
• Whereas the terrorists have declared Iraq to be the central front in their war against all who oppose their ideology;
• Whereas the United States and its Coalition partners will continue to support Iraq as part of the Global War on Terror:

Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
• Honors all those Americans who have taken an active part in the Global War on Terror;
• Declares that it is not in the national security interest of the United States to set an arbitrary date for the withdrawal or redeployment of United States Armed Forces from Iraq;
• Declares that the United States is committed to the completion of the mission to create a sovereign, free, secure, and united Iraq;
• Declares that the United States will prevail in the Global War on Terror, the noble struggle to protect freedom from the terrorist adversary.

Reference: Resolution on Prevailing in the Global War on Terror; Bill HRES 861 ; vote number 2006-288 on Jun 12, 2006

Voted NO on approving removal of Saddam & valiant service of US troops.

States that the House of Representatives:

1. affirms that the United States and the world have been made safer with the removal of Saddam Hussein and his regime from power in Iraq;
2. commends the Iraqi people for their courage in the face of unspeakable oppression and brutality inflicted on them by Saddam Hussein's regime;
3. commends the Iraqi people on the adoption of Iraq's interim constitution; and
4. commends the members of the U.S. Armed Forces and Coalition forces for liberating Iraq and expresses its gratitude for their valiant service.

Reference: War in Iraq Anniversary resolution; Bill H Res 557 ; vote number 2004-64 on Mar 17, 2004

Voted NO on authorizing military force in Iraq.

Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq: Passage of the joint resolution that would authorize President Bush to use the US military as he deems necessary and appropriate to defend U.S. national security against Iraq and enforce UN Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. It would be required that the president report to Congress, no later than 48 hours after using force, his determination that diplomatic options or other peaceful means would not guarantee US national security against Iraq or allow enforcement of UN resolutions and that using force is consistent with anti-terrorism efforts. The resolution would also give specific statutory authorization under the War Powers Resolution. Every 60 days the president would also be required to report to Congress on actions related to the resolution. Reference: Bill sponsored by Hastert,R-IL; Bill HJRes114 ; vote number 2002-455 on Oct 10, 2002

Voted YES on disallowing the invasion of Kosovo.

Vote on an amendment to the "Kosovo and Southwest Asia Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act" which would prohibit the use of funds for any invasion of Yugoslavia with U.S. ground forces except in time of war. Reference: Amendment introduced by Istook, R-OK; Bill HR 1664 ; vote number 1999-119 on May 6, 1999

Click here for definitions & background information on War & Peace. Click here for policy papers on War & Peace. Click here for a profile of Ron Paul. Click here for Ron Paul on all the issues. Click here for VoteMatch responses by Ron Paul. Agree? Disagree? Voice your opinions on War & Peace or about Ron Paul in The Forum.
Other candidates on War & Peace:	Ron Paul on other issues:
Republican Possibilities: Chmn.John Cox Mayor Rudy Giuliani Gov.Mike Huckabee Rep.Duncan Hunter Amb.Alan Keyes Sen.John McCain Rep.Ron Paul Gov.Mitt Romney Sen.Fred Thompson Democratic Possibilities: Sen.Joe Biden Sen.Hillary Clinton Sen.Chris Dodd Sen.John Edwards Sen.Mike Gravel Rep.Dennis Kucinich Sen.Barack Obama Gov.Bill Richardson Green Party Possibilities: Rep.Cynthia McKinney	Abortion Budget/Economy Civil Rights Corporations Crime Drugs Education Energy/Oil Environment Families/Children Foreign Policy Free Trade Govt. Reform Gun Control Health Care Homeland Security Immigration Infrastructure/Technology Jobs Principles/Values Social Security Tax Reform War/Iraq/Mideast Welfare/Poverty

Doers of the Word

Images of Christ

Doers of the Word

August 3

James 1:17–27

Lesson Aims

After participating in this lesson, each student will be able to:

1. Summarize James’s teaching on hearing and doing and on making one’s religion real.

2. Explain how God’s Word should lead to active discipleship.

3. Make a plan to correct one area of life in which he or she needs to move from being a mere hearer to being a doer.

Key Verse: Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says.—James 1:22

Intro: James, the author of today’s Bible text, undoubtedly thought that Bible study, fellowship, etc., were good things. But his issue was that of ensuring that Bible knowledge was put into practice. His concern was for knowing the Word of God in a way that would enable a Christian to do the will of God. And being a doer goes far beyond pleasant fellowship with other Christians. Sometimes I have heard people say of church on Sunday morning, “I think of church as a filling station. I come here empty, and during the service I get filled so I can make it through he week.” The problem with this approach is that this is passive, receptive, not active. It makes church into a place where we come, sit back and say, “OK preacher, ok songleader and prayer leaders- do it to me, fill me up.”
However, the test for good worship, the mark of a good church is not what we do here, during the hours of worship and Bible class; it’s what we do outside those doors for the rest of the week. Yet here, as elsewhere, after all is said and done, more is said than done.
The world is quite right in judging the truth of the gospel on the basis of the sort of lives the gospel is able to produce. Do we really look like the God whom we praise here on Sunday morning? Have our songs and prayers changed us, made us into that which we profess? That is the test, says James.

Lesson Background

The epistle of James was written by James, the brother of Jesus (Galatians 1:19; 2:9). James did not believe Jesus to be the Christ until after Jesus’ resurrection (John 7:5; 1 Corinthians 15:7). James was present with those gathered just before the Day of

Pentecost (Acts 1:14). By the time of the Jerusalem council in Acts 15, James had emerged as one of the principal leaders of the church. James was noteworthy enough for the historian Josephus to record his murder, which happened in about ad 62.

The epistle of James is his only work in the New Testament. Unlike books from Paul, which often are concerned about the place of Gentiles in the church, James writes primarily to Jewish Christians. They were in a tough situation (James 1:1–3). Some even had fled Jerusalem following the persecution by Herod Agrippa that occurred in the time period of Stephen’s stoning and the execution of James, the son of Zebedee (Acts 11:19–12:2).

AMPLIFIED VERSION James 1:17-27

In the verses preceding those for this lesson (James 1:1–16), James challenges believers to have the kind of mature faith that can stand up to life’s disasters and disappointments. He seems worried about their eternal future. He is concerned that many Christians believe—wrongly—that God is tempting them when the opposite is true (1:13). God wants all believers to succeed! In fact, rather than throwing hazards at us, he continually strews our paths with gifts to encourage us as we go.

17 Every good gift and every perfect (^[a]free, large, full) gift is from above; it comes down from the Father of all [that gives] light, in [the shining of] Whom there can be no variation [rising or setting] or shadow cast by His turning [as in an eclipse].
18 And it was of His own [free] will that He gave us birth [as sons] by [His] Word of Truth, so that we should be a kind of firstfruits of His creatures [a sample of what He created to be consecrated to Himself].
19 Understand [this], my beloved brethren. Let every man be quick to hear [a ready listener], slow to speak, slow to take offense and to get angry.
20 For man's anger does not promote the righteousness God [wishes and requires].
21 So get rid of all uncleanness and the rampant outgrowth of wickedness, and in a humble (gentle, modest) spirit receive and welcome the Word which implanted and rooted [in your hearts] contains the power to save your souls.
22 But be doers of the Word [obey the message], and not merely listeners to it, betraying yourselves [into deception by reasoning contrary to the Truth].
23 For if anyone only listens to the Word without obeying it and being a doer of it, he is like a man who looks carefully at his [own] natural face in a mirror;
24 For he thoughtfully observes himself, and then goes off and promptly forgets what he was like.
25 But he who looks carefully into the faultless law, the [law] of liberty, and is faithful to it and perseveres in looking into it, being not a heedless listener who forgets but an active doer [who obeys], he shall be blessed in his doing (his life of obedience).
26 If anyone thinks himself to be religious (piously observant of the external duties of his faith) and does not bridle his tongue but deludes his own heart, this person's religious service is worthless (futile, barren).
27 External ^[b]religious worship [^[c]religion as it is expressed in outward acts] that is pure and unblemished in the sight of God the Father is this: to visit and help and care for the orphans and widows in their affliction and need, and to keep oneself unspotted and uncontaminated from the world.

I. Gifts from God (James 1:17, 18)

A. The Best Gifts (v. 17)

17 Every good gift and every perfect (^[a]free, large, full) gift is from above; it comes down from the Father of all [that gives] light, in [the shining of ] Whom there can be no variation [rising or setting] or shadow cast by His turning [as in an eclipse].

James describes God in three ways: as the one from above, as the Father of the heavenly lights, and as the one who does not change like shifting shadows.

God’s character is like a sun that never sets and that has nothing to block its light. With God, it is always high noon. With this correct understanding of God, it is easy to grasp the idea that he wants only the best for us in life.

What Do You Think? Every good thing is from God! Given this fact, what should you thank him for at this very moment?

James used images of lights and shadows to make his point: with God there is no change. We sinful mortals shift constantly—in our morals, our actions, our priorities, our physical locations, and our attitudes. It is convenient—even vital—to have a point of reference that never changes.

B. The Eternal Gift (v. 18)

18 And it was of His own [free] will that He gave us birth [as sons] by [His] Word of Truth, so that we should be a kind of firstfruits of His creatures [a sample of what He created to be consecrated to Himself].

As in verse 17 above, this verse first draws on creation ideas from Genesis. The creation of humankind by God’s word is implied as the absolute best result of all his creation activities.

This passage uses its language as a stepping-stone to talk about God’s perfect gift: the word of truth. This word gives birth to life of a different order: eternal life.

This birth takes place at the spiritual level and is propelled by a specific word, the message of the gospel. Christians are the firstfruits of humanity. This is apparent because (1) the we and us refer to believers, (2) becoming a Christian is commonly referred to as birth in the New Testament (John 3:3; 1 Peter 1:3), and (3) word of truth refers to the gospel (see also Ephesians 1:13).

II. Lessons from a Proverb (James 1:19–27)

A. 19 Understand [this], my beloved brethren. Let every man be quick to hear [a ready listener], slow to speak, slow to take offense and to get angry.

Proverbs are carefully crafted, memorable sayings. This one not only provides a keen perception about the relationship between listening and outbursts of anger, it also provides the framework for the immediate verses that follow. Verses 20, 21 expand on the third part of the proverb, verses 22–25 on the first, and verse 26 on the second. Not only that, The three parts of verse 19 introduce the broad concerns of the entire book of James: correctly hearing the word (chapter 2), the difficulty of controlling the tongue (chapter 3), and the damaging effect angry speech has on the church (chapter 4).

The primary observation of this proverb is that careful attention to what someone else is saying is the gateway to disciplining one’s own talk. Then disciplining one’s own talk leads to breaking the bad habit of angry, uncontrolled, emotion-laden outbursts. Though every human being occasionally speaks like this, control of this human weakness is a virtue.

Controlling the tongue or in today’s language “watching your mouth” is rather obviously a major concern in the Bible- (The Word of God)- great admonitions are given throughout the Bible about “watching your mouth” and great blessings are promised for those that are meek, humble and self controlled in speech.

How would you explain this principle to another person- for instance someone you were “witnessing’ to?

The best explanation I can find to this occurs in Luke chapter 6:

A Tree and Its Fruit

43 "No good tree bears bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit. 44 Each tree is recognized by its own fruit. People do not pick figs from thornbushes, or grapes from briers. 45 The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart. For out of the overflow of his heart his mouth speaks.

So, according to Jesus, it’s very simple really- what is stored in your heart is what tends to come out of your mouth…. If you cannot control your mouth then you are lacking in humility and lacking in real, mature faith in God… we’ll get to more about the connection between humility and faith a little later.

Sometimes the ways that we defy God’s word and are NOT quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to take offense and get angry are easily overlooked. I find this especially true in today’s socio-political milieu. If you don’t think so- go to your place of work tomorrow and start up a conversation about who should be the next president or what should be done about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, how to bring about a lasting peace in the Mideast, abortion, gay rights, gas prices, the environment, school prayer, taxes, race or whatever the issue of the day is- and then try to be humble and meek especially when you start drawing fire. The lesson plan has a good example of how insidious and easy it is to defy the teaching to be a good, even tempered listener instead of a brash, self righteous motormouth, listen:

Rash Speech

When I was a freshman in college, I had not yet learned some of the subtleties of interpersonal communication. On one occasion I asked a fellow student a question about a rather controversial situation. When she began to explain her view on the issue, I immediately realized her opinion was different from mine. So I jumped in, arguing with her. She let me rattle on for a couple of minutes, then she softly observed, “I thought you were asking for my opinion; I didn’t realize you just wanted to argue.”

I was abashed, but she was right. It was obvious I really didn’t care for her opinion; I just wanted to present my own and argue against hers. I learned over the process of time that she was a thoughtful person, quite bright about a lot of things. But at the time I was a presumptuous freshman, more interested in arguing than in intelligent discussion.

Does that seem familiar to any of you? Do you ever find yourself really just waiting for your turn to talk rather than really listening? Is this a matter of etiquette or do you actually care what the other person thinks?

When we are listening to others, what should we be listening for?

B. Controlling Anger (vv. 20, 21)

20 For man's anger does not promote the righteousness God [wishes and requires].

The word anger in other contexts can refer to the emotional feelings people have when they are upset. But here it represents the unregulated, hurtful words people shout at others when they are angry. This type of behavior is unacceptable to God. Angry words that aim to do harm are always wrong. They are vindictive. However, the emotion of anger itself is in many ways a natural, human way of coping with stressful, unfair things that happen to us in our lives. God himself gets angry (see Zechariah 10:3; Mark 3:5).

The human virtue that is crucial to pleasing God is control. How a person deals with his or her anger is the difference between righteous and unrighteous character. A person can use anger as the impetus to solving problems in productive ways. Mean-spirited, emotional outbursts are not helpful to these ends and are therefore displeasing to God.

What Do You Think?

What situations present the greatest danger for you to speak out inappropriately? What tips have you found helpful for keeping your tongue in check?

21 So get rid of all uncleanness ( filth) and the rampant outgrowth of wickedness, and in a humble (gentle, modest) spirit receive and welcome the Word which implanted and rooted [in your hearts] contains the power to save your souls.

An uncontrolled display of angry words is only one of many unrighteous—and therefore unacceptable—things that people do Rather than continue to allow unrighteous behavior (such as angry speech) to dominate our behavior, we are to cultivate the word we were given when we believed. That precious gift is the word of truth (1:18, above), the gospel.

To be humble or meek means to accept what God ordains or commands and to seek help and or guidance from Him rather than trusting in one’s own intelligence or abilities. This does not mean a passive tolerance of injustice (especially towards others), but a reliance on God for vindication and a refusal to retaliate when insulted. The humble and/or meek person is convinced that God’s ways are good, so he neither disputes nor resists what God sends. The humble person does not have a low opinion of themselves- they are not occupied with self at all. Because they trust God’s goodness and control over situations, the meek person does not have to worry about their self interests or about self preservation or self improvement. Jesus’ meekness did not conflict with his courage, his concern for justice or his confidence that through his unity with God that he was competent to do his job.

What Do You Think?

How can an attitude of humility help keep our tempers in check?

Humility, easily overlooked in verse 21, is a key component for generating the kind of Christian lives that James demands. Certainly, its opposite (namely, arrogance) cannot be present when a person first accepts the gospel, repents of sin, and fully relies on the graciousness of God. Arrogance also impedes the growth of that gospel seed implanted in our lives. Full reliance on God for strength to overcome our unrighteous character is the only way we can become the excellent kind of people God desires. Clearly, the believers James writes to have accepted the implanted word, but they have dampened its growth by their pride. This stands as a warning to us not to do the same.

Matthew 11:29, 30 says “29 Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30 For My yoke is easy and My burden is light.”-…

…but, it sure doesn’t seem so easy to control our emotions our tongue does it? Why do you think that is/? I have an answer for that…

A lot of it is cultural… we live in a culture that glorifies individualism, tough, brutal pragmatism… our heroes are not the meek and/or humble … they are people like Rambo, Batman, Clint Eastwood in his tough guy roles, the celebrities with the most bling, the slickest politicians, the “tell it like it is” news commentators that will let people have it and tell them to shut their mouths when they feel its necessary, The gladiators, the guys with the biggest guns and/or the hardest boiled attitudes… all this is the culture of the World, not the Kingdom of God that Jesus spoke about… the World’s value system is based on domination… Look, all this is something that is not just sort of spiritually problematic… The teachings of Christ and the new Testament authors show clearly that this Worldly value system is a SOUL CRUSHING DISEASE.

C. Hearing God’s Word (vv. 22–25)

22 But be doers of the Word [obey the message], and not merely listeners to it, betraying yourselves [into deception by reasoning contrary to the Truth].

The interest now turns to spiritual matters. The word mentioned here is still the “word of truth,” the gospel planted by God as the eternal gift taking root in the lives of believers.

As most evident in children, there is a big difference between merely hearing and really listening. Poor listening (in terms of “in one ear and out the other”) decreases our ability to perform well. Yet we are to be excellent listeners, focusing intently on what God is saying to us through his gospel, which is now a permanent part of our lives. If we listen well, we will perform well. Our lives will demonstrate the righteous character that pleases God. We will do what the word says (compare Matthew 7:26).

What Do You Think?

Have you ever listened to a sermon and thought to yourself, “This is exactly what so-and-so needs to hear”? How can we focus on letting God’s Word affect us personally rather than worrying about others?

23 For if anyone only listens to the Word without obeying it and being a doer of it, he is like a man who looks carefully at his [own] natural face in a mirror;
24 For he thoughtfully observes himself, and then goes off and promptly forgets what he was like.

What will happen if we refuse to listen attentively to the word? Suppose that one morning we look at the face in the mirror and we don’t recognize ourselves. We ask, “Is that really me?” What a frightening thought! Something would be terribly wrong if this were to happen. After all, this is our very own face.

Someone who uses a mirror then immediately forgets what he looks like won’t recognize himself the next time he uses a mirror. In this case, previously known flaws would go ungroomed.

Luke chapter 6 drives the same point home in another way with a different analogy

The Wise and Foolish Builders

46 "Why do you call me, 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do what I say? 47 I will show you what he is like who comes to me and hears my words and puts them into practice. 48 He is like a man building a house, who dug down deep and laid the foundation on rock. When a flood came, the torrent struck that house but could not shake it, because it was well built. 49 But the one who hears my words and does not put them into practice is like a man who built a house on the ground without a foundation. The moment the torrent struck that house, it collapsed and its destruction was complete

Q: How can you avoid forgetting what God’s Word tells you about yourself and what you should do?

25 But he who looks carefully into the faultless law, the [law] of liberty, and is faithful to it and perseveres in looking into it, being not a heedless listener who forgets but an active doer [who obeys], he shall be blessed in his doing (his life of obedience).

Laws are supposed to be enforceable rules intended to curtail criminal behavior so law-abiding citizens are free from the fear of criminals. Good idea, but whose law is perfect? Not any in human society.

The law at issue here is described as perfect and as giving freedom. It is that part of the word of truth that God has planted in believers. It is perfect because it is the eternal gift of God (1:17). It provides freedom because it is not like any normal human law. Rather than an external rule to enforce behavior by punishment, this law (or word) changes people at their core, releasing them to live out God’s desires because enacting his word comes naturally. It is the fulfillment of Jeremiah 31:33, “I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts.” This law is best represented by “love your neighbor as yourself” (Matthew 19:19). This is a positive principle for determining what God’s desire is from one situation to the next. James probably has this in mind because he refers to it in James 2:8 as the royal law. It is the key law instituted by Jesus for the kingdom of God.

D. Controlling Speech (v. 26)

26 If anyone thinks himself to be religious (piously observant of the external duties of his faith) and does not bridle his tongue but deludes his own heart, this person's religious service is worthless (futile, barren).

This verse deepens the importance of the second part of the proverb of James 1:19. The matter of the control of the tongue is underlined in dire, spiritual terms. James draws a straight line that connects this virtue of speech control to the genuineness of one’s religious experience, and then to the validity of the religion one claims to be true.

James believes at the very least that any religion worth anything should make its devotees better people in ways that others can observe. As applied to Christianity, the communication of its truth to others is utterly dependent on the way Christians behave. The way we talk is one of the best and easiest ways for people to experience the value of Christianity, not only to them as individuals but also to society at large.

Surprisingly, verse 26 uses the word religious like we would today. For the sake of his argument, James views Christianity as one of many religions that people follow. Of course, Christianity is the only completely true religion, since only it incorporates the full, direct revelation from God in Jesus Christ. However, the concern here is not with defending Christianity in terms of its truth claims. Rather, the issue is helping us know that when we fail to control our speech, we exhibit to the world that Christianity has no power to change people for the better. This is devastating to Christianity. We are to let the implanted word blossom into things like honest, uplifting, and genuine words. Compare Psalm 34:13; 39:1; and 141:3.

E. Practical Application (v. 27)

27 External ^[e]religious worship [^[f]religion as it is expressed in outward acts] that is pure and unblemished in the sight of God the Father is this: to visit and help and care for the orphans and widows in their affliction and need, and to keep oneself unspotted and uncontaminated from the world.

James explicitly extends the observations about the importance of a believer’s controlled speech to general behavior. Not only should a valid religion affect our speech, it should bring about observable improvements in the way we live our lives.

It is probably shocking to the first readers of James that a connection is made to widows and orphans, since they are at the very bottom of life economically and socially.

This verse emphasizes that believers should look after those widows and orphans. This does not imply that merely writing out a check exhibits the behavior that pleases God. Rather, what is at issue is caring enough to be involved personally. This is intended to be an example of many observable behaviors in believers that are the result of the word of truth becoming fruitful in our lives.

What Do You Think?

What keeps us from assisting needy people today? How do we overcome this?

A second example lies in how believers behave generally. Having cleaned up our lives to allow the implanted word to grow, we no longer want to exhibit behavior that looks like our old lives. To keep oneself from being polluted by the world does not imply that we are to retreat somehow from the world, keeping ourselves apart from unbelievers. Rather, it implies that believers are no longer to be influenced by the ideas and priorities that motivate unbelievers. We are to show them what Christianity looks like “in the flesh.” We can’t do that if we don’t associate with them.

Q: What is one aspect of God’s Word you’d like to concentrate on this week?

The gifts we have as Christians of salvation and transformed lives are intended to be used. Their involves allowing Christ’s principle of loving others to transform every thought, every desire, habit, every word, every deed and every attitude of our lives into living examples of God’s love for men and women everywhere.

The issue is now before us, now for the final question: what will we do with that which we have said, sung, and heard?

“Preacher or teacher that was a wonderful sermon,” it is often said by the churchmemeber at the door after the service or after class.
“That remains to be seen,” says the Word.

Thought to Remember- Live out the gift of the gospel in word and deed.