Disaster results when compromising beliefs
by Carol Fort
In his Feb. 25 address to Congress, U.S. Rep. Ron Paul stated that most Americans, if asked, would agree that they would prefer to live in a free society instead of a socialist or planned society. And yet, Paul observed, most of these same Americans still continue to endorse the principal of government intervention in personal and economic affairs, granting the government the arbitrary use of force to bring about social and economic changes.
Knowing the full meaning of this, Paul warned, reveals a "monstrous notion" for it is this idea that permits today's programs of taxing, spending, regulating, confiscating, militarizing, harassing, policing, instructing, controlling, borrowing, inflating, moralizing and meddling, while integrating government into every aspect of our lives — all done, of course, in the name of "doing good."
Rep. Paul's ominous conclusion is worthy of our full consideration. "A society that condones government violence and forced redistribution of wealth while attacking the right of its citizens to defend themselves against violence must by its very nature accept authoritarianism as a way of life ... lead(ing) to severe unwanted violence on a grand scale, since the use of violence has been accepted as a proper government function."
Now, it's doubtful that most of these Americans who look to government for the answers to society's problems consider themselves liberals, much less socialists. But do they really differ all that much? One thing is certain ... their mindset is one fraught with dangerous and chilling implications when we consider the findings of S.R. Tuuri, a Christian college student in Livermore, Calif., in his profile of the infamous Nazi SS official, Adolf Eichmann.
Tuuri's research on Eichmann, reported in the March Chalcedon Report, shows that contrary to popular belief, Adolf Eichmann wasn't "a rabidly anti-Semitic, sadistic pervert who derived pleasure from ruthless murder on an enormous scale," but rather, Eichmann sought easy success by shunning independent thought and personal responsibility, adopting "without comment or criticism the policies and provisos of the group of the moment...."
With no steadfast convictions and no uncompromising beliefs of his own, Eichmann "was not in the least offended by a program based upon racist, supremacist, nationalist ideology." Tuuri speculates that Eichmann never stopped to consider a higher standard, some greater Law by which to measure and evaluate all others, including Adolf Hitler's. Rather, he pliably embraced Hitler "as the ultimate legal, ethical and moral authority."
Many Americans, Tuuri contends, reflect Eichmann's basic mindset. "So many men in our country wear the mask of the responsible, tax-paying, law-abiding citizen, and never bother to ask themselves if the taxes they pay are spent on programs that are just and moral, if the laws they follow echo the Laws of God." In this way, Tuuri concludes, we ourselves, through our own refusal to be responsible, create the circumstances in which another Holocaust of some nature may arise — "if it is not already upon us."