Twitter

Religious Freedom Vs. Voting For War

Over at The American Conservative, Rod Dreher makes a great point about two seemingly contradictory Republican stances:
I said in the previous entry that watching the depressing GOP debate [last week], in which Santorum and Romney, one of whom will be the GOP nominee, fell all over themselves to declare themselves ready to attack Iran, it seems that for me, this election is coming down to voting to protect religious freedom, or voting for war. Let me explain what that means.

A vote for the Republican nominee is a vote for a bellicose foreign policy conducted by a president and a party that learned nothing — nothing! — from the Iraq experience. I find it very, very hard to imagine voting for such a candidate. It must be admitted, however, that Obama has not ruled out war against Iran either, though it is reasonable to believe he would be much less willing to cross that line than either Santorum or Romney.
I would have been satisfied to sit this race out, or to vote third party — or, in an extreme case, vote for Obama to keep someone like Newt Gingrich from the White House. But the religious freedom fight over the HHS rule changed that. I am not against contraception, but I found the position the administration took, and the way it handled the controversy, chilling. It told me that when it got right down to it, the Obama administration would stick a shiv in the back of religious institutions to please the cultural left. Given what I take to be the likelihood that the Supreme Court will mandate same-sex marriage at some point in the next eight years, I am genuinely worried about the impact that will have on the liberties of religious schools, houses of worship, and other institutions that dissent on gay marriage.
Now, Dreher thinks that the Health and Human Service rule is infringing upon religious freedom, and I disagree with that. BUT, I really like his larger point here about war.

If you are a conservative, a Republican, or anyone who opposes the HHS ruling based on religious freedom, it seems to me that you are doing so from a pro-life standpoint. Period. Catholics oppose contraception on the basis that it is tantamount to abortion.

But here we have Rick Santorum, that bastion of pro-lifery, practically arguing for an invasion of Iran to stop them from developing nuclear weapons. And fellow GOP challenger Mitt Romney all-but says the same thing: Iran must be stopped from becoming a nuclear power.

But at what cost gentlemen? Dreher is absolutely right here. "A vote for the Republican nominee is a vote for a bellicose foreign policy conducted by a president and a party that learned nothing — nothing! — from the Iraq experience."

But what stymies me even further is this idea that these guys are pro-life -- and yet are cheerleading nothing less than a march to war. How is that being pro-life? How is this saber-rattling point-of-view a representation of Christian convictions regarding war?

Thoughts?