“It’s a far stretch and a great distortion to use Christianity in any way to justify aggression and violence.”
I lifted that Ron Paul quote (written in his book Liberty Defined) from a Washington Post blog post titled "Can a Christian be a libertarian?" The post tries to explain what a Libertarian is and how this ideology synthesizes to biblical Christian views. Here are a few clips from it:
Norman Horn, the writer of this post and the founder of LibertarianChristians.com, obviously believes that a Christian can be a libertarian. I, of course, agree with that answer. Being a Christian is all about a relationship with Christ and not about embracing a political ideology. It is true that there are Christians in conservative, liberal and libertarian circles.
The core of libertarianism is the non-aggression principle: that the initiation of force against person and property is immoral, and it is in many respects a kind of political corollary to the Golden Rule. Thus, Christian libertarians think that government power should be limited, sound money and truly free markets should return, aggressive war must cease and civil liberties must be preserved.
Libertarianism treats man’s sinful nature realistically. James Madison famously quipped that if men were angels no government would be necessary. Christian libertarians take this a step further, saying that it is precisely because men are not angels that government must have extraordinarily limited powers.
It is truly unfortunate that modern American churches seem to think the state’s means of “spreading democracy” through aggressive war is more important than spreading the peaceful message of the Gospel of Christ. Jesus came to bring “peace on earth, good will to men,” and by extension the Christian’s goal ought to be the same.
My struggles, however, with libertarianism is about how passive and isolationist it appears to be - not only in foreign policy but in domestic policy as well. I heartily endorse the idea that we are our brothers keeper and Christians do well when we help the poor - both here and in other countries. And I heartily wish that people of faith would care for the poor so much that government assistance would not be required. But history teaches us that people of faith spend more on religious buildings and teachers than they do on the poor.
Now, for my libertarian leaning friends, I am not saying that I endorse a bloated entitlement driven federal government. All I am saying is that the answers to caring for the poor are complex and excluding governmental help may be a bit short sighted. And perhaps it is all about the kind of government that we, the people, want?