Freedom Before Peace

( [email protected] ) Oct 28, 2003 10:05 AM EST

If we could summarize all of the rhetoric between nations today, we might very well boil it all down to one word: Peace. It seams that nearly all nations are calling for peace through the formation of various economic, political, cultural and other exchanges. On the surface, this seems marvelous-- even miraculous.

Somehow people hope that by compromising, by meeting in the middle somewhere, that the contentions and disagreements between nations will dissolve. But what about the blatant differences between our nation and some other nations? Are we going to have to give up our freedom or are they going to give up their slavery? Is there a half-way point between freedom and pure socialism? Is the reason the Soviet Union and the United States do not seem so diametrically opposed any more because we have moved in their direction and they have seemingly moved in our direction sufficiently to cause the obvious differences to fade? Do they want our style of peace, while it is defined, perhaps, as each nation minding its own business without encroaching upon the rights of others? Or do we want their style of peace, which is defined as the absence of resistance to aggressive socialism? Is there a compatible half-way point between these two systems, or does one ultimately have to give way to the other?

Before falling ignorantly for this line of "peace," which the media so delightfully dangles in front of us, we would do well to consider a prophecy in chapter seven of the book of Daniel about a certain "king" who shall arise "at the time of the end." It states, "By peace shall [he] destroy many."