Rand Paul’s understanding of the role of government starkly contrasts with the role envisioned in Catholic teaching.  It is no surprise then when he breaks from the Church’s position on a wide array of issues, particularly those affecting the poor and the most vulnerable.

What may be more surprising is his rejection of the Catholic belief in universal human equality.  The Church believes in the fundamental equality of all human persons, as each is made in the image of God and has inestimable dignity and worth.  Having a religion other than Christianity—or none at all—does not negate this reality or dimish one’s rights.  Many non-Catholic Christians share this belief.

Rand Paul does not appear to be one of them.  In his argument against intervention in Syria, where tens of thousands have been killed by their government, Paul seemed to indicate that a key interest in Syria is the welfare of Christians, many of whom are aligned with Assad’s regime.

Is this an illegitimate concern?  Absolutely not.  Among the rebels, there are violent extremists who may carry out reprisal killings and restrict religious liberty if they gain control of the government.  Further, their strength has grown as the people of Syria have been slaughtered by their own government and the rest of the world, including President Obama, has failed to protect these innocent victims.  Intervention would have been far more effective prior to the radicalization of the opposition.

What is a problem is Rand Paul’s clear indifference to the plight of non-Christians.  First, he shows more concern over the hypothetical killing of Christians down the road than the tens of thousands of Sunni Muslims who have actually been killed by Assad’s brutal regime, including the many families murdered in their own homes by their government.  Second, he points to possible reprisals against Christians, but not Alawites or any others.  He seems more concerned with the sectarian protection of Christians than human rights.

Paul is often labeled a libertarian, but his foreign worldview mixes libertarian ideas with paleoconservative/populist nationalist ideas.  Some of those in the latter category explicitly favor protecting the rights and lives of Christians over other human beings.  In the past few days, they have been spreading Iranian propaganda (Iran and its proxy Hezbollah are supporting Assad) that the rebels have massacred an entire Christian village, a story that lacks any verification by a credible news source.   These populist nationalists, including those on pro-Paul websites, have been using this story, which is also featured on some anti-Semitic and anti-Muslim sites, to criticize President Obama (who they contend has an anti-Christian agenda) for providing the weapons for this slaughter, a remarkably absurd accusation.  Some have expressed support for the butcher Assad.  And sadly some of these deluded Christianists are millennial Catholics.

They are so desperate to promote their anti-interventionist cause (far more than the Neocons, whose approach to interventionism they love to mock) that they are willing to promote Iranian propaganda and pair it with images of children slaughtered by the government the rebels are actually fighting.  When your cause compels you to use the deaths of children instrumentally and dishonestly, you have a real problem.  It’s not as if it is difficult to prove the rebels contain some nefarious guys, including a very famous cannibal.  It shows both their fanaticism and their disregard for reality.

The conflict in Syria is exceptionally complex.  The arguments for intervention are clear, notably the ongoing mass murder of civilians committed by the regime and the humanitarian disaster that it has produced.  Others would certainly mention the strategic considerations, given Iran and Hezbollah’s involvement and the spreading of the conflict.  The arguments against a no-fly zone or alternative forms of intervention are numerous and concerning, as even proponents of intervention typically admit.

Foreign policy is about looking at concrete situations and making hard choices, sometimes in order to simply pick the best of the many bad options, which can include doing nothing.  But for true believers who need only an unquestioning commitment to their own worldview, facts are immaterial.  The decision is made before they have a minimal understanding of the conflict.  This reflexive approach is simply immoral for a Christian who has the responsibility to use prudence to promote the common good.

Catholics who are Ron and Rand Paul enthusiasts, particularly those who have come to value the lives of Christians more than Muslims, need to take these responsibilities seriously.  And they need to realize that Rand Paul’s non-catholic mentality (and perhaps their own) is fundamentally incompatible with Christianity.

All human persons have dignity.  All have worth.  All are made in the image of God.  And all are equal as children of God.  Regardless of where one comes out on a particular argument for or against intervention, foreign policy positions must begin with these facts in mind.  And they demand the exercise of prudence, not blind devotion to one’s ideology.