• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Are U.S. Christian Fundamentalists Stoking War In The Middle-East?

Working towards ending the world?

http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/issues/2003-02-13/feature.html/1/index.html

In the article linked to the URL above, I found an explanation of millenialists that I had not understood before.

An earlier piece from Time magazine mentioned a link between Bush's actions and the interests of these conversative "Christians," but failed to make the point that these people intend to end the world. Really intend to end it.

This article makes the point rather clearly.

Iraq is the starter in the plan.

Oh.

That would seem idiotic were the millenialists not heavily influencing the current US administration, backing their ideas with cash, and receiving the nod from Ariel Sharon.

Is there any chance that Christians can take back their religion from these freaks? (And assorted other freaks like the KKK?)

Is there any chance at all of stopping this march into insanity?
 
Just What Is Pre-Tribulation Millennialism, Anyway?

Thanks for the Post Elisheva! :yeay:

Good background on just how complicated (and downright weird) Christian beliefs have got in the US these days.

Bit long, but worth reading all of it.
 
This sort of rang a bell in my head - the kosher calf story in FT a year or two ago... whatever happened to it?
Meant to be the sign that building could begin on the dome of the rock and that the messiah would come. Pity the rabbi left us, I'm sure he could tell us the current status.
 
I've been saying this for weeks, and everyone thinks I'm bonkers. At last someone else has noticed that the lunatics have taken over the asylum.
 
Unicycle, are you talking about the pure red heifer? I think she was found not to so pure after all... so hopefully we're safe for a while.

I too find it very strange, and frightening, that people - of whatever faith - actually want to bring about armageddon. I suppose the reasoning is that they are doing God's work and truely believe that they will be saved whilst the heathern masses (including me, probably) get their just rewards.

This kind of thinking isn't limited to America - I've been approached by people in deepest darkest Oxfordshire who have told me gleefully that I will "die in Hell" (I always thought you had to die first, but what's a little illogic between friends?).

Moderate Christians - and Moslems, Jews, Pagans, etc - are some of the nicest people on earth. Those that retain the ability to think for themselves rather than take often poetic and allegorical text to extremes.

Jane.
 
But - What if the red heifer really was kosher. That would mean the end times were upon us, and that info is not something that would be passed along to you or me.
If I start hearing about WMD stored near the hill of Megiddo I'm gonna instantly become a devout believer, just in case.
 
Scarier and Scarier

The idea of Christian fanatics bringing about the End of the World is scary.

Scarier still is the possibility that they are right about the Apocalypse but deceived by their long-awaited Antichrist into thinking they are working for God when they are really working for, say, the Mother of all Evil Empires under His Deceiving Evil Self. After all, Bush isn't out to destroy Iraq (and Babylon): he is out to control it, and thereby control the oil, and as a consequence, the world. A lot of people are afraid HE is the Antichrist, or at least is not doing anything differently than he would if he thought he was.

Scariest of all is the possibility that the End of the Worlders are wrong about everything--there is no God, the Bible is the collective insanity of a couple of thousand of years. This is the scariest possibility in my mind because they could still bring about the End of the World in their delusion.

By the way, the attributes of Babylon, whose name is Mystery are pretty clear:

1. She is a great, rich nation: her merchants are great men in the world, and she has made all of the world's merchants rich with her delicacies.
2. She has fornicated with all the kings of the Earth.
3. She is supported by 10 kings, who will betray her and destroy her.
4. She is (the re-incarnation of Rome), the city founded on 7 hills (the 7 heads of the Beast from the Sea are also 7 kings, five of whom were and are not, one of whom is, and one yet to come, who is the re-incarnation of the sixth king). The sixth king is usually identified with the reigning Roman Emperor at the time of writing, possibly Nero.
5. She is a nation that boasts that "she is a Queen, she is no widow, she shall know no sorrows". And followers of the Beast boast that nobody can defeat him.

Iraq, on the other hand, is poor ($57 billion GNP), as is North Korea ($25 billion GNP), Afghanistan (GNP is measured in goats and walnuts). This might not be an objection to Babylon being literally restored as the End of the Worlders sometimes believe. After all, combining the military, political, cultural and economic might of the United States with its (soon-to-be) occupied province, you get--Babylon, the Great Satan, the Last Empire, or to sum up, the World's Only Supernatural Power.

This just goes to show how treacherous interpreting prophecy is.

There are a couple of other options though: the prophecies are right but the conditions have not been met and won't be for a very long time, and also, the prophecies are wrong but somehow or other we will survive long enough to realize this and some other religions beside Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc., will arise and led us to destruction in the fulness of time.

Mind you, that is scary, too, but it gives us lots of time to concentrate on fixing the business at hand.
 
And What Do I Think?

I hope I am wrong, but not so wrong that I have to repent my sins on short notice.
 
Re: scarier and scarier

littleblackduck said:
This just goes to show how treacherous interpreting prophecy is.

I agree.

Can anyone here give a summary of how the Nazis became that ruling force in Germany? If I remember correctly, the average citizens were looking the other way, or, rather, not taking the Nazis seriously, which gave the Nazis their ability to seize power.

This sort of takeover is what worries me about the Millinenialists, and they have nothing to lose since they want war -- in essence, suicide; and because they are seen as bizarre and outrageous, they aren't taken as a serious threat.

But what to do?
 
The Nazis rose to power in two ways. Firstly, they actively killed off opposition groups and their leaders during a period of great political and economic instability in Germany. Secondly, these attacks meant that the only well-organised political party in Germany after the Weimar Republic collapsed was - the Nazi Party. Even other mainstream parties within Germany had little real power and couldn't see eye-to-eye on enough issues to organise a capable opposition to the Nazi party. The Nazis then started consolidating their power by winning a sizable amount of elections throughout Germany. Basically, the were well organised enough to fill a power vaccum which they'd helped to create. No-one was really looking the other way, as the Nazis had a wide reaching support within the German population - remember that their more radical ideologies weren't really so much to the fore at the time - they more likely represented a strong force of law and order, and celebrated German nationalism, which had been supressed after WW1. Hitler was really the only party leader in Germany in the 1930s that had alot of support and also represented a cohesive political party in itself. So he was the best man for the job at the time to be Chancellor. As soon as he got that position, it gave him huge amounts of power - which he then put to use.
 
The Nazis rose to power in two ways...

Thank you for the excellent summary. The situation with the Millenialists is not equivalent, then, which is good.

Sentiment in the USA is turning (slowly) against GWB -- were the election today, he would lose.

But, sentiment today is not sentiment tomorrow.
 
Christian millenialism in office

We went through the same thing with Ronald Reagan. He seemed to really think the final battle between good and evil would be fought on his watch.

Interestingly enough, Bush sr didn't seem to labor under such delusions. He just concentrated and finishing up the cold war.


Of course, I always suspected there was a little of that "I'm a crazy warmonger, you better do what I want or I'll kill us all" bravado going on. More a calculated ploy rather than a actual belief. Now with North Korea, who can tell?
 
When all's said and done you know, it's just a book. And we're all intelligent rational people. Does anyone really believe that whoever wrote revelations thousands of years ago had some hotline to the future? Or that they even cared about the future beyond their own and the next generation? It's got to be the most ludicrous idea since astrology.
That's just my opinion mind. :)
 
beakboo said:
...Does anyone really believe that whoever wrote revelations thousands of years ago had some hotline to the future?...:)

Not me, but the people in the original article are obviously true believers.
 
Elisheva said:
Thank you for the excellent summary. The situation with the Millenialists is not equivalent, then, which is good.
Sentiment in the USA is turning (slowly) against GWB -- were the election today, he would lose.
But, sentiment today is not sentiment tomorrow.

The Nazis and any similar extremist groups really need power vaccums in order to get their foot in the door. Or some sort of martial law being declared. I can't see that happening in the US in the near future...Public opinion comes and goes like the tide - at the moment it's rolling in and generally supporting the war. But in time I expect it will start to roll back, especially if the war drags on for too long, or is successful and then GWB forgets to do something about his extrememly lacklustre domestic policies. I wouldn't be suprised if he has to raise taxes pretty soon, for example.
 
The Revelation

It's interesting when people (The Millenialists) try to divine from a simple reading of the Revelation correlations to current world events. It would have more validity if people had not tried to do the self same thing in every decade of every century since it was published in the vernacular.

Another interesting aspect of this interpreting to suit one's own beliefs is that, as a rule, not even the more devout and enthusiastic interpreters can tell you that the Revelation is a very narrow and specific sub-genre of religious literature of the era (Apocalyptic), and not one will tell you that the Revelation is not considered by historians, Bible scholars or even experts in literature to be something that can be effectively interpreted without considerable study into that form of literature and study into the cultural context, the remainder of the Bible, et cetera, et cetera. Why not? Because they don't know these things. In general they speak from enthusiastic ignorance.

In other words, Divine Word of God or not, it's also as clouded as any of Nostrademus's predictions, and we have all heard of how those can be conveniently interpreted to fit the emergency at hand.
 
People make what they want from things, even more so if they want an agenda. I think the Millenialists are only really coming to the fore because there is a more right-wing US government and there's a war going on. It's oppurtunism on their part. If US politics swing back to the 'left' (as much as they can do in the US), these voices will recede back into the background.

Sometimes the very inscrutability of something leaves it open to all sorts of interpretation, which sometimes can even make some sort of sense. Anyone remember a letter to FT about 10 or 12 years ago where someone said (and demonstrated) in a tongue-in-cheek way that all of Nostradmus's 'predictions' were about football? It was funny, but it went to show that any sort of structure imposed upon something which lacks it can be used to 'prove' your point.
 
Another interesting aspect of this interpreting to suit one's own beliefs is that, as a rule, not even the more devout and enthusiastic interpreters can tell you that the Revelation is a very narrow and specific sub-genre of religious literature of the era (Apocalyptic), and not one will tell you that the Revelation is not considered by historians, Bible scholars or even experts in literature to be something that can be effectively interpreted without considerable study into that form of literature and study into the cultural context, the remainder of the Bible, et cetera, et cetera. Why not? Because they don't know these things. In general they speak from enthusiastic ignorance.

Couldn't have said it better myself Aquaman! The book is best approached in the first instance as a feast of rich symbolism and imagery. Recommended much more for those into apocalyptic literature than those desperate to know about "the end of the world". My advice to the latter is - realise you could be hit by a bus tomorrow, it'd be all over then for sure! ;)

From what I've seen a lot of these religious types ('Christian', Muslim, Jew, whatever) are ever scanning the horizon for the signs of a fiery end to the world so that they can fire off a judgemental rant at the unbelievers. Whatever about the rest, the 'Christian' element are wont to focus on Revelation and ignore Paul's plea to the Corinthian church: "What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church?"
 
JerryB said:
I wouldn't be suprised if he has to raise taxes pretty soon, for example.

I heard last night he's already had to cancel his tax cuts, to pay for his foreign adventure... but that should really be in the War thread (damn thing moves too fast, go to post a reply and three pages suddenly appear...)
 
This certainly suggests the fundies are driving policy where it comes to Israel (hence the US veto of the UN resolution this week):

Last Update: 04/10/2004 22:44

Robertson: If Bush 'touches' Jerusalem, we'll form 3rd party

By Daphna Berman, Haaretz correspondent, and agencies

Influential American evangelist Pat Robertson said Monday that Evangelical Christians feel so deeply about Jerusalem, that if President George W. Bush were to "touch" Jerusalem, Evangelicals would abandon their traditional Republican leanings and form a third party.
Evangelical Christians - estimated at tens of millions of Americans -
overwhelmingly support Bush for his pro-Israel policies, Robertson told a Jerusalem news conference Monday.

But if Bush shifted his position toward support for Jerusalem as a capital for both Israel and a Palestinian state, his Evangelical backing would disappear, Robertson indicated.

"The President has backed away from [the road map], but if he were to touch Jerusalem, he'd lose all Evangelical support," Robertson said. "Evangelicals would form a third party" because, though people "don't know about" Gaza, Jerusalem is an entirely different matter.

Robertson, an outspoken supporter of Israel who is in the country to celebrate the Feast of Tabernacles, also added that visitors to Israel should not be overly critical of the government's political decisions.

He has refrained from overtly criticizing Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's disengagement plan and says only that he hopes the "Israeli people will make the right decision" in matters of territorial concessions.

"It is unwise for a visitor from America to get involved in Israeli politics," he stated at a press conference in the capital's International Convention Center.

Together with an estimated 5,000 Christians from around the world, Robertson has been touring the Holy Land this week, in effort to support and pray for the people of Israel. He led a prayer service on Sunday outside the Knesset, where he blasted Hezbollah, Hamas, and the idea of jihad.

"Arab nations want a conflict and want to keep the suffering of people in Gaza," he said. "They don't want peace; they want the destruction of Israel."

Robertson urged that the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) be abolished, given what he called the organization's active role in the "perpetuation" of the Palestinian refugee problem. He warned that a Palestinian state would become "a constant source of irritation" that would "endanger the territorial integrity" of Israel.

"A Palestinian state with full sovereignty would be a launching ground for various types of weapons, including weapons of mass destruction," the former presidential candidate said.

Thousands of Christians march for Jerusalem
As many as 20,000 marchers were expected to take part in the annual Jerusalem March procession, which was to pass through the heart of the city on Monday the afternoon, among them thousands of Evangelicals and other Christians.

Police officials began closing streets at 1:30 P.M. to allow marchers to pass. Among the central Jerusalem traffic arteries closed, either fully or in sections, were Ben-Zvi, Bezalel, Ben-Yehuda, King George, Jaffa, Shlomzion HaMalka, Koresh, Azza, Agron, Menashe Ben-Israel, HaEmek, HaRav Kook, Havatzelet, Heleni HaMalka, Histadrut, Shammai and Hillel Streets.

Most of the streets were to have been re-opened by 5:30 P.M.

In a gathering of more than 4,000 pilgrims at a Jerusalem convention center Sunday, Robertson warned that some Muslims were trying to foil "God's plan" to let Israel hold on to its lands. The number of pilgrims was about 25 percent higher than the past three years, according to organizers with the International Christian Embassy.

"I see the rise of Islam to destroy Israel and take the land from the Jews and give East Jerusalem to [Palestinian Authority Chairman] Yasser Arafat. I see that as Satan's plan to prevent the return of Jesus Christ the Lord," said Robertson, a Christian broadcaster.

In two Jerusalem appearances, Robertson Sunday praised Israel as part of God's plan and criticized Arab countries and some Muslims, saying their hopes to include Israeli-controlled land in a Palestinian state are part of "Satan's plan."

Robertson, who has made critical statements of Islam in the past, called Israel's Arab neighbors "a sea of dictatorial regimes."

He said he "sends notice" to Osama bin Laden, Arafat and Palestinian militant groups that "you will not frustrate God's plan" to have Jews rule the Holy Land until the Second Coming of Jesus.

Only God should decide if Israel should relinquish control of the lands it captured in the 1967 war, including the Gaza Strip, West Bank and East Jerusalem, Robertson said, in a reference to Sharon's plan to pull out of Gaza next year.

"God says, 'I'm going to judge those who carve up the West Bank and Gaza Strip,'" Robertson said. "'It's my land and keep your hands off it.'"

Blowing rams' horns and exclaiming "Hallelujah," hundreds of pilgrims - including visitors from Norway, England and Germany - gathered in downtown Jerusalem to pray for peace and celebrate Israel's unification of the city with the capture of East Jerusalem in 1967.

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/484861.html
 
And this probably fits in here and it says interesting things about the mindset of the Conservatives and why it is so difficult for a lot of us liberal types to understand why the tide hasn't turned against Bush:

Pastor Bush

Why do so many Americans dismiss the evidence that the occupation of Iraq has gone disastrously wrong? Because the US has a long tradition of putting faith before facts. Jonathan Raban on George Bush's debt to the Puritans

Wednesday October 6, 2004
The Guardian

In the secular, liberal, top-left-hand corner of the US where I live, the prevailing mood was one not far short of despair as incredulity mounted that the daily avalanche of bad news from Baghdad, Fallujah, Tikrit, Samarra, Najaf, Nasiriyah, Kufa, Ramadi, Baquba and elsewhere was apparently failing to make any significant dent in Bush's poll numbers, or expose his claim that freedom and democracy are on the march in Iraq as a blithe and cynical fiction. What would it take? people asked: How many more American and Iraqi deaths? When would it sink in that the occupation of Iraq is a bloody catastrophe? Why was the electorate so unmoved by the abundant empirical evidence that the administration's policy in the Middle East wantonly endangers America as it endangers the wider world? Kerry's performance in the first presidential debate brought a much-needed lift of spirits to this neck of the woods, but the Democratic candidate is up against something more formidable than the person of George Bush: he has to deal with the unquiet spirit of American puritanism and its long and complicated legacy.

Last Monday, on the school run, I caught an interview on NPR's Morning Edition with the grieving family of a sergeant in the Oregon National Guard who was killed in Iraq on September 13. Here's what Sergeant Ben Isenberg's dad said: "This war is not about Iraqis and Americans, or oil: this is a spiritual war. The people who don't understand that just need to dig into their Bible and read about it. It's predicted, it's predestined. Benjamin understood that the president is a very devouted [sic] Christian. Ben understood that the calling was to go because the president had the knowledge, and understood what was going on, and it's far deeper than we as people can ever really know. We don't get the information that the president gets."

In context it's clear that by "information" he wasn't talking about the stuff that passes from the CIA to the White House. This information comes from the guy whom Bush likes to call his "higher Father". As the president said in the closing lines of his acceptance speech at the Republican convention last month, "We have a calling from beyond the stars ..." - a claim that in some societies might lead to a visit from the men in white coats, but in America, among the faithful, is met with rapturous applause.

Every Bush speech is richly encrypted with covert Biblical allusions and other secret handshakes with his fundamentalist listeners, but one need not be a fundamentalist to warm to this sort of religiose rhetoric, for it is every bit as much of an "American" thing as it is a "Christian" one. Rationalist liberals, tone-deaf to its appeal, make a serious mistake in their assumption that facts-on-the-ground, in Iraq or in the domestic US, can readily explode what the Bush administration has managed to project as a matter not of reason but of faith.

Faith, as Mark Twain's apocryphal schoolboy said, "is believing what you know ain't so". Faith always contradicts the visible evidence, like the putrefying body or the fossil in the rock - obstacles put in our way to test the mettle of our belief and reveal the inadequacy of our merely sublunar knowledge. Ben Isenberg's father was certain of this: "It's far deeper than we as people can ever really know."

No culture in the world has elevated "faith", in and of itself, with or without specific religious beliefs, to the status it enjoys in the United States. Faith - in God, or the future, or the seemingly impossible, which is the core of the American Dream - is a moral good in its own right. In no other culture is the word "dream" so cemented into everyday political language, for in America dreams are not idle, they are items of faith, visions that transcend the depressing available evidence and portend the glorious future as if it were indeed "predicted . . . predestined", as Isenberg's father saw the war on Iraq.

When Americans tell their own history at the grade-school, storybook level, they conveniently forget the earliest and most successful colony of tobacco-aristocrats in Virginia (a bunch of degenerate smokers) and instead trace themselves back to the zealous theocrats in tall black hats who founded the Massachusetts Bay Colony, and whose first harvest is celebrated in the all-American orgy of Thanksgiving. The names of the Susan Constant, Godspeed, and Discovery, which put into the James River in 1607, have little resonance now, but everyone knows about the 1620 voyage of the Mayflower and its Pilgrim Fathers because the Puritans, who have never gone out of date, left behind a peculiarly American philosophy of the miraculous power of faith and hard labour, along with a dangerously uplifting vision of America's rightful place in the world. In a sermon of 1651, Peter Bulkeley laid out the essential rhetorical frame of Bush's foreign policy: "We are as a city set upon a hill, in the open view of all the earth, the eyes of the world are upon us because we profess ourselves to be a people in covenant with God ... Let us study so to walk that this may be our excellency and dignity among the nations of the world among which we live; that they may be constrained to say of us, only this people is wise, a holy and blessed people ... We are the seed that the Lord hath blessed." The sting in that exclusive only has been lately felt by almost every foreign ambassador to the UN who's had to listen to Bush or Powell lecturing the assembly on America's historic moral exceptionalism.

It was axiomatic to Puritan belief that the city on the hill had been raised in a land previously inhabited by devils whose spirits still walked abroad, conspiring against the holy, wise, and blessed citizens. At the time of the Salem witch trials in 1693, Cotton Mather struck exactly the same note as Bush strikes when he speaks of al-Qaida.

"The devil is now making one attempt more upon us; an attempt more difficult, more surprising, more snarled with unintelligible circumstances than any we have hitherto encountered; an attempt so critical, that if we get well through, we shall soon enjoy halcyon days, with all the vultures of hell trodden under our feet." A "horrible plot" had been detected, "which if it were not seasonably uncovered would probably blow up and pull down all the churches in the country." More than 21 witches "have confessed that they have signed unto a book, which the devil showed them, and engaged in his hellish design of bewitching and ruining our land."

While the Virginia colony brought 18th-century rationalism to America, and supplied four of its first five presidents (Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe), the New England puritans of Massachusetts gave Americans an intensely dramatic and emotional sense of their peculiar predicament. They were an exception among nations, uniquely favoured by Providence. They alone enjoyed the liberty to walk with God according to their own lights. They were a people of faith beleaguered on all sides by wicked spirits. Cleaving to their faith, they must distrust "imperfect reason" (Mather's phrase) as a means of discerning the mystery of creation and the visible world around them. Not least, the Puritan plain style (Mather warned writers of "muses no better than harlots" and of prose "stuck with as many jewels as the gown of a Russian ambassador"), which owed much to the teaching of Peter Ramus, the French philosopher and rhetorician, made these ideas accessible to the least educated, and gave them the unvarnished vigour that they still have today. The remarkable survival of this 17th-century worldview in 21st-century America has as much to do with style as with theological substance: people who would now find Jefferson or Madison hard going could easily thrill to the words of Mather, John Winthrop, the rollicking hellfire poet Michael Wigglesworth, or the poet of domestic sublimity Anne Bradstreet.

The Puritans live! And the shrewd men of the Bush administration have expertly hotwired the president to the galvanic energy-source of Puritan tradition. It's as if America, since 9/11, has been reconstituted as a colonial New England village: walled-in behind a stockade to keep out Indians (who were seen as in thrall to the devil); centred on its meeting house in whose elevated pulpit stands Bush, the plain-spun preacher, a figure of nearly totalitarian authority in the community of saints. The brave young men of the village are out in the wilderness, doing the Lord's work, fighting wicked spirits who would otherwise be inside the stockade, burning down Main Street and the meeting house. That, at least, is how the presidential handlers have tried to paint things, and, given the continuing power of the American Puritan tradition, it's not very surprising that a likely electoral majority have gratefully accepted the picture at its face value: that the proportions are all wrong (the world's remaining superpower simply won't fit into the space of a pious, beleaguered village) doesn't matter, for the administration has successfully tapped into a toxic national mythos.

Faith rules. After a faltering start to his presidency, Bush found his role in the aftermath of the attacks of September 2001 as America's pastor-in-chief. His inarticulacy without a script was an earnest of his humility and sincerity, his dogmatic certitude a measure of his godly inspiration. "His way of preaching was very plain," as Mather wrote of John Eliot of Roxbury, Massachusetts, "He did not starve [the people] with empty and windy Speculations." Confronted a couple of weeks ago with the CIA's grim forecast of mounting unrest and possible civil war in Iraq, Bush airily said, "they were just guessing". The president doesn't guess. As he intimates to his congregation on every possible occasion, his intelligence is leaked to him by He Who Holds the Stars in His Right Hand.

To doubt is to succumb to temptation by the wicked spirits. In the New Testament, empiricism gets a bad press in the person of poor Thomas Didymus, and Christ's rebuke: "Blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed." That the facts on the ground in Iraq are in clear contradiction of all Bush's claims about the flowering of liberty and democracy there is merely one of those tests of faith to which all true believers are subject. Of course we can't see it, but that makes the miracle only more marvellous, its very invisibility an inspiring moral challenge for the faithful.

In last Thursday's debate with Kerry at the University of Miami, Bush appeared petulant and bemused (especially in the reaction shots that were shown by the networks in defiance of the rules agreed by the Commission on Presidential Debates) to find himself there at all. There's no space in the meeting house for two rival pulpits, and Pastor Bush, for the first time since his election, if that's the right term for what happened in 2000, had to endure standing on an equal footing with an upstart congregant who was the spitting image of Doubting Thomas. There was a note of wounded incredulity in Bush's voice when he said of Kerry that "He changes positions on something as fundamental as what you believe in your core, in your heart of hearts, is right in Iraq." O faithless Kerry! - apostate! - unbeliever! In Bush's Puritan theology, to change one's mind in the face of overwhelming evidence is tantamount to denying the very God who rules your "heart of hearts". How can my belief be wrong if He placed it there?

Yet debates - even ones as stilted as those agreed between the campaigns this year - are rational exercises with an inbuilt bias favouring reason over faith. Unsurprisingly, the rationalist on Thursday beat the preacher at the rationalist's own game, and in my own political neighbourhood there was hardly less elation that evening than if the Seattle Mariners had carried off the World Series. But a debate is a very different thing from an election, and if Kerry did manage to win on November 2, it would be a surprising triumph of cold reason over hot religious mythology.

No more classic American sentiment has ever been put into a foreigner's mouth than when the New York lyricist Joe Darion made Don Quixote sing, in Man of La Mancha, "To dream the impossible dream,/ To fight the unbeatable foe,/ To bear with unbearable sorrow,/ To run where the brave dare not go." Only an entrenched belief in one's own exceptionalism and a wonder-working Providence could justify such otherwise self-evidently futile activities. With Bush, we're now dreaming an impossible dream and fighting an unbeatable foe, and tens of millions of Americans - enough, quite probably, to give Bush a second term - believe that is the right, because it's the American thing to do.

Tony Blair has lately given the impression that he's been channelling the same source (Almighty God and/or Karl Rove) who inspires the rhetoric of Bush, but in Britain there is no rich mulch of popular national tradition in which Blair's words can take root. The historic connection between the Labour party of Keir Hardie's time and the Methodist church is something altogether different from the great folk memory of the embattled God-fearing city on the hill that stirs deep in the American imagination. When Bush plays the faith card, he summons powerful ancient ghosts. When Blair tries to bring off the same trick, he merely calls attention to his conscience, his private religious beliefs, awakening no echoes in the land of mild, secularised Anglicanism where to speak of one's own intimacy with God's purpose is to place oneself in the embarrassing company of the man in the ragged overcoat, haranguing a non-existent audience from a soapbox at Speakers Corner - which, come to think of it, is a convenient short stroll from the Blair family's new quarters in Connaught Square.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1320762,00.html
 
i'm probably working from very dodgy memory here but, if i recall correctly, i heard a story broadcast on radio regarding the christian right lobbying congress to study the end-times prophecy of revelations. this was about 7-8 years ago and was supposed to include finding a date for armageddon and the likely candidate for anti-christ. i've searched around for this on the net but found nothing - can anyone else recall this story, perhaps an (apocryphal) urban legend?
 
This is the first page of a 10 page piece:

Without a Doubt

By RON SUSKIND

Published: October 17, 2004



Bruce Bartlett, a domestic policy adviser to Ronald Reagan and a treasury official for the first President Bush, told me recently that ''if Bush wins, there will be a civil war in the Republican Party starting on Nov. 3.'' The nature of that conflict, as Bartlett sees it? Essentially, the same as the one raging across much of the world: a battle between modernists and fundamentalists, pragmatists and true believers, reason and religion.

''Just in the past few months,'' Bartlett said, ''I think a light has gone off for people who've spent time up close to Bush: that this instinct he's always talking about is this sort of weird, Messianic idea of what he thinks God has told him to do.'' Bartlett, a 53-year-old columnist and self-described libertarian Republican who has lately been a champion for traditional Republicans concerned about Bush's governance, went on to say: ''This is why George W. Bush is so clear-eyed about Al Qaeda and the Islamic fundamentalist enemy. He believes you have to kill them all. They can't be persuaded, that they're extremists, driven by a dark vision. He understands them, because he's just like them. . . .

''This is why he dispenses with people who confront him with inconvenient facts,'' Bartlett went on to say. ''He truly believes he's on a mission from God. Absolute faith like that overwhelms a need for analysis. The whole thing about faith is to believe things for which there is no empirical evidence.'' Bartlett paused, then said, ''But you can't run the world on faith.''


Forty democratic senators were gathered for a lunch in March just off the Senate floor. I was there as a guest speaker. Joe Biden was telling a story, a story about the president. ''I was in the Oval Office a few months after we swept into Baghdad,'' he began, ''and I was telling the president of my many concerns'' -- concerns about growing problems winning the peace, the explosive mix of Shiite and Sunni, the disbanding of the Iraqi Army and problems securing the oil fields. Bush, Biden recalled, just looked at him, unflappably sure that the United States was on the right course and that all was well. '''Mr. President,' I finally said, 'How can you be so sure when you know you don't know the facts?'''

Biden said that Bush stood up and put his hand on the senator's shoulder. ''My instincts,'' he said. ''My instincts.''

Biden paused and shook his head, recalling it all as the room grew quiet. ''I said, 'Mr. President, your instincts aren't good enough!'''


The democrat Biden and the Republican Bartlett are trying to make sense of the same thing -- a president who has been an extraordinary blend of forcefulness and inscrutability, opacity and action.

But lately, words and deeds are beginning to connect.

The Delaware senator was, in fact, hearing what Bush's top deputies -- from cabinet members like Paul O'Neill, Christine Todd Whitman and Colin Powell to generals fighting in Iraq -- have been told for years when they requested explanations for many of the president's decisions, policies that often seemed to collide with accepted facts. The president would say that he relied on his ''gut'' or his ''instinct'' to guide the ship of state, and then he ''prayed over it.'' The old pro Bartlett, a deliberative, fact-based wonk, is finally hearing a tune that has been hummed quietly by evangelicals (so as not to trouble the secular) for years as they gazed upon President George W. Bush. This evangelical group -- the core of the energetic ''base'' that may well usher Bush to victory -- believes that their leader is a messenger from God. And in the first presidential debate, many Americans heard the discursive John Kerry succinctly raise, for the first time, the issue of Bush's certainty -- the issue being, as Kerry put it, that ''you can be certain and be wrong.''

What underlies Bush's certainty? And can it be assessed in the temporal realm of informed consent?

All of this -- the ''gut'' and ''instincts,'' the certainty and religiosity -connects to a single word, ''faith,'' and faith asserts its hold ever more on debates in this country and abroad. That a deep Christian faith illuminated the personal journey of George W. Bush is common knowledge. But faith has also shaped his presidency in profound, nonreligious ways. The president has demanded unquestioning faith from his followers, his staff, his senior aides and his kindred in the Republican Party. Once he makes a decision -- often swiftly, based on a creed or moral position -- he expects complete faith in its rightness.

The disdainful smirks and grimaces that many viewers were surprised to see in the first presidential debate are familiar expressions to those in the administration or in Congress who have simply asked the president to explain his positions. Since 9/11, those requests have grown scarce; Bush's intolerance of doubters has, if anything, increased, and few dare to question him now. A writ of infallibility -- a premise beneath the powerful Bushian certainty that has, in many ways, moved mountains -- is not just for public consumption: it has guided the inner life of the White House. As Whitman told me on the day in May 2003 that she announced her resignation as administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency: ''In meetings, I'd ask if there were any facts to support our case. And for that, I was accused of disloyalty!'' (Whitman, whose faith in Bush has since been renewed, denies making these remarks and is now a leader of the president's re-election effort in New Jersey.)

The nation's founders, smarting still from the punitive pieties of Europe's state religions, were adamant about erecting a wall between organized religion and political authority. But suddenly, that seems like a long time ago. George W. Bush -- both captive and creator of this moment -- has steadily, inexorably, changed the office itself. He has created the faith-based presidency.

The faith-based presidency is a with-us-or-against-us model that has been enormously effective at, among other things, keeping the workings and temperament of the Bush White House a kind of state secret. The dome of silence cracked a bit in the late winter and spring, with revelations from the former counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke and also, in my book, from the former Bush treasury secretary Paul O'Neill. When I quoted O'Neill saying that Bush was like ''a blind man in a room full of deaf people,'' this did not endear me to the White House. But my phone did begin to ring, with Democrats and Republicans calling with similar impressions and anecdotes about Bush's faith and certainty. These are among the sources I relied upon for this article. Few were willing to talk on the record. Some were willing to talk because they said they thought George W. Bush might lose; others, out of fear of what might transpire if he wins. In either case, there seems to be a growing silence fatigue -- public servants, some with vast experience, who feel they have spent years being treated like Victorian-era children, seen but not heard, and are tired of it. But silence still reigns in the highest reaches of the White House. After many requests, Dan Bartlett, the White House communications director, said in a letter that the president and those around him would not be cooperating with this article in any way.

Requires (free) registration:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine/17BUSH.html?oref=login&oref=login
 
It's not just the US where fundamentalist religion is an issue in the political scene. In Australia it is still entirely possible that a totally new party from the religious right may hold the balance of power in the Senate. Australian politics have been traditionally free from a religious dimension since the demise of the DLP, a roman catholic right-wing party, over twenty years ago. One recent prime minister, Bob Hawke, was even a publicly avowed atheist. The current, recently returned prime minister, John Howard, has been vocal about his religious beliefs, but they seem to be almost middle of the road, even if reminiscent of views popular in the 1950s. However, he is a very socially conservative PM and has some real religious obsessives in his cabinet such as Tony Abbott. If the price of support from the Christian Family First Party is a raft of socially conservative and illiberal legislation, then god help Australia! We could be back in the dark ages in no time flat.
 
December 8 - 14, 2004

Is Bush the Antichrist?

The Christian right and the Christian left are engaged in a debate over who 'owns' Jesus—and whether Dubya is a force for good or evil.

by Tim Appelo


When President George W. Bush was appointed by five Supreme Court justices in 2000, right-wing Christians sang hosannas for the triumph of God's will over the electorate's. "President Bush is God's man at this hour," said Tim Goeglein, Bush's liaison to evangelicals. Though the Methodist president dishonestly conceals the whole truth about his apocalyptic religious beliefs, he has acted as an evangelist in office. As Esther Kaplan demonstrates in With God on Their Side: How Christian Fundamentalists Trampled Science, Policy, and Democracy in George W. Bush's White House, he's doled out millions to far-right Christian groups, systematically crushed secular left and nonright mainstream organizations from Head Start to the Audubon Society, and replaced policy and scientific experts with comically ignorant yet politically cunning fanatic provocateurs. Out with the American Medical Association, in with the American Family Association. Before Bush, the Internal Revenue Service hounded the Christian Coalition; now that Bush is, in extremist Gary Bauer's opinion, the de facto leader of the Christian Coalition, the government selectively harasses non-Christian groups, and a rightist apparatchik tried to sneak through Congress a bill legitimizing the kinds of politically targeted IRS abuses that would have made Richard M. Nixon proud.

Televangelist and onetime presidential candidate Pat Robertson once rallied millions to lobby God for the deaths of liberal Supreme Court justices, recommending prayers for coronaries and cancer. "We ask for miracles!" preached Robertson. Today, the judiciary's Clinton-era moderates haven't even a prayer against the Reagan/Bush rightists. Author Tim LaHaye, whose Left Behind thrillers based on the Bible's "end times" stories are America's best-selling books for adults, once helped destroy the Jack Kemp presidential campaign he co-chaired by demanding 25 percent of government jobs for the Christian right's 25 percent of the population. Today, no way does Bush's "Evangetaliban"—which claims responsibility for winning Bush a second term in 2004—intend to settle for less than 100 percent.

But not every follower of the Prince of Peace is shouting amen to Bush/Robertson/Falwell's Killer Christians. Granted, the fastest-growing churches are either evangelical—Bible believers out to win your soul—or fundamentalists, out to bend your soul to their bluenose will and so literal when it comes to the Bible that some insist Christ's parables refer to actual people and events. Fundies also incline to the authoritarianism of Oswald Chambers, the 19th-century Christian whose harsh sermonettes against rational analysis and for a gut response to God Bush reads each morning (perhaps on this Web site: www.gospelcom.net/rbc/utmost ).

Yet the more love-thy-neighbor-advocating mainstream church is not dead. In The American Prospect magazine, Baptist Sunday school teacher Jimmy Carter charges the fundamentalists with "the abandonment of some of the basic principles of Christianity." And in his brilliant 1997 book, Stealing Jesus: How Fundamentalism Betrays Christianity, author Bruce Bawer accuses fundamentalism of replacing Christ's Church of Love with a Church of Law, lamenting "the horrible monster that 20th-century legalistic Christians have made out of their God and Savior and the hateful institution that they have made out of his church." He notes acidly that the movement got its biggest boost in reaction not to the Supreme Court's 1963 school-prayer ban but to the Carter-era IRS crackdown on segregated Christian schools. "The Religious Right didn't grow out of a love of God and one's neighbor—it grew out of racism, pure and simple."

"Kids growing up in Church of Law families nowadays think that the only two sins, or at least the only two really, really important ones, are having an abortion and having gay sex," Bawer told Seattle Weekly. "The notion that love, tolerance, and inclusiveness are moral values has been dropped down the memory hole."

A soldier in the U.S. Army e-mailed Seattle Weekly, "I'm just a citizen who was raised in a Christian community and is tired of having my values hijacked by a conservative movement that only applies them selectively at home and hardly at all overseas." The soldier asks to remain anonymous.

Perversion of Christian Faith?

"Bush is one of the key figures leading the church away from Jesus," says Christian author Bob Miller, who wrote the nonbluenose Christian best seller Blue Like Jazz. Miller is no pantywaist—he had the balls to run a ministry at Reed College in Portland, Ore., which is so godless that its soccer team is said in campus legend to have once staged a halftime crucifixion in a game against a Christian school. But he couldn't stomach it when, for instance, Texas Gov. Bush not only allowed the execution of his fellow born-again Christian, the penitent ax murderer Karla Faye Tucker, but made vicious fun of her on TV ("Please don't kill me!" Bush said, mocking her prayerful plea for God's mercy). Miller classifies Bush Christians as modern Pharisees—the allegedly proud, rigid, legalistic hypocrites John the Baptist called "a generation of vipers." "The worst condemnation that Jesus has for anybody, I mean the worst, is for Pharisees," says Miller. "If you asked Jerry Falwell who the Pharisees are in our society, they can't point anybody out." There are no mirrors in Bush's church.

"People of faith—especially those whose moral values differ from the values exploited this time around—need to figure out a way to be figured into the political landscape," Philadelphia Presbyterian minister Cynthia Jarvis editorialized in The New York Times. "Maybe four years from now, when the number one issue cited by voters in exit polls is again 'moral values,' those values will have something to do with economic justice, racial equality and the peaceable kingdom for which we all were made."

But few have preached harder against the Christian right's wrongs than the Rev. Rich Lang of Seattle's Trinity United Methodist Church in Ballard. "This administration is a culture of death, and so is the religious right," says Lang. In his Open Letter to George Bush, published in Real Change, Lang thunders, "You claim Christ but act like Caesar. There is blood all over your hands with the promise of even more blood to come. You sit atop the nations like the Biblical Whore of Babylon openly fornicating with the military men of might." His sermon "George Bush and the Rise of Christian Fascism" (posted like Luther's theses on the church Web site, www.tumseattle.org ) rails that "the power and seduction of this administration emerges from its diabolical manipulation of Christian rhetoric . . . the mirror opposite of what Jesus embodied. It is, indeed, the materialization of the spirit of Antichrist: a perversion of Christian faith and practice."

Lang is not using "Antichrist" in a tone of bitter sarcasm, as many do. Google "George Bush is the Antichrist," and you'll get a startling list of Web sites that argue the case, but with sardonic intent and whimsical 666-numerological riffs. Unwhimsical pundit Robert Wright, who attended Calvary Baptist in Bush's Midland, Texas, hometown, uses modern science to puzzle out what may be God's plan in his bold book Nonzero: The Logic of Human Destiny. When he notes in Slate magazine that he supported John Kerry because "He's a long way from being the Messiah, but at least he's not the anti-Christ," Wright says not to take this as gospel. "Obviously, I was kidding—Bush isn't literally the Antichrist. But I do think he could conceivably do some pretty cataclysmic damage to the world. . . ." Even Christian Bush-basher Miller urgently distances himself from the Bush-as- Antichrist meme that's sweeping the Web: "The last thing I want is for someone to say, 'Bob Miller thinks Bush is the Antichrist!'"

"He's not the Antichrist, he's just a cynical, callous politician," objects Stealing Jesus author Bawer. "I gather some liberal Christians have gone off the rails." He refers to Lang's identification of Bush with the "spirit of Antichrist" warned against in the Bible's 1 John 4:3. "This kind of inane proof texting is the province of the Church of Law types, the right-wing Darbyites," believers in Left Behind–style apocalyptic prophecy. "It's depressing to see it practiced by liberal Christians, too." Bawer is appalled by Bush's attempt, "in the name of Christianity, to add to the Constitution what would be far and away its most un-Christian amendment. But I'm also unsettled by the extreme way in which he's been personally characterized by many people."

Granted, Bawer says the right "worships evil," and has "warped Christianity into something ugly and hateful that has little or nothing to do with love and everything to do with suspicion, superstition, and sadism [and] denies the name of Christianity to followers of Jesus who reject its barbaric theology." But "when people start calling somebody the Antichrist, we're in right-wing fundamentalist, Church of Law territory, and I don't like it one bit. . . . Demonizing (literally) individuals in this way is ugly, scary. . . . "

Lang, though, stands his ground against his famous accuser, and insists that he's missing some crucial distinctions. "This is not about George Bush, this is about this whole administration. It's about Karl Rove, it's about the neocons, some of whom are Christian, some who aren't, but who are using Christian rhetoric. James Dobson [of Focus on the Family] has direct access to the highest echelons of American government. And Robertson and Falwell."

Still, Lang means what he says about Bush. "He has the spirit of the Antichrist. Literally, break the word apart. It is a spirituality that is anti-Christ."

Meet the Beast

So what's an Antichrist, anyhow? The concept has evolved bewilderingly throughout biblical history (see sidebar, p. 25). As definitively explained in Bernard McGinn's Antichrist: 2,000 Years of the Human Fascination With Evil and Robert Fuller's Naming the Antichrist: The History of an American Obsession, the character can be traced to Old Testament authors' horrified response to the oppression of ancient colonizers. When Alexander the Great's conquests led to a statue of Zeus in the Temple in Jerusalem, Jews envisioned a final conflict story wherein the Syrian Greek tyrant Antiochus, reimagined as a beast, got burned in God's "fiery stream" on Judgment Day.

Early Christians grafted the Roman Emperor Nero onto the tradition as the Beast from the Abyss in the Apocalypse, known to current Christians as the book of Revelation, the Bible's astonishing finale about the final days. Nero dressed in animal skins to ravage men's and women's genitals, burned Christians in ghastly dramas, demanded to be worshiped as a god, and was rumored to have disappeared to the East, threatening to return one day to rule the world from Rome, or Jerusalem. Actually, he killed himself, but he lives on in beastly legend. To this day, the word for Antichrist in Armenian is "Nero."

Though the story of the Beast and various other biblical verses are associated with the Antichrist, the word itself, "Antichrist," only appears four times in the Bible, in the letters of John. Christians have eternally argued about the Antichrist. Revelation was nearly banned from the Bible, and permitted strictly on condition it should never be used as it is by fundies today. Church father Augustine ordered Christians to quit reading apocalyptic Left Behind–style scenarios into scripture and think of the Antichrist as anyone who denies Christ—and he said the first place to hunt for him is in your own heart.

In my evangelical Lutheran childhood I often feared the Rapture had left me behind, even though my church was liberal with Christ's love. But now I'm with Augustine—and also with Robert Wright, who finds in his book The Moral Animal a biological basis for original sin. For a Darwinist Christian, the Beast is within: the lizard brain fighting the higher mind for control of one's soul. As Darwin cried out to heaven in his notebook: "The Devil under form of Baboon is our grandfather!"

But people crave apocalyptic stories and an easy answer to spiritual struggle. As the narrator says of a character in Left Behind, "He wanted to believe something that tied everything together and made it make sense." The most popular story today was concocted by an English law-student-turned-self-taught-theologian named John Nelson Darby in the 1840s, and popularized by a Kansas City lawyer named C.I. Scofield with his best-selling 1909 Scofield Reference Bible. The Scofield Bible cross-referenced Old and New Testament verses to illuminate the hidden figure in the bewildering carpet of scripture, weaving the phantasmagoria of apocalyptic visions into a single system—a magic carpet of narrative to whisk them safely out of time and into heaven. Its systematic beauty was designed as a kind of counterscience to rebuke and refute Darwinism and historical biblical scholarship.

And man, is it a great story. It's not a literal interpretation, but an imaginative deduction as breathtaking as Charles Kinbote's commentary on John Shade in Nabokov's Pale Fire, or Charles Manson's prophetic interpretation of the Beatles' White Album. The Bible describes Christ's Second Coming and the Rapture of the Saints—the whooshing of Christians bodily into heaven. Anybody reading it for the first time would think these are supposed to happen at the same time, at the end of time. But Darby hawked the notion that the Rapture happens first. Exeunt Christians. Enter the Beast/Antichrist, who perpetrates a hellish seven-year Great Tribulation. Then Christ returns, kicks Beast butt, and reigns for 1,000 years—the Millennium. Fifty-one percent of Americans voted for Bush; 59 percent believe Revelation will come true. Without one scrap of scriptural evidence, almost one-quarter of Americans believe Revelation predicted 9/11.

The Independent newspaper called Revelation "that earliest of airport novels." LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins' Left Behind dazzlingly turns it into one. Planes and cars crash, deprived of pilots by the Rapture. Even fetuses get Raptured, deflating their mamas' bellies. The Antichrist becomes Nicolae Carpathia, People magazine's Sexiest Man Alive, seizing control of the U.N. to impose one world government! The faithful get saved! The secular humanists get what they deserve! Since latter-day Darbyites believe end times scripture predicts and mandates Israel's resurgence to usher in Christ's return and the Antichrist's smackdown, they help drive Bush's rubber-stamp policy for Israel. The real Middle East road map may be the Scofield Reference Bible.

"That's a completely foolish and erroneous interpretation of the scriptures," snaps Jimmy Carter. "But this administration, maybe extremely influenced by ill-advised theologians of the extreme religious right, has pretty well abandoned any real effort that could lead to a resolution of the problems between Israel and the Palestinians."

"It's deeply dismaying that millions of Americans who call themselves Christians are believers in something that has virtually nothing to do with the gospel message," mourns Bawer. "Darby, Scofield, and company have been a disaster for Christianity in America. Millions of people think they are adherents of 'traditional Christianity' when, in fact, they have been roped into a newfangled religion based on bizarre theological propositions that Jesus would never recognize."

"It's so ludicrous!" laments Lang. "Such a twisting of scripture. That history is scripted is something that it seems to me Christians ought to have an instinct to be repulsed against. You follow a code, there's magical meanings in the text."

But Lang knows why people cling to millennial dreams—like Dubya's, his life was saved by a fundamentalist church. "It attracted me because I came out of chaos. Alcohol and drugs; 19 years old and I was dyin'. I needed a strong fence around my life and people who cared for me, and I got both. But after about a year of reading what they taught me, I started to raise questions."

Further study convinced him that Augustine was on the right track, after all, in reading apocalyptic literature as spiritual advice, not a sneak preview of tomorrow's headlines. "Revelation is written to the churches in its time, not to the churches in the 21st century. It's written to seven churches in Turkey." As for the Antichrist warnings in John, he reads them not as a literal prediction of Bush but as a warning against the eternal danger of his hypocritical, Mammon-worshiping, proudly elitist, heartless, narrowly legalistic spirit. "1 John seems to be obsessed with language like this: 'How can you say you love God, who you have not seen, if you do not love your brother and sister, who you have seen?' Who are in need of food, clothing, shelter? The implication of the doctrine of the Antichrist is that there is an economic disparity in the community, and people are using their religion, not practicing it."

Bush policy is based on what he told his Harvard Business School professor— "Poor people are poor because they're lazy." Responds Lang, "Again, anti-Christ. It's just the opposite [of Christ's teaching]. The thrust of right-wing Christianity—their solution to poverty is to discipline the poor. Now, there's a lot to be said for that. I mean, if people would clean up their negative habits. There's some common ground where we can meet. But the right never addresses what Jesus called 'that fox Herod'—the systematic problem that has given rise to homelessness and poverty."

Bringing Back Heresy

Lang argues that followers of Jesus, not Bush, should call an Antichrist an Antichrist—or rather, its spirit. "The progressive church should bring back—and this sounds so crazy—the word 'heresy.' The end times theology and this other thing called Dominionism or Christian Reconstruction—those are heresies." Lang says not to believe Christian Coalition leader–turned–Whore of Enron–turned Bush/Cheney campaign lieutenant Ralph Reed when he claims the Christian right has no plans to upend the Constitution and impose its religion on civic life. "He's a liar," says Lang. "Dominionism is the notion that God has given the dominion, the governance of the world, to the church. And so Christians literally are born to rule, by force if necessary, to bring the Kingdom of God on Earth. I believe that the theology that drives the Bush administration affirms this." When Falwell preached, "We must take back what is rightfully ours," his ambitions did not stop at U.S. borders. This is a Church of a Law Unto Itself.

In the Greek, the word "anti" doesn't just mean "against." It also contains the meanings "equivalent to" or "a substitute for." Nero was anti-Christ because he falsely claimed to be God. The idea of deception is crucial. The Antichrist isn't the devil, the opposite of God. He's an evil human masquerading as a golden god. The Antichrist appears to humanity not as the hideous Beast but as handsome Nicolae Carpathia, who resembles Robert Redford without the facial erosion. "That could be our next Republican president," quips Lang.

In this sense, the Bush church is Antichristlike indeed. It is institutionalized deception, anti-American ugliness with a beguiling face, a neocon job. Only when necessary does it employ the perilous bald-faced lie, the outrageously transparent duplicity—the political equivalent of Robertson arguing that "Do unto others" indicates Christ's support of capitalist selfishness. More often, a smoothly dissembling surface is preferred. Rove notoriously emulates Machiavelli; the Christian right is a stealth movement, infiltrating school boards and mainstream churches and every institution of democracy like a thief in the night—in order to undermine, overthrow, and replace democracy with theocracy. Bush is the father of lies. The Union of Concerned Scientists proclaims Bush's lies about science "unprecedented." In With God on Their Side, Kaplan concludes, on mountainous evidence, "The goal is not to engage your opponents in the public square, but to kneecap them, or send them into exile."

"It is a conspiracy in the sense that they have not been public and accountable to their ideology," says Lang. "Follow the money! The same filthy-rich foundations that have funded the rise of neocons are funding the rise of the religious right." He suggests that you check out the exposé Web site www.yuricareport.com for the terrifying particulars.

But—to cop a line from the late Christian-right author Francis Schaeffer, how then should we live? Should we turn the other cheek to the Antichrist? Forgive LaHaye for saying that "Old Testament capital punishment" was less cruel to gays than modern acceptance is? Or counter Robertson's prayers for a divine Supreme Court fatwa with our own? As a self-scrutinizing Christian, isn't Lang in danger of succumbing to hate?

"Yeah, I'm there. I have a physical, visceral reaction to Bush, to his image, to when he speaks. I mean, I think the guy is evil. They are willfully deceptive people, and I'm very angry. But . . . hatred is not a very useful strategy of resistance, nor is it very useful to create an alternative."

Bawer preaches that the alternative must not employ the church as a weapon. "For liberals to join in the right-wing game of bashing one's opponents with the Bible only further erodes the wall between religion and government. This, to me, is a major concern—and Bush's reckless contribution to this erosion is, for me, a major offense. It's especially offensive in light of 9/11, which was the work of people who hate the West because it is secular, tolerant, inclusive, and democratic. What distinguishes America and the West from most of the Muslim world is those values. I wish we had a president who recognized this fact and helped Americans recognize it, too."

So does Lang. But he thinks the secular left has to inspire its own flock—with better ministers than dull, brainy Parson Kerry of the Church of God's Frozen People. "Even though I don't like him, Bush is probably a funner person," Lang admits. He insists that the Christian left has its own work to do in saving what he calls "the nation with the soul of a church." "The right has won. I mean, they've seized the language of the church. So against Bruce, I would say, no, the progressive wing of the church has got to reclaim its language and redefine those words. Turning the other cheek wasn't passive, oh, hit me, it hurts so good—it was a form of resistance. You're turning your cheek to strengthen your backbone."

Lang is convinced that secular efforts alone can't reverse the Antichrist tide. "Evangelical churches have a sense of urgency about the doing of 'good' in the world that the mainline church has lost. If the church can't show a positive, enticing, seductive vision of the future, where people fall in love with God and fall in love with this community, then it really doesn't have anything to say." Revelation teaches us what happens to lukewarm Christians.

It won't be easy. The political and religious left are not organized. "And part of the reason it cannot organize is that the people in the pews benefit from the system as it is," says Lang. "They can't work up any kind of passion to change it. As those benefits stop, we'll see the left arise. But it might be too late."

Ultimately, despite his despair, Lang is a man of faith. "I really do believe that we're in for several decades of a very dark time. But that's not the end of the world."

Source

And they have a handy Guide to the Antichrist Through the Ages
 
They're certainly flocking to Israel? In the hope of starting The Final Conflict?

Christian evangelicals from the US flock to Holy Land in Israeli tourism boom
Record-breaking numbers of tourists paid visits to Israel in 2017, and a growing proportion come from Donald Trump’s evangelical voter base

A record breaking 3.6 million people visited Israel in 2017, up 25 per cent from 2016 and the first time the number of visitors has ever exceeded the three million mark, according to tourism minister Yariv Levin.

Of those tourists, almost 800,000 were American, and a growing proportion of those are evangelical Christians. The year before last, the most recent for which figures are available, put the figure at 13 per cent.

Christian Zionism is a 20th century movement that believes the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948 is in accordance with Biblical prophecy – the Jews must return to their homeland before the second coming of Jesus, armageddon and the rapture can be realised.
As a result, there is trenchant support for the Jewish state among evangelical Christians – almost 80 per cent of whom voted for US president Donald Trump in 2016.

“Christian Zionists tend to be full throttle when it comes to Israel. They support settlements [in the West Bank], moving the American embassy, the idea of a greater Israel, all things which are damaging to Israel’s future as a progressive and viable state,” said Yossi Mekelberg, a professor of international relations at Regent’s University London.

“They are often completely oblivious to the Palestinian side of the story. It’s not something that concerns them. It’s about religion,” he added.

“With friends like that, who needs enemies?” ...

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ael-tourism-holy-land-jerusalem-a8290521.html
 
Oh dear. I'm looking for a safe country to live in.
 
Back
Top