Israel, the US and the Christian Right: The Menage a Trois From Hell (no spam)

fable · Post by **fable** » Thu Aug 10, 2006 7:26 pm

Max Blumenthal's latest blog is scary stuff. Not that the US is alone in this attitude: the Netherlands in particular as a very lively evangelical apocaplytic community that believes Israel is going to take over the MidEast now, with US help, thus bringing about the End of Time. But the US Christian nut-right has more money, clout, and contacts.

This is scary stuff.

Just a reminder: this is *not* a thread about the Islam and Israel. We have plenty of those, if you want to comment. This thread is about the article linked to, and the support for a war between Israel and its neighbors, from the evangelical far right. Any other posts will be removed. Thanks.

mr_sir · Post by **mr_sir** » Fri Aug 11, 2006 2:51 am

CUFI representatives pressed White House officials to adopt a more confrontational posture toward Iran, refuse aid to the Palestinians and give Israel a free hand as it ramped up its military conflict with Hezbollah.

Its a bit worrying that people even think like that. I thought Christians were supposed to be peace-loving etc. and help anyone in need, so how can they say that they should refuse aid to Palestine and effectively back Israel's mass murder bombing strategy in Lebanon?

Morlock · Post by **Morlock** » Fri Aug 11, 2006 4:12 am

'Mass Murder Bombing strategy'? Talk about a one-sided and uninformed statement.

mr_sir · Post by **mr_sir** » Fri Aug 11, 2006 4:24 am

Morlock wrote:'Mass Murder Bombing strategy'? Talk about a one-sided and uninformed statement.

Yes it is one-sided cos its the opinion I have made from the event I have seen on the news. I don't see the point in any war, and when hundreds of innocent people are dying I class it as mass murder.

Morlock · Post by **Morlock** » Fri Aug 11, 2006 5:15 am

What event, pray-tell?

And while you don't see the point in any war, you're saying that you do see a point in every city in Northern Israel being under a barrage of rockets, killing soldiers and civilians alike?

mr_sir · Post by **mr_sir** » Fri Aug 11, 2006 5:23 am

I meant events not event, sorry.

I don't agree with either side in the war. I think the missiles and attacks on Israel are just as much mass murder as Israels attacks into Lebanon. I just feel that, whereas Hezbollah are trying to injure as many people as they can when they attack Israel (and they need to be stopped from doing this), Israel are specifically trying to target Hezbollah but seem to be injuring or killing a lot of innocent Lebanese and forcing them from their homes. The same could be said for any country involved in a war. The Brits and the US were just as bad in Iraq. I'm not having a go at Israel here, even if it may seem like I am, I just think their missile attacks etc. are killing more innocent people than they are members of the Hezbollah and actually causing a negative response by many people towards Israel as a result. And its not just Israel's military operation that I have the problem with. I have just as much of a problem with the fact the Brits and the US and other Western countries took so long to try and help stop the conflict.

I'm not blaming Israel for the war, and I'm not blaming them for wanting to retaliate. I just see the idea of firing missiles into Lebanon as mass murder of hundreds of people who have nothing to do with Hezbollah.

Ripe · Post by **Ripe** » Fri Aug 11, 2006 5:52 am

Yes, Israel's missiles are killing innocent people in Lebanon that have nothing to do with Hezbollah, but that is fully Hezbollah's fault.

It's Hezbollah who set his bases inside civilian residential areas, it's Hezbollah who keep attacking Israel's northern cities from within those same residential areas, it's Hezbollah who store millitary equipment within residential area. It's more or less the same tactic Sadam Hussein used when he surrounded his key millitary facilities with schools and hospitals.

fable · Post by **fable** » Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:19 am

It's Hezbollah who set his bases inside civilian residential areas, it's Hezbollah who keep attacking Israel's northern cities from within those same residential areas, it's Hezbollah who store millitary equipment within residential area.

It's also Hezbollah that builds the hospitals the government won't build, it's Hezbollah that builds the schools the government won't build, and it's Hezbollah that provides a measure of dignity to a people that have been treated like counters in a game by various Lebanese and Israeli governments over the years. The only reason people living there support Hezbollah's presence (as opposed to treating it like an armed occupier) is the same reason radicalized parties have been supported elsewhere in the Muslim world: because the governments that *should* provide basic services we think of as absolutely essential to civilized urban life (hospitals, schools) and human dignity (habeas corpus, freedom of speech, freedom of movement) treat their citizenry liked a combination of cash cows and thugs--soak 'em dry, or beat them incessantly.

But let's focus on the article's contents, okay? Otherwise, this is going to become yet-another "Israel vs the Muslim MidEast" generic thread.

Luis Antonio · Post by **Luis Antonio** » Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:44 am

fable wrote:
It's also Hezbollah that builds the hospitals the government won't build, it's Hezbollah that builds the schools the government won't build, and it's Hezbollah that provides a measure of dignity to a people that have been treated like counters in a game by various Lebanese and Israeli governments over the years.

You know, Fable, we have a very similar thing going on in Brazil, so this may be sociologic and we may blame politics on it. And the very people, of course, we cant be lenient and say people aint guilty but lets explain this.

We have the PCC here, which translated means first capital comand, which is a criminal organization who deals in drugs, weapons and thievery. They're pretty strong. How do they gather ranks? They pay well, they assist the families of those in the favelas they dominate and they also have a very important political network in the underworld that is attempting to rise.

Recent bombings and attacks to the police have done nothing but putting the population in panic, and the importance of this organization has risen a lot. I think that they will either be destroyed or soon they'll start forming political links.

Our politicians and the government agencies that should handle this are:

worried with the presidential run
slapping each other to the face because they dont want to get landed with the guilt
attempting to give more assistencialism to those people instead of generating jobs and riches and destroying the tree of power of such organization by its roots
involved with this kind of corruption

In other words, soon they will acquire some kind of right. They have the money, they have politicians/policement/judges infiltrated, and I dont see them raising here as strong as a Hesbolah, but I feel that this is either to be taken seriously by the very government and the people who place politicians in the power, or this wont be solved at all.

It is a sociological problem of global proportions. People are getting poorer and poorer, and politicians handle with power - not with organization of the people, with taking care of their rights, yadda yadda, medicine, jobs, yadda yadda as they promise.

Such organizations become paralel government for the minorities. If they're more organized than the governments, and better to their own than governments, why not letting them come over? Because they're harder to regulate, and they're not supposed to be under international jurisdiction.

Anyway, this is particulary stupid to discuss since such governments just want to strangle each other for a variety of reasons.

I particulary dislike the views on the blog quoted but, in fact, this is a point of view that may be valid. This is about religion and intolerance, mixed with poverty and bad politics, and years and years of micro disputes and it wont end before a stupid grim end, such as is the trademark of humans.

May he be wrong.

fable · Post by **fable** » Fri Aug 11, 2006 7:03 am

What I find particularly repellent in the article is the position of the evangelical Christian Right. These are the people who use the following torturous logic, if I can pass along what I've heard from friends of my wife's great-uncle and grandfather, as well as her uncle, an evangelical missionary:

1) The world will end and all people will go to judgement when all Jews accept Christ.

2) All Jews do whatever Israel tells them to do, therefore

3) All Jews in Israel must accept Christ.

4) That will only happen after a Biblical-sized apocalyptic conflict involving the forces of Evil, led by MidEastern Arabs, and including Iran (which is not Arabic, but since when does this have anything to do with reality?).

So the Christian Right funds and supports everything any rightwing Israeli government does that leads to war with its neighbors. That's a lot of money going to kill a lot of people, and a lot of influence in Washington to promote the same.

Morlock · Post by **Morlock** » Fri Aug 11, 2006 9:51 am

While I myself was initially cheered by the support by the Christian right, it's taken such a dangerous and venomous turn that it is actually quite scary at times, like when Pat Robertson, a big supporter of Ariel Sharon, said on his show that Sharon falling into a coma was god's punishment for giving land to the Palestinians with the disengagement plan.

Chimaera182 · Post by **Chimaera182** » Fri Aug 11, 2006 10:34 am

I'd been wondering for some time now when some other country would take hold of the "War on Terror" mantra and go to battle with it. Whether justified or not, such a war may possibly cause other countries to do the same, countries who "claim" that their opponents use methods of terrorism against them. With the justification of fighting terrorism, they wave it over their heads, and they march to war. And the United States, whose actions have led to this very consequence, and with Israel, the second country to declare all-out war on a nation by claiming terrorism, are just the first steps. Whether this leads to the highly-anticipated WW3 or Armageddon, I don't know nor really care. But if things get as out-of-control as possible, if we assume worst-case scenario (such as dozens of nations attacking their neighbors), such a domino effect would be catastrophic.

4) That will only happen after a Biblical-sized apocalyptic conflict involving the forces of Evil, led by MidEastern Arabs, and including Iran (which is not Arabic, but since when does this have anything to do with reality?).

They believe that the Middle Eastern Arabs and Iran are the forces of evil?

Ugh. And people like Pat Robertson are why I am a step down from becoming a militant atheist. -shakes head- You actually should read the transcript of a conversation I had with a friend of mine a week ago, fable; I took the entire series of events in the Middle East and turned it into some concise, succinct purpose whose logic tracked. Only problem was, I forgot during my debate whether Persia (modern-day Iran) was part of the Ottoman Empire or not. Since it wasn't, my "theory" didn't justify why the US was standing firm against Iran in this nuclear issue (unless of course you consider the fact that Iran's continued state was creating echoes in the region, in which case silencing it would fit quite well).

I'm getting sick and tired of all this, honestly. The label of "evil" and "barbaric" and "anti-Christ" have been tossed around enough throughout the millennia to incite war.

(Sidenote and off-topic, but something about this so-called coming armageddon reminds me more of the Norse ragnarok than the Christian apocalypse, even though both are essentially a cataclysmic battle between "good" and "evil.")

fable · Post by **fable** » Fri Aug 11, 2006 11:39 am

Morlock wrote:While I myself was initially cheered by the support by the Christian right, it's taken such a dangerous and venomous turn that it is actually quite scary at times, like when Pat Robertson, a big supporter of Ariel Sharon, said on his show that Sharon falling into a coma was god's punishment for giving land to the Palestinians with the disengagement plan.

Glad you realized that, Morlock. Those people aren't your friends. They want to see your nation--meaning you, your relatives, and everybody in Israel--at war with every other nation in the MidEast. Then they will expect you all to convert to Christianity, and they will send over as many missionaries as necessary to achieve that.

In other words, this really isn't about helping you. This is about using you as a chess pawn in a game called The End Time's A-Comin'.

Bloodstalker · Post by **Bloodstalker** » Fri Aug 11, 2006 11:58 am

Chimaera182 wrote:
They believe that the Middle Eastern Arabs and Iran are the forces of evil? Ugh. And people like Pat Robertson are why I am a step down from becoming a militant atheist. -shakes head- You actually should read the transcript of a conversation I had with a friend of mine a week ago, fable; I took the entire series of events in the Middle East and turned it into some concise, succinct purpose whose logic tracked. Only problem was, I forgot during my debate whether Persia (modern-day Iran) was part of the Ottoman Empire or not. Since it wasn't, my "theory" didn't justify why the US was standing firm against Iran in this nuclear issue (unless of course you consider the fact that Iran's continued state was creating echoes in the region, in which case silencing it would fit quite well).

There are actually quite a few of the extreme Christian fundamentalists who view those people in the Middle East as inherently evil. I've heard them referred to as the seed of Cain on a few occasions, as well as heard the idea that their sole purpose is to be an antagonistic force against Israel due to Israel not having carried out genocide to the proper extreme in the Old Testement. Granted, it strikes me odd that Christians would use Old Testement writing to find these kinds of things and draw such conclusion from when the Old Testement is NOT a Christian work, and many of the same Christians decry much of the Old testement in the very next breath as being irrelevant to Christianity and it's teachings.

Personally, I never got the end of the world craze. I never understood the mentality of being in a rush to end the world to get to heaven and not enjoying life in itself, especially when the same people take every medication that can when they are ill to try and prolong thier life. You'd also think that after 2,000 years of every generation yelling that the end is just a few years away, people would stop predicting it.

fable · Post by **fable** » Sun Aug 13, 2006 7:41 am

Bloodstalker wrote:There are actually quite a few of the extreme Christian fundamentalists who view those people in the Middle East as inherently evil. I've heard them referred to as the seed of Cain on a few occasions, as well as heard the idea that their sole purpose is to be an antagonistic force against Israel due to Israel not having carried out genocide to the proper extreme in the Old Testement. Granted, it strikes me odd that Christians would use Old Testement writing to find these kinds of things and draw such conclusion from when the Old Testement is NOT a Christian work, and many of the same Christians decry much of the Old testement in the very next breath as being irrelevant to Christianity and it's teachings.

It's just my opinion, but I think that the highly polarized morality of a certain section of the OT (which, to be fair, can be seen in a lot of cultures and individuals having nothing to do with religion, such as the Roman Empire at its height of power) is naturally attractive due to its inherent appeal to intellectual laziness. Where's the problem? With evil people. Who are the evil people? Those that oppose us, at any time. Is it right to kill evil people? Of course, and it will please God. In fact, God would be displeased if we didn't kill evil people. Just look at Saul.

There's nothing to figure out, no ethical complexities to sigh over. It would naturally appeal to authority figures, as well, since it is a completely hierarchal top-down system.

Christianity's relationship with Judaism--deriving from the OT, but superimposing an extremely different and usually contradictory NT on top of it--lends itself to ambiguity. Regrettably, it's all too easy to ignore the note of humanity that runs through the OT and NT and look only for passages that favor strong arm tactics, demonization, and insanely cruel punishments for the slightest perceived infraction against cultural tradition.

Personally, I never got the end of the world craze. I never understood the mentality of being in a rush to end the world to get to heaven and not enjoying life in itself, especially when the same people take every medication that can when they are ill to try and prolong thier life. You'd also think that after 2,000 years of every generation yelling that the end is just a few years away, people would stop predicting it.

True, and if you read back in materials written by Christian leaders in the 10th century AC, there was a good deal of millinarianism going on: when 1000 arrived, "Judgement" would come for all. As for the rest, well, I've never understood the attraction for ending the world myself, either. If they're that anxious to avoid living, why not commit suicide? And if they feel this proscribed in a religioius commandment they follow, why do they earnestly support the killing of Muslims in the MidEast? For that matter, listening to Pat Robertson is an exercise in horror, as one hears the OT being trotted out again and again to justify calling for the death of anyone, at anytime.

And so we come full circle. Religion is a touchstone. You get from it what you bring to it. I don't doubt that someone like Pat Robertson wishes to see the end of the world and the everlasting torture of his demonized human enemies, so he finds what he seeks in his religion that gives him this. Were that all there is to it, it would be cause for concern. But when he and others like him organize and command billions of dollars in money that goes to actually cause wars among others--never themselves--it becomes obscene, in my opinion.

fable · Post by **fable** » Sun Aug 20, 2006 7:28 am

Here's another interesting blog, this time from Kathleen Reardon. It's a thoughtful reflection on this issue from a Roman Catholic who is anything but doctrinaire.

Curdis · Post by **Curdis** » Sat Aug 26, 2006 8:28 pm

Information Break

What is the biblical basis for the armegedonists?

I just re-read revelations to check and you really have to do a lot of 'interpretation' to even come close to concluding that this is part of the prophecy as told by John.

Now unless what I say above is wrong. That would mean that the current support for any amount of blood and slaughter in the Middle East (by the Christian Right), has no biblical foundation what-so-ever and, as such, wouldn't be backed by the overwhelming thrust of Jesus's teachings.

Like the old saw 'remarkable claims, require remarkable evidence', unless something pretty solid shows up, one has to conclude that this support is a simple shody peice of opportunistic warmongering.

My prophecy is that (as it is the next most oil rich nation) Iran will soon see the 'bright flaming sword of justice' for its imagined crimes against the 'Lord's word'.

It is especially ironic that Revelation has a verse that commands that 'oil shall not be harmed'

.

I will choose not to debate the appropriateness of 'The Menage a Trois From Hell' in the context of biblical authority and assume that it is just some colour by the poster. - Curdis !

Chimaera182 · Post by **Chimaera182** » Sun Aug 27, 2006 9:16 pm

It is especially ironic that Revelation has a verse that commands that 'oil shall not be harmed'

I just thought that was funny, although I have to be a slight nerd now and point out that, when Revelations was written, oil in that context wouldn't exactly be what the verse had in mind.

Frankly, I trust very little of what the Bible says; part of that we can blame on my upbringing as an atheist, but part of that is just genuine skepticism not borne of aforementioned upbringing. It has been brought up before (here, maybe, but definitely in other places I've seen) that translations are not always accurate. I might be willing to be convinced that the Bible may actually have been written under divine inspiration, but you cannot hope to convince me that all the translators who re-wrote the Bible in different languages got each and every line exactly. There are some words or phrases for which there are never exact equals in other languages. One translator may have even been biased in a certain way and taken one phrase from the original and re-written it to fit their own point of view. So I tend to not trust people who raise the English version of the Bible over their heads and claim it justifies their own view of armageddon; not to mention the fact that, as Curdis said, some passages are really open to interpretation. One person's version of armageddon as portrayed by the Bible may be completely different from another's.