Elsewhere, in comments to several other posts, a gNat-driven debate has periodically raged about “Liberals” — which gNat says are “Democrats” even if many, like me, aren’t Democrats (and even though gNat has been repeatedly told that I’m not a Democrat) — “hating” the President. Mark King has noted that “[Conservatives] knew they couldn’t argue with the success of [President Clinton’s] policies, so they didn’t even try.”
Instead, they turned to personal attacks. And although there may be much in the way of personal flaws for which to attack the current President, George “For-Us-Or-Against-Us/There-Ought-To-Be-Limits-To-Freedom” Bush, the only justifiable attack upon the Bush Administration would discuss his policies.
The question of whether Bush is “evil” or not is therefore misdirected.
Actually, I personally favor the theory that Bush was merely incompetent and not actually purely evil. I’ll admit that earlier on, I attributed what was happening to purely personal (and evil) intentional behavior. It was just too hard for me to believe that a President could be that — for lack of a better term — stupid. So I had to believe his actions were deliberate and, thus, bad.
The more I watch, though, the more I think that things like what General Zinni mentioned are the truth. As Abi Sutherland noted, General Zinni doesn’t appear to be grinding any political axes; he’s giving his assessment as someone who ran CENTCOM — that is, as the former Commander of the Middle Eastern forces for the United States — and had personal experience and observations of Middle Eastern culture and conflict.
Of particular interest, I thought, was General Zinni’s comment that the Administration considered Baghdad to be the road to Jerusalem when it would be more correct to understand Jerusalem as the road to Baghdad. gNat thinks that I (an actual practicing Jew, as opposed to a Christian saying that I’m a Jew, which is what gNat is) either would like to see Israel destroyed, or am stupid enough to not see that failing to support President Bush’s policies could lead to that destruction.
On the contrary, I believe that President Bush’s policies could not only lead to greater conflagration in the Middle East, but that they simultaneously drive wedges between us and the allies we would need to contain such a conflagration.
gNat thinks I hate President Bush. While I admit that I strongly dislike what he’s doing, I think saying I “hate the President” is much too strong — and misdirected — because if I hate anything it would be his policies I hate. I don’t know the man.
I strongly believe, because of his policies, that President Bush is the most dangerous President we’ve ever had.
In full view of the world, the United States has defiantly declared that it is the arbiter of morality and virtue, and it alone will determine who is deemed credible among world leadership. The dogged pursuit of Saddam Hussein has now isolated our nation to the point that the people and governments of other nations believe, and with good reason, that our rush to disarm Iraq by force makes the United States a threat to global security. Instead of isolating Mr. Hussein, the Bush White House has managed to back the United States into a corner. And our only escape route is via a significant engagement of military force.
* * *
The president who emerged from the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001 did so with a swagger that now infests our diplomatic engagement on the world stage. Since standing on the twisted steel of the fallen debris of the Trade Center?s twin towers, President Bush has inched closer and closer toward an imperial worldview. And with each step has developed a swagger in his rhetoric and demeanor that resembles a bad western. It is etched on the president?s face, and can be seen in his loyal lieutenants, heard in the purposefully deceptive voices of rabid talk radio and cable news talking heads, and witnessed in countless Americans who are now blindly waving the flag.&8212; “In Our View: A Dangerous Swagger” (March 8, 2003) The Northstar Network.
The only connection anyone’s personal characteristics have to the issues is when they indicate an approach to people and the world which would be harmful for leaders to exhibit. gNat, and others like him, are fond of complaining about former President Clinton’s consensual sexual escapades with Monica Lewinsky and his lying about this. I’ve never known a man who gave in to the all-too-human temptation to engage in extramarital sex against the wishes of his spouse who didn’t lie about it. And as reprehensible as this may be, I’ve never known those men to be incapable of performing their jobs, or of telling the truth in other arenas. I would be (pleasantly) surprised if a politician, with so much more on the line, was completely honest and up-front about having affairs. As offensive as this may be to some people, the sexual foibles of world leaders have seldom destroyed countries, although they have destroyed some political careers.
This is not to excuse such behavior. People who know their spouses would be upset about extramarital affairs and who have made vows to those spouses should not do such things. It is completely and inexcusably wrong and immoral.
In spite of all that, I’d rather have a President who lies about consensual sex with an intern than a President who ignorantly misleads — and thereby screws — an entire democratically-driven country and its allies.
28 responses so far ↓
1 Bob // May 27, 2004 at 7:42 am
Tom Clancy and General Zinni have a book coming out and they are doing the usual press tour to promote it.
Clancy by the style and content of his writing has always been a “hawk” but his opinions seem to mirror many in America today.
This administration has had an agenda that doesn’t reflect the real world. Iraq is a case in point. If we showed our allies the same intelligence that we used to justify the invasion, why are they not in Iraq with us?
Not a day goes by where the reason for this war becomes clearer.
These “advisors” so closely connected to the New American Century think tank don’t appear to value the American serviceman’s life in this conflict. Now that the terrorists have apparently reorganized we’re getting warnings of another attack on US soil.
If the lives of US Servicemen and US civilians are not important, just who’s life is to this administration?
I am confused by this administration and its policies. I’m not sure that they can end what they started and the world will be less stable for at least a decade because of it.
I fear that history is written by the victors by even the victors will look back and admit that Iraq was a mistake of epic proportions.
2 Nick Meyer // May 27, 2004 at 8:13 am
I have to say that you are way off base calling Mr. Bush the most dangerous President we’ve ever had. Lyndon Johnson had to be the most evil person I feel that ever held that great office. You seem to think that the only thing wrong Clinton did was lie about screwing his intern. Whitewater, smoking pot-but not inhaling, Foster’s death-on and on. It looks to me as though your trying to piss Nat off to get him started. Rick, why don’t you print out the E-mail I sent you yesterday and lets start a reasonable dialogue with that. I don’t know how to save as a word document and post as a comment or I would have done that already.
3 Mark // May 27, 2004 at 9:45 am
Nick:
Simply copy the text from your Word document onto the clipboard, then paste it into the comment section here. That should work.
I hate to tell you, but the zealot who spent sixty million taxpayer dollars to track down a blow job concluded that:
1) the Clintons did absolutely nothing wrong in Whitewater (an investment in which they lost money); and
2) Vince Foster’s death was a suicide, despite what lie-filled video tapes hawked by “evangelist” Jerry Falwell say.
It’s all in Kenny Starr’s report.
To my mind, Lyndon Johnson was a mixed bag. He pushed us head-long into a no-win war and lied about it (sound familiar?). Granted, we were in Viet Nam before Johnson. But Johnson was the one who got us in there up to our necks. I’ll agree that this was bad.
His aggressive pushing of the Civil Rights legislation through Congress was much needed, as were his efforts to combat poverty in this country.
From what I have read about Johnson (specifically Robert Caro’s lenghty but interesting series of books), I must admire his intelligence and the dedication and passion with which he taught school early in his adult life. On the other hand, Johnson had many personality traits that I find abhorent, so I probably would not have liked him much as a person.
Johnson was a mixture of good and bad — just like nearly all of us.
I, for one, would be very interested to hear what you have to say on the issues, Nick. I hope you can get the copy-and-paste thing to work so we can see more of your comments soon.
4 Nat // May 27, 2004 at 9:49 am
Nick,
This is how the game is played on this weblog.
If you are a Liberal, nothing you say is beyond bounds even if you engage in the most extreme hate speech. If you shriek hysterical, ugly insults on this weblog about President Bush why then you are praised. But, if you are a Conservative, why anything you say is “dishonest” and you are considered stupid and incompetent.
I saw a cartoon the other day where a couple of Arabs are reading a daily newspaper. In the first frame, the headline is Abu Ghraib and the Arabs’ reaction is “this is unspeakable savagery”. The next frame shows the same pair of Arabs reading a story about the American contractors that were torn apart, burned and dragged by a mob – and the Arabs’ reaction is “Allah be praised”.
That about sums up this weblog.
5 Rick // May 27, 2004 at 9:51 am
I don’t care to piss gNat off. This blog doesn’t exist for or because of gNat. Personally, if he’s going to post the way (i.e., using that “style”) he has posted, I’d prefer gNat go start his own blog.
What I do care about is exactly what I said: Discussing current events and issues.
For example, when I say that I think President Bush is the most dangerous President we’ve ever had, I actually provide reasons for saying so. I don’t just say, “I think President Bush is the most dangerous President we’ve ever had. End of story.” I don’t leave people with the need to ask me what my reasons for saying that might be; I don’t require that someone be left wondering why I would say that. I explain.
Then, of course, in a normal discussion — as opposed to a Fox “News” screaming match — someone might either challenge my assertions with supportable counter-evidence, or they might ask further questions, depending, of course, on which course they felt was necessary to either a) gain a better understanding of what I was saying, or b) help me to an understanding of why I might be wrong.
Instead, we get “Whitewater, smoking pot-but not inhaling, Foster’s death and so on.” What about Whitewater? What about smoking pot? What about Foster’s death? What about “and so on”?
I don’t mean “so what?” I mean, “Tell me something about them.”
For example, do you know something about Whitewater that Kenneth Starr doesn’t? If so, why didn’t you come forward during the investigation? Starr — and legions of other people who opposed Clinton — was hot to convict the Clinton’s on something related to Whitewater. You might even recall that Starr’s purported raison d’être was to investigate Whitewater. And how many times did either Bill or Hilary Clinton go to trial on those charges?
Let me refresh your memory: 0. (That would be zero.)
Prosecutors who believe they have cases against someone always take them to trial. This is even more true when those prosecutors have legions behind them saying, “Get those guys! Get those guys!” It’s even more true when the prosecutors themselves want to “get those guys.” And how many times did the Clintons go even to an arraignment on charges relating to Whitewater?
Let me refresh your memory: 0. (Uh, that would be another zero.)
Now for the pot smoking…how many times did Bill Clinton get caught smoking pot on Air Force One? In the White House? Behind the woodshed at Camp David?
Uh…I think that’s another zero. I’m pretty sure about that. Because if it had been anything greater than zero, I suspect it would have been front page news.
How many times did his supposed inhaling or non-inhaling pot smoking cause him serious performance problems on his job?
Whoops! Another zero!
Not that it matters — it truly doesn’t if it was far enough in the past and a turnaround has occurred — but if it’s important that Clinton once lit up a joint, then it might be important that someone else might have had an alcohol problem, and apparently a drug problem, as well, that did interfere with his job performance. Or maybe he just went AWOL for some other reason?
Maybe you think what’s important isn’t that he smoked pot, but that he said, “I didn’t inhale.” Well, hmmmm…. I smoked several cigarettes before I decided it was a dirty habit and they tasted terrible. I once tried to inhale and it nearly killed me. So for the very, very brief period of time I smoked cigarettes, I never again tried to inhale. And I know people who did the same thing with pot, to fit in.
Did Bill Clinton ever lie about anything? I’d be surprised if he didn’t. We know he lied about not having (consensual) sex with “that woman.” Did he lie about not inhaling pot? I honestly don’t know. Do you?
Now I realize that someone, perhaps you, surely gNat, will say, “Yes! I know beyond a shadow of a doubt!” Now I know that this will come as a shock to you, but if you think that, what you have is a belief. It’s not “knowledge.” Is it wrong? I don’t know. But, when you get down on your knees before your G-d to talk to him about it, can you honestly tell him that you actually know that Bill Clinton inhaled pot? (I use this example partly because I know your religion convictions and I know you wouldn’t lie to your G-d. Secondarily, I use it because anyone else who wasn’t there whenever Clinton put a joint to his lips, whether Christian or not, would have to state that they don’t really know if he lied or not when he said he didn’t inhale.)
So…for the moment, it looks like another zero.
Well, surely you’ve nailed him on Vince Foster’s death, though! I mean, the police not only said so, but they also caught him covered in blood that later was found to be shot (no pun intended) through and through with Vince Foster’s blood.
Not. To my knowledge, no one — either credible or not credible — has accused the Clinton’s of killing Foster, or of having him killed. If someone has done so (you didn’t say), then I’m overwhelmingly curious as to why no police officers, why no high-ranking Republicans, nor anyone else with some kind of public standing has made a stink over this.
Again, unless you have some evidence the authorities don’t have, I think it’s safe to say, “Another Zero!”
As to the “and so on,” you listed…uh…zero of them. So I can’t really address those.
Well, let’s tally the score now. We have…uh…zero, plus…uh…zero…and, uh…zero, zero and…hmmm…zero and zero.
Since I broke down your implications into sub-issues, we ended up with six potentially serious questions about illegal activity by the Clintons — either Bill or Hilary.
Last time I checked, six zeroes didn’t add up to a lie…they added up to…uh…zero!
As far as the email from you, I don’t post emails people have sent directly to me without permission, so if you thought I should have posted this for you before, you should have said so in the email. You are, of course, free to post it yourself. I haven’t posted it because I haven’t had time to research it. You’ll note a major difference between me and gNat is that I always research the things I write about and I use various sources, including those from “Conservatives,” “conservatives,” “Liberals,” “liberals,” Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, other countries, “and so on.” I don’t usually only offer the Rush Limbaugh (Three) Hour(s) here.
In fact, I don’t even censor the garbage others trot out, in spite of having been accused of doing so more than once. (And there was not even an implied apology for that, was there, gNat?)
6 nick meyer // May 27, 2004 at 10:11 am
Rick, you are right . I did not ask you to post my E-mail but if you would be so kind as to think about it I would appreciate it.
7 Rick // May 27, 2004 at 10:13 am
gNat says,
Here’s what I said about Nick Berg’s murder:
Abi Sutherland, in comments on that post, said,
That’s just in the specific post I linked above. I didn’t go back to look through all the comments ever posted elsewhere on this blog for more.
I do remember, though, gNat repeatedly saying that the Iraqis, who were released by the military because they were apparently not terrorists, had nothing to complain about, because all that happened is they were made to parade around “without their jammies.” I remember him saying that there was nothing wrong with shoving flourescent light bulbs up Iraqi *sses because “This happens a million times a day in the US. It?s called a colonoscopy.” (The quotes from gNat may be found in comments to the same post linked above.)
And, of course, during all this time, I’ve been busy censoring him. Me, the guy he insists is a Democrat, even though I’m not (and I’ve got my voter registration card to prove it). I’ve kept gNat from posting to this blog. That’s why you haven’t been able to see any of his accusations against me, or anyone else.
No surprise, then, that gNat would say the cartoon to which he referred sums up the attitude of this blog.
You’ll have to decide for yourself what looks more like a lie and who it looks like posts more of them.
8 Rick // May 27, 2004 at 10:18 am
Nick, the copy of the article you emailed me has lots of extra characters in it, including “>” and linefeeds. I’d have to do a lot of clean-up on it.
Do you have a better copy?
As Mark noted, you can post it here. You know that what gNat says about censoring isn’t the truth — not just because gNat said it, but because anyone who reads the large number of nasty posts gNat makes must surely see that if anything was censored, those posts would never have been seen.
I don’t personally want to post what you sent me for several reasons: 1) I haven’t had time to read the whole thing myself yet, 2) I don’t want to give the impression I endorse something I haven’t read, 3) it needs a lot of cleaning up to be presentable and 4) from the little bit I have read, I realize it needs to be researched, because it wasn’t before it was written.
Again, I will not for a minute stop you from posting it under your own name. When you do, you should credit the original author and respect any copyrights that may exist regarding the work. (This is why I usually only quote excerpts of articles and then provide a link to the original. That way, it comes under “Fair Use.”)
Thanks for being a part of the discussion here.
9 Bob // May 27, 2004 at 10:39 am
This is from the only person on this blog to use STFU. I remember because it was aimed at me.
The posts by this writer are usually not worth the time to read because he has crippled his integrity to the point of irrepairable harm.
Until then, a quote from (probably) one of his favorite writers:
The one thing we can all agree is that there is little he half knows.
Nick, I would be most happy to read what you have to say. I have been searching for a respectful conservative voice on this blog.
10 nick meyer // May 27, 2004 at 11:03 am
It is amazing how the facts are unimportant to so many, and how
soon they forget! (read through to the bottom!)
“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to
develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.
That is our bottom line.” – President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is
clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.” – President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.” – Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten time since 1983.” – Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18,1998
“[We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.” – Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry( D – MA), and others Oct. 9,1998
“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.” – Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
“Hussein has .. chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.” – Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
“There is no doubt that … Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.” – Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001
“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.” – Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.” – Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.” – Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.” – Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…” – Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force– if necessary– to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.” – Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9,2002
“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years .. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
“He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do” – Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members.. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.” – Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.” – Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
“Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction .. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real” – Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
SO NOW EVERY ONE OF THESE SAME DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED–THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND HE TOOK US TO WAR UNNECESSARILY!
11 Mark // May 27, 2004 at 11:58 am
Nick,
Some of the quotations you give date back from the time before U.N. inspectors went in and combed Iraq looking for WMD. Shrub continues to say that Hussein never let the inspectors in. That is a blatant lie. They were there. They found nothing. David Kay, a member of Shrub’s administration, said the U.N. inspectors had to be crazy or blind — it was obvious (to him) that WMD were there.
After our unprovoked invasion of Iraq, David Kay went himself to search. He spent many millions of taxpayer dollars and had thousands of American troops assisting in his search. He turned up…nothing.
Some of the other quotations you give were from people who had been fed the cooked intelligence served up to Congress and to the American public by Shrub and his cronies. Unfortunately, they swallowed what they were told without careful investigation. I doubt they will make the same mistake again.
The man used intelligence he KNEW was cooked. He continues to this day to lie about Hussein not letting inspectors in when anyone who can read (wait, maybe that’s why Shrub says what he does), anyone who can read knows the U.N. inspectors were there.
Even Colin Powell admits the intelligence this administration used to justify the invasion was faulty, flawed intelligence.
The fact that some in Congress were trusting enough to believe what the administration told them does not justify the administration’s lies and use of intelligence they KNEW to be false!
Even the Republican-controlled New York Times is now regretting ever believing the information fed to them by Shrub’s cronies. I agree with the Times — what they did was shameful. Do you, Nick, believe the fact that the New York Times and others made the mistake of being gullible absolves those who peddled the false information in the first place from any blame?
I wish we could turn the clock back and prevent all that has happened. Unfortunately, we can’t. We must now find a way to get ourselves out of the hole we have dug ourselves into.
But the administration apparently plans to send in MORE troops, and even institute a draft next year so that your children and mine can be forced to put their lives at risk for this incredibly disasterous mistake.
Sad. Tragic. Inexcusable. Immoral.
12 Rick // May 27, 2004 at 12:04 pm
I missed the quotes that said, “So now, let’s invade Iraq, without U.N. approval.”
It’s worth noting that there were other ways to deal with Hussein that were less expensive in terms of money, less expensive in terms of lost lives — mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers and other family members did not have to say goodbye to sons and daughters forever — and less expensive in terms of the cost to America’s reputation and standing in the world.
If you read the remarks of General Zinni that I posted earlier, you would see that he said the same thing I said. You would also see that he said Bush 41 also said the same things I’ve said. (He’s called “Bush 41,” by the way, because he was America’s forty-first President.)
And I believe you’re correct that some of those same Democrats you quoted did say President Bush lied. Others say he relied upon bad intelligence. Still others say he heard what he wanted to hear and then took that (incorrect) information to the American public and our allies. And that caused people to say he has mislead the American public and our allies.
It’s also worth noting that all the people you quote were relying upon things that they heard from Bush’s people, from American “news” sources and (for some with the right clearances) from the same corrupt intelligence sources that the Bush Administration put in place to bypass the regular intelligence services who were questioning this “intelligence.” That last part is why some people have thought Bush was lying, while others say “misleading.”
“Misleading” is misleading, by the way; that is, the term can mean “outright lied” in some contexts and it can mean “took us down the wrong path, but not necessarily because it was meant to do so.”
This very post (above) to which you’ve added your comment said the same thing. So no one has to scroll back up, I said,
Note that for the purpose of this response of mine, I have assumed the truth of what you posted, including both the words and the dates. I did not do the research, as I was planning to do before responding to you via an email. But since you posted this publicly, I felt compelled to point out what I’ve said in this post — and it was only fair to do that by assuming the truth of what you posted.
13 Harry // May 27, 2004 at 1:41 pm
I find it odd that one would try an associate an overtly evangelical president with the protection of Israel. Israel is a tool, protected in as much as the current dispensationalist interpretation of biblical prophecy requires the presence of a state of Israel for second coming of their Christ.
It does not matter whether you believe in prophecy. The fact is, many people do. Dispensationalism is a major sect of fundamentalist protestant Christianity. It?s followers believe they are living in the ?end times? and seek to hasten the return of their god so they can be carried bodily into heaven and avoid than annoying thing call ?death?.
So it seems that the interests of the fundamentalists and a small country, struggling against hostile neighbors, wanting only to be allowed a life and a land of their own, coincide. Not so.
Israel must be protected so that it can be purged, in accordance with prophecy:
The purge of Israel in their time of trouble is described by Zechariah in these words: “And it shall come to pass, that in all the land, saith Jehovah, two parts therein shall be cut off and die; but the third shall be left therein. And I will bring the third part into the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is tried” (Zechariah 13:8, 9).
According to Zechariah?s prophecy, two thirds of the children of Israel in the land will perish, but the one third that are left will be refined, interpreted by modern fundamentalists as converting to their brand of Christianity.
In order for most of today?s fundamentalists to escape physical death, two-thirds of the Jews in Israel must perish ? and perish soon. This is the trade-off they rarely discuss in public but which is the central motivation in the administrations support for Israel.
It should be clear why they believe that Israel must be defended at all costs by the West: If Israel were militarily removed from history prior to the Rapture, then the strongest case for Christians? imminent escape from death would have to be abandoned. As a pivotal piece in the end-time preaching of many fundamentalists, belief in Israel?s place in their gods plans for the imminent second coming helps keep the cash flowing to the evangelical churches, and thus on in the form of donations to the politicians.
Every time you hear the phrase, “Jesus is coming back soon,” you should mentally add, “and two-thirds of the Jews of Israel will be dead in ?soon plus 84 months.?” To avoid death soon, they must work to bring about a second holocaust. Support for Israel? No more than a farmer supports his cattle until they can be sold at market. Only this time, the price is more than 40 pieces of silver.
14 Bob // May 27, 2004 at 2:32 pm
Nick, in a gentle word, yes.
As recently as last Sunday, Colin Powell admitted on “Meet the Press” that some of the intelligence was intentionally misinterpreted to create more of a threat than actually existed.
And in the Slate article with Zinni, Zinni states that the policy of containment was working and that even if he had WMD, he could not have moved them because of the No Fly Zones and the amount of surveillance Iraq was constantly under. Yes, I know one warhead could have slipped through but consider he was going to war, he would have needed more than one to defend his regime.
Once Iraq was defeated, the weapons inspectors had free reign to inspect everywhere and anywhere they wished. Nothing found.
There IS the possibility that they made their way to Syria but from what I have been reading in the Woodward book, Special Forces were all over western Iraq to prevent just that from happening and the launch of scud missles into Israel.
The reasonable odds are that Saddam destroyed whatever he had after Gulf War I. His bluster against the US was to impress other Arab leaders and his own people as was his use of WMD against his own people soon after Gulf War I.
The quotes from the Clinton administration could have been sincere and also have been an attempt to distract attention from domestic issues (like impeachment). You also have to consider that when one leader blusters at the US, the typical policy is to bluster back. Rattling the sword as it were.
In any case, the Clinton administration had proven too many times (Somalia, Kosovo, etc) that they would not have acted without allies, if not the whole UN. The fact that this administration acted without that support is very disconcerting.
Couple that with the low quality intelligence used to justify the invasion and we rightly have a crisis of confidence.
After 9/11, Bush had the whole world behind him. Why was it necessary to use shaky intel and go alone? That one question is killing this nation right now.
15 Nat // May 27, 2004 at 3:02 pm
Nick,
Nice job with the quotes. Got ’em cold, once again.
As usual, the Liberals want to have everything both ways. On the one hand they tell people that the war in Iraq, being conducted by a Republican president, was unjustified because it lacked UN approval. Of course THEY NEVER MENTION the military action in Kosovo, conducted by a Democratic president, was done totally without UN approval.
They also never mention UN Resolution 1441 and the Iraq War resolution of the US Congress. Remember all that talk about a “material breach” of all the UN resolutions? They want you to have convenient amnesia over all of that.
The Liberals sneeringly claim that President Bush acted unilaterally. THEY NEVER MENTION THAT
Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Thailand, United Kingdom, and Ukraine all sent troops to Iraq.
Clearly, the US did not act unilaterally and we don’t believe we need France or Germany’s permission to defend our interests. Of course the Liberals believe that multilateralism can only be achieved with the approval of France and Germany. That is the position of the extra from the Night of the Living Dead.
Liberals scream hysterically that this war was motivated by greed and oil and when France, Germany, and Russia opposed the war, they were motivated by principle. In point of fact they all had sweetheart oil deals or Oil-For-Food kickback deals with Hussein. At the same time as saying this war was for oil, Liberals carp about US oil prices are too high, and that the administration failed in its responsibility to do something about it!
Liberals slander President Bush by saying he “lied” about the intel and reasons for the war. Well, if that were the case then Prime Minister Blair ALSO lied because he has been hand-in-glove with the US from the getgo!!!
In truth the reason they want to say Bush “lied” is because the creature-from-the-morgue voted for the Iraq invasion also. Again the Liberals try to have it both ways when they say that he made a “reasonable decision” based on the intelligence available at the time. Well, hold on, just a minute. He saw the SAME intel President Bush saw!
The Liberals believe that we are responsible for bringing terror on ourselves. WE are the BAD GUYS in the Liberals’ view because we are too successful, too rich and we use too much of the world’s resources. In the Liberal manifesto, we are responsible for 9/11.
I could go on but I think you get the point which is that the Liberals are running the dirtiest campaign ever in the history of politics. No low is too low to stoop to. They will distort any fact and lie about anything. All of this is a coordinated campaign on the part of NPR, CNN, the NYT and the DNC. There’s nothing “democratic” about these people as they try to manipulate public opinion and fix an election.
Just watch a Michael Moore or a Ted Kennedy, or the buffoon Gore, on TV and you will hear nothing but malice and ill will. Nothing but poison. What are their programs? They have none. Their entire election campaign is based on sliming President Bush, one of the best and most decent men to ever serve this country.
The Liberals know their ideology is bankrupt and so they have nothing left other than to mount a campaign of lies and slander against our President. This November piss off a Liberal …
VOTE FOR GEORGE W BUSH!
16 Mark // May 27, 2004 at 3:08 pm
Harry,
What a great contribution!
17 Nat // May 27, 2004 at 3:13 pm
One more thought, Nick.
If the US had not gone into Iraq, these same vile hypocrites would be screaming that we were not serious about America’s security etc. etc. etc.
You can’t possibly win with these people. Whatever we did would be the wrong thing and “a lie” according to them. Even if we, as your quotes prove, are only doing what they have advocated.
If these past 6 weeks have shown anything, they have shown the true face of Liberalism to the American public. Their “caring” mask has slipped and we have seen how small, mean and petty they are. I don’t think America will vote because of what a vicious partisan lying hack, such as Katie Couric, tells them to do.
I think there will be major payback for all this Liberal nastiness in the voting booths of America. I see a huge backlash building against the ugliness of the LLL.
18 Mark // May 27, 2004 at 3:21 pm
Democrats talk about policies and tell the truth about Republicans — and Republicans think it’s the worst thing to ever happen (can you blame them)?
Republicans never challenge Democrats on policy, but pay people to lie about the private lives of Democrats>
Who is petty? Who is low? It’s pretty easy to see. And the numbers show that more and more Americans are taking their blinders off!
19 Rick // May 27, 2004 at 3:40 pm
Note the radical increase in censored posts.
gNat would probably tell you how upset he is about me doing this, but since he can’t get anything posted to the board, he won’t. gNat is, no doubt, surprised that I have prevented you from hearing his apology to me…
Oh, that’s right. There wasn’t one.
And I can assure you, gNat, I would not have been “screaming that we were not serious about America’s security.” Of course, there’s probably no sense telling you this, because you still insist that I’m a Democrat, too. You apparently only hear the things that fit into your world view and ignore everything else, whether it’s true, false, or neither.
I’m sure that’s why you didn’t respond to any of the comments that were made about Nick’s post, particularly the one that noted the missing quotes. You’re happy to list purported invasions of dozens of countries I (and others on this board) didn’t comment upon because…uh, oh yeah, this blog didn’t exist yet. Dang.
Of course, that’s surely just an excuse on “our” part. “We” lefties are such hypocrites. Like when “we” never mentioned anything about Kosovo:
Oops! Who was that who criticized Kosovo as a sign of U.S. aggression and imperialism? Sure not “we,” the “Liberals.” It was those other people “on the left of Western politics.” Those Liberal hypocrites!
If only we could censor them!
Oh, wait…we already do.
20 Bob // May 27, 2004 at 3:44 pm
Harry,
With all due respect, this comment is just wrong.
This is NOT a major sect and you’d be hard pressed to call it a sect at all. This would be the equivalent of calling those who picket the funeral of a gay man with signs that say “God Hates Fags” Christian. No, they are not Christians. Their actions have proven it.
And that interpretation of scripture is just wrong. In fact, its scary wrong.
Any group that bought into what you mentioned would be a cult like the kind that died at Waco. It’s nowhere near mainstream Christian theology and I’m sorry but I just cannot have anyone read that without explanation.
There has been some minor Christian bashing on this blog, some of it earned. I’ve even done some.
There has been discussion that this president’s religious beliefs may get in the way, and even that conversation is valid but the cult that you describe is nowhere near a reasonable and honest definition of Christian.
Nope.
Christians of even moderate faith believe that of “end times” is based on God’s time, not man’s. Any attempt to manipulate the world to rush judgement is fruitless and quite frankly, would be considered a sin.
If you would like to share your source I am sure I can prove my point to an even greater degree.
I am sorry Harry but, respectfully, your post is wrong.
21 Mark // May 27, 2004 at 3:53 pm
Bob,
Interesting points. I could read you and Harry swapping ideas all day.
22 Harry // May 27, 2004 at 4:34 pm
I would agree they are not Christians in the sense that most people who follow the teaching of Christ are Christians, however, they have claimed the title and are influencing politics as much as they can, based on their religious agenda.
Dispensationalists are a major movement within ?fundamentalist, protestant Christianity?. However, that branch of Christianity in no way represents the majority of Christians, the teachings of Christ and the doctrines of most churches outside of the Evangelical Alliance.
I agree that their actions show they have little in common with the teachings of Christ, they have a lot in common with the teachings of Paul, who I believe was the one that Jesus warned, ?would come in his name and deceive many.?
I have yet to see any Christian-bashing on Rick?s site. I?ve seen a little hypocrite-bashing from time to time, but I subscribe to the notion that a person?s actions, not their words, should match their faith. Otherwise they are self-deceiving at best, deliberately deceiving others at worst.
You say even moderate Christians believe in an end-times; this is true. There have been three main views of eschatology in Christian history, premillennialism (Jesus comes back before heaven-on earth), postmillennialism (he comes back after the kingdom is established) and Amillennialism, started by Augustine, which sees the ?kingdom of God? as mainly spiritual. While the early protestant movement tended toward amillennialism, the modern, fundamentalist sects that come under the grouping of dispensationalists, tend towards a very radical form of postmillennialism, a form that has no problem acting in a manner they see as consistent with bringing about the end times.
Unlike those secure in their faith and knowing that physical death will lead to eternity in heaven, per their doctrines, I believe that these people appear to fear physical death and would see the planet burn to be able to emulate Enoch and Elijah and ?walk with God and be not.?
You wanted references:
Here?s a website discussing how this is a perversion (literal sense) of Christianity.
http://www.preteristarchive.com/dEmEnTiA/
Some are open about the need for Israel to exist for prophecy:
?”Before the armies can annihilate each other, Jesus Christ breaks out of the clouds with his warrior saints and destroys the assembled armies. The surviving Jews then acknowledge him as their Messiah, and King Jesus restores David’s throne in Jerusalem, near the purified Jewish temple where priests perform the ancient blood sacrifices. Jesus reigns in peace and justice for a thousand years.”
___All this, however, hinges on restoring and preserving a Jewish state in Palestine.
___McAteer agrees that the existence of Israel as a nation is “very important” to his view of Christian theology. “Jesus said when these things come to pass, lift up your head, your redemption draweth nigh.”?
http://baptiststandard.com/2002/4_15/pages/mideast_evangelical.html
An interesting timeline on dispensationalism and their links to support for Israel (I support Israel because they have a right to live in peace, not because they may being about the end of the world. I don?t hate my job that much!)
http://www.religion-online.org/cgi-bin/relsearchd.dll/showarticle?item_id=216
Europe is waking up the to the potential problems:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1195568,00.html
A couple of years old, but shows the situation has been in the eyes of the media for a while:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A10067-2002Oct10¬Found=true
Article on Pat Robinson, who, in my opinion, does more to besmirch the good name of Christianity, than most people alive:
http://www.counterpunch.org/grebe04242003.html
A recent article on the subject, November 2003:
http://www.baptists4ethics.com/article_detail.cfm?AID=3219
Another link with an anti-war twist on the issues:
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j020303.html
This is the most recent article I can find about the Christian Right influencing mid east politics:
http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0420/perlstein.php
23 Bob // May 27, 2004 at 9:55 pm
Harry,
Two wonderful posts, thank you.
I need some time to put together an answer that is worthy of your thoughts and research. I’ve already started but I just need to get my thoughts together. I don’t want to put my foot in my mouth!
Mark, you’ll need a comfy seat, if you enjoy reading what Harry and I are saying then there is a lot of reading in store for you!
24 Bob // May 27, 2004 at 11:58 pm
This is my response to Harry regarding Dispensationalism.
Just so everyone can follow along I will start by defining some basic concepts and buzz words. This is not my way to show off knowledge, this is what I had to go through to answer Harry?s post!
Dispensationalism ? one of many doctrines in Christian theology. It is not accepted in all Christian churches.
Covenant Theology ? another doctrine of Christian theology. In some minds, it is the opposite of dispensationalism. In some minds they are in agreement. This is the more popular doctrine in the Christian churches.
People not agreeing about religion ? go figure!
Dispensationalism is simply defined as the literal fulfillment of every promise (or prophesy) God ever made to Israel. This is not a Jewish belief but a Christian belief. In addition, every Christian promise will also be fulfilled. In effect, God will honor both sets of promises made in the Old and New Testament, to both Jews and Christians.
When God showed Abraham the starry night and told him that his descendents would be as numerous as those stars he made a promise. Jews are blood descendents of Abraham, Christians are spiritual descendants. In short, God doesn?t make promises he doesn?t keep, He is always true to His word. That?s the rationale behind Dispensationalism.
The very brief difference between Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism is that Covenant Theology believes that Christ was the beginning of a new covenant that superceeds the promises God made in the Old Testament. In Covenant Theology, only those who are true believers will be saved from the great trial mentioned in Revelation. Those true believers believe in Christ. Those left will be purified by trial. Think of it this way, when was YOUR most powerful learning experiences, when things were great or when things when off the deep end? It?s a gross oversimplification but that?s what the trial is about. If someone can still not believe after the trial then he / she will never believe and it?s up to God what happens to them.
In Dispensationalism, there are two resolutions to the end of time. Jews and Christians are both saved if they are true believers. Those that have the blood heritage to Israel will see Israel rise to a great power under the King they have been waiting for all these years. Christians, those who have the heritage to Israel through the blood of Christ, will also see the Kingdom they have been waiting for.
Now here is where I have to mention Harry?s original post. In my opinion, there was an underlying tone to Harry?s post that implied that two of every three Jews would have to die to make this Christian prophesy come true. I disagree, especially about the cattle and pieces of silver.
The interpretation that I prefer to support is that only one of three Jews is a true believer, in short, worthy in God?s eyes, someone who practices the faith and not just relies on blood heritage to be called ?Jew?. It?s not a Jewish thing, not many Christians will be worthy either. It?s a matter of those found worthy will be the minority regardless of the religion. This is a thread throughout the Bible.
Another implication of Harry?s post was that there are those in American government and influential to American government that are strong supporters of Israel because they believe it hastens the ?time of judgement?. This is a very foolish belief or heresy depending on your view. In either case, it is NOT widely accepted Christian doctrine that anything humans can do will hasten the ?time of judgement?. There is no pastor or priest educated in mainstream Christianity that believes we can effect God?s plan by any action on our part. It is GOD?s plan on HIS schedule and WE are literally at the mercy of God when this plan unfolds, as we are at His mercy for every breath.
Are there those that believe they can effect God?s plan? Yup. Are they in the mainstream of Christian thought? Nope. Do they support Israel with a blinding, unconditional support based on selfish biblical interpretation? Yes.
To mainstream Christian thought, they are not a sect, not a cult, they?re just nuts. It may sound rude and written for effect but that is the honest thought of mainstream Christians. Think of it this way, would the Creator of the World really need a majority of the House and Senate to fulfill His promises? Not likely.
And to address one more topic that I introduced in my post to Harry?s original post regarding Christian bashing. Harry stated that he didn?t notice any but again I have to respectfully disagree.
A point was made by a writer that the Jewish faith was defined by action and the Christian faith was defined by faith (i.e. lack of action).
Sincerely and honestly, if you were sitting next to a real Christian you probably would not notice. There is no sign above his or her head and that true Christian would never advertise the fact of their faith. You would have no knowledge of their works, you would have no resume to review. If you were their aquaintance you might think of them as a ?good? person, an ?honest? person, even a ?fair and compassionate person? but you probably would not use ?Christian? to describe them.
In the real Christian faith, the faith motivates actions that are seldom seen and less seldom discussed. It was asked of us to keep our actions between us and the Father. It serves no purpose for anyone else to know except stroking the ego and that is NOT what we?re about. Not when we are real.
If I sometimes come across with an impatience regarding openly ?Christian? politicians, its because I see a person looking for votes, not someone I identify with.
Before we go any further, I am not next in line for sainthood, this is not my acceptance speech for a halo. I fail as often, if not more so, than others in my faith or any faith. It?s just that in the business of religion, unlike politics, bad press is not ?spun? into good press. People DO walk away from places like this blog thinking that Christians dislike or even hate others unlike them. In the true practice, there is no hate. We are taught to love even our enemies. Even if every Jew on earth was our enemy, we could not hate them and certainly not sacrifice them to advance God?s plan. Ridiculous. It?s counter to the spirit of the whole faith. That violation would place us in the number who have to endure the trial. That?s just not our purpose.
Hopefully this simple explanation will clarify my position. Harry, you dropped in some incredible comments, please keep them up even if I don?t agree. I found it refreshing to read such well formed thought. I look forward to reading your posts!
To others, excuse my sermon. It?s over now.
I have to wait for the weekend to do some additional reading about all this but I wanted to add my two cents before the thread dried up. If I find some remarkable insight I?ll share it.
25 Kent // May 28, 2004 at 12:30 am
Nat says there is a Liberal Bias at NPR…Say it isn’t so!
Oh, they did: http://www.fair.org/extra/0405/npr-study.html
“Despite the commonness of such claims, little evidence has ever been presented for a left bias at NPR, and FAIR?s latest study gives it no support. Looking at partisan sources?including government officials, party officials, campaign workers and consultants?Republicans outnumbered Democrats by more than 3 to 2 (61 percent to 38 percent).” — Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting 5/6/04
26 Mark // May 28, 2004 at 5:46 am
Bob, Harry,
I am really enjoying this. For reasons I do not understand and have never given great thought to, I have always found it fascinating to hear others talk about their religious beliefs and their particular spins on religion in general — as long as they aren’t trying to convert me!
27 Harry // May 28, 2004 at 9:27 am
Here is where our communication is perhaps breaking down. There is a difference between definition, which is correct, and interpretation; I believe that there is a subculture that has a very different interpretation of the Dispensationalism than mainstream theology.
I also disagree with this particular eschatological interpretation, but that does not change the fact that there are people out there who do believe it. They believe it with such fervor that they actively want to see Armageddon, see the establishment of their interpretation of the ?kingdom of God?, and to hell (literally) with anyone who stand in their way.
I regard these zealots as one of the biggest threats to modern society; they are a growing sect and have many of the tools a cult needs to grow, thrive and become powerful. They are the same tools Constantine used to spread Christianity through the reunited empire following the declaration of Milan and like Constantine, there is no compunction about changing the interpretation of scripture to meet political needs.
I would say it is both. What concerns me the most is that the people who do believe are in positions of influence, not just within the Administration, but within the PACs that push for this ?Conservative Christian? agenda. It does not matter if a large proportion of the Christians in America do not believe as they do, provided they believe the preacher when he says that ?God has told him that person X will be the next president.?
The debate we are having is irrelevant to many so-called people of faith, who sin all week and make it better by saying sorry on Sunday. These hypocritical individuals will listen to a person who tells them they are forgiven without changing their ways. Because they are told that the religion they follow has no requirement for personal responsibility (the blood of Jesus bleaches you on a weekly basis) they are willing to believe other things they are told, like what else to believe and who to vote for.
Which, by the way, is not my interpretation of Christianity. As far as I am concerned, Christians are required to witness by their actions, not by a TV channel.
But to these people, they are not changing Gods plan. It was Gods plan all the time that they should have an active part in the unfolding of prophecy. Just as the current President believes that it was Gods plan that he be president at this time. These people believe they are the chosen ones, the anointed one, that they will be welcomed in heaven among saints for their part in the great work of bring the Glory of Christ back to earth.
But mainstream Christians are not, in the most part, anywhere as active as these nutcases. Mainstream Christians are more concerned with living in this world as they see God intended, rather than trying to bring an end to it. They ?render unto Caesar what is Caesars? and get on with living. The fanatics, on the other hand, are very active and work as though the ends justify the means. The rather unpleasant aspects of what they see as their holy cause are simply not mentioned, any more than a Palestinian who is considering being a suicide bomber is told the details of the suffering the widows will go through, the pain the children with missing limbs will face. ?Glory in God?s kingdom for voting the way we tell you?
And neither do the fanatics, when the end can be accomplished by the tone of the policy as much as the content. And when the short-term result of the policy appears positive, when it appears that morality and politics agree, then it is easy. They fanatics simply fail to mention that they have ulterior motives for the support.
Missed that one. But I would have to agree with it to some extent. Jews are required to perform some actions and refrain from others, whereas the new covenant, particularly those interpretations that lean heavily on Pauline influences, state that it is by faith alone that man is saved.
This applies to every religion. The person sitting next to you who you would describe as a ?good person? could be Muslim, Buddhist, Pagan, Shinto or any other belief system.
Some people who ?claim? to be Christian do hate others unlike them. It speaks of their own lack of faith. They are unsure in what they believe and the presence of those who believe different makes them wonder if, perhaps, they could be wrong. Rather than face a crisis of faith which they would probably come out of stringer, they attempt to silence the different voices.
In many ways that is like politics. Those who are insecure in their political belif, who have never thought about what they have been told is right, do not want to consider that another point of view may be valid or even, dare I say it, correct? So they will shout down opposing voices, bring up irrelevant topics, do anything rather than face that mirror of self. For whether it is politics or religion, one of the hardest things a person can do is look into that mirror with preconceptions.
But these people do not hate them, they are just helping them fulfill the role God intended them to have in his creation.
Our opinions on what constitutes ?real Christianity? are not that different. I, however, see these fanatics as a real danger, and more of influence than most people gives realize.
I believe there is a large ?voting block? of ?Conservative Christians? who do not understand the bigger picture, that vote on-mass because they are told this candidate or that is the right choice, the one ?God? would want. In the modern, sound bite world, few have time to research the issues and come to an educated opinion. They continue to plod along, serfs to the corporate barons, content in the knowledge that the more they suffer, the better the place in heaven.
Those telling them this are the modern Pharisees, they have traded the keys of heaven for secular power and wealth. For many, that wealth required the continued belief by their supporters that the ?end times? are here, so they will do everything in their power to keep those prophecies coming in.
Regards,
Harry.
28 Bob // May 28, 2004 at 12:31 pm
I agree with this because of one very important reason: it’s all a part of God’s plan. God is still in charge and there is not a remarkable reason to believe that its not unfolding according to that plan. In some ways, it makes mainstream Christians less active in worldly issues (like politics) and makes room for the fringe groups to get attention, like this subculture you refer to.
There is hope here. If there is anything constant in Washington, it’s change. The Conservative, Christian based PACs and candidates will eventually fall out of favor. Unfortunately, it may take a long time and do damage to the country in the short term, but it will happen.
Also, this ultra conservative mind set is still regionalized to some extent. If a different candidate from a different area of the country comes to power, there will be a shift in this political / religious influence as well.
Everyone has a right to be wrong :)~
Paul has been misinterpreted for centuries. In mainstream interpretation, Paul is pointing to Christ as the example. He often wrote to churches telling them to get off their butt and not just sit around waiting for the second coming. His point was often you are saved by grace and faith. In response to that, you act. If you really have faith, you are motivated to act.
Agreed. It’s witnessed too often on TV for ratings. Newspapers sell ad space with it. If their ratings began to suffer, Fox would change it’s position quickly. It’s profit driven, all profit.
Those who don’t tolerate rational and respectful counterpoint to their position are immediately suspect in my mind. They can’t defend their position because they don’t know why they have this position except that they witnessed it on the media.
And yes, it’s in politics and religion. That’s why I advocate separation of church and state. Neither does the other a favor, they both pollute the purpose of the other.
This is modern Christianity’s biggest shame. Swaggart, Jim Baker, Oral Roberts sitting in tower until he received millions, etc. They all disgraced the religion and violated the trust of many well meaning people.
Some churches are marketed nowadays to maximize cash flow and minimize Christian responsibility. These “feel good” churches give you a buzz, the rush of God without requiring you believe in anything more than yourself.
In my doctrine, these people who build these “mega feel good” churches will have lots of explaining to do. I would imagine nothing would be punished more than perverting God’s word for worldly gain.
Again, great post Harry!
Leave a Comment