PDA

View Full Version : The Things That Make for Peace



elder999
23rd June 2003, 17:32
As Jesus came near and saw the city, he wept over it , saying , "If you, even you, had only recognized on this day the things that make for peace!” Luke 19:41

The war with Iraq was justified, whether to free the Iraqi people, or to disarm Saddam, or simply to end a decade of hostilities once and for all. The war in Iraq was mostly justified, though, by fear. Trappist monk Thomas Merton said it well years ago: "The root of war is fear.” Since Sept.11 , 2001 our nation has been terrified, and with good reason. I believe Americans are also hungry for peace. What are the things that make for peace?

Those who now lead this nation believe that peace comes through unquestioned military superiority. Presidential words from aircraft carriers point the way. A new Pax Americana is now being offered quite openly in the aftermath of the military conquest of Iraq. Words like “empire” are being used in a positive way. William Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard, and a leading proponent of American empire, claims that there is nothing wrong with dominance as long as it is for the “right values, “ and I agree, but what are the right values?

In 1997, an influential group of political and opinion leaders, led by Kristol and others. Formed a group called the Project for the New American Century, proposing an aggressive foreign and military policy to enforce American interests throughout the world. Some of their members are now running the Department of Defense. In their own words they offer a clear vision of the things they believe make peace. They write:


The United States is the world’s only superpower, combining pre-eminent military superiority, global technological leadership and the world’s largest economy…At present he United States faces no global rival. America’s grand strategy should aim to preserve and extend this position as far into the future as possible. If an American peace is to be maintained and expanded, it must have a secure foundation on unquestioned U.S. military pre-eminence..and the failure to prepare for tomorrow’s challenges will ensure that the current Pax Americana will come to an end.

Micah, my favorite Biblical prophet on National Security issues, had a different view.
Micah says we will never beat our “swords into plowshares” until everyone has their own “vine and fig tree." The insight that the possibilities for peace, for avoiding war, depend on everyone having enough is a clear alternative vision. If the tremendous imbalances of this planet could be leveled just a little, then no one would have to be afraid. It is great imbalances and fear that lead to war, but what of the imbalances at home? Ultimately there will be no security apart from common security, and no national security that neglects domestic security.

It is now clear that the ongoing costs of the war with Iraq and the Bush administration’s tax cut s are leading to a crisis for America’s poorest children. Indeed, America’s poor were this war’s first casualties, as U.S. domestic needs were pushed off the political agenda. Congress recently approved nearly $80 billion requested by the administration for the first payment for the war with Iraq. Then it agreed to a budget resolution containing billions of dollars in new tax cuts and increased spending or the military, while resources for important domestic programs are falling beneath the amount needed to maintain current services in a deteriorating situation for the poor.

The consequences of these actions are becoming a silent war, felt most severely in the poorest parts of the United States-like New Mexico- where low-income families are desperately clutching onto the bottom rungs of a failing economy. The truth is that hungry people will go without food stamps, poor children will go without health care, the elderly will go without medicine,, and school children will go without textbooks so that the taxes of the wealthiest Americans-like myself- can be further reduced. The budget priorities of this administration do not match its rhetorical promise of a faith-based initiative to reduce poverty.

The administration’s priorities are a disaster for the poor and a windfall for the wealthiest, thus directly conflicting with “Christian “ priorities. Budgets reveal our priorities as a family, any organization, or as a nation. With its windfall for the rich, penalties for the poor, military interests over domestic interests, environmental plunder and “I got mine, Jack” attitude, the Bush administration-pronouncements to the contrary notwithstanding-is decidedly un-Christian.

wendy ongaro
23rd June 2003, 17:53
" By not elevating the worthy, you bring it about that people will not compete.

By not valuing goods that are hard to obtain, you bring it about that people will not act like thieves.

By not displaying the desirable you bring it about that the people will not be confused.

Therefore, the government of the Sage:
Empties their minds,
and fills their bellies.
Weakens their ambitions,
and strengthens their bones.

He constantly causes the people to be without knowledge and without desires. "

Chapter 3, Tao Te Ching.

Starkjudo
23rd June 2003, 17:57
I live in Mississippi, and I keep up with the news. While we do not have the same population of poor as New Mexico, we certainly have our share of the underprivleged. I've seen absolutely nothing to indicate that the war or any objectives brought about by this presidency have caused any increase in suffering.

Rob Thornton

wendy ongaro
23rd June 2003, 18:30
I have in Wyoming.

last November, our state was one of the few not running a deficit. Come December, the Federal Government informed the state that the funding promised for 2003 for Medicaid and Medicare would be cut to fund other initiatives. That put is in a 36 million dollar deficit for this year's budget. Our state is now cutting back on many social services programs that were meagerly to begin with, as well as other expenses, to rebalance our budget.

the result that I've seen personally is an increase in the number of veterans enrolling for primary care at the VA, as they do not have the medicaid coverage they once had. The government also scaled back medicare payments last year (I think by about 4%, but don't quote me). the result is that many private physicians are dropping their medicare patients because they cannot afford to provide services to them and still keep their offices running. Also, health insurance premiums have increased UP TO 45%!!! Most small businessess (who are the number one employers in this state) are shifting the costs over to their employees, and many are dropping health insurance all together.

The result is an increasing number of people who need insurance, cannot get insurance, and there is less medicaid dollars to go around. This results in a decrease in medical care for citizens of Wyoming, particularly children, as people cannot as easily afford non-critical (i.e. preventative) care.

Finally, the VA has cut back on category 7 and 8 veterans who can receive care at the VA, further limiting the options available to those patients in the upper income brackets who might otherwise be eligible for care in the VA system.

I'm not politically motivated in the sense of being pro- democrat or pro-republican, but this situation concerns me greatly. It seems more and more federal constraints are being placed on states, while less funding is offerred, or worse yet, reneged in the 11th hour. This is also coming from the same political group that has strongly espoused state's rights in the past. Overall, I am disappointed with the leadership.

elder999
23rd June 2003, 18:57
Originally posted by Starkjudo
I live in Mississippi, and I keep up with the news. While we do not have the same population of poor as New Mexico, we certainly have our share of the underprivleged. I've seen absolutely nothing to indicate that the war or any objectives brought about by this presidency have caused any increase in suffering.

Rob Thornton

And I have to question just how many poor people you've broken bread with, or seen using food stamps at the grocery? As you drive by the trailers and shanties that they live in, how is it you know how many empty bellies are in there, or what medicines they aren't receiving?


The Senate finally passed the CARE Act by an overwhelming, bi-partisan
vote, including the restoration of more than $1 bilklion dollars to the Social Services Block Grant program, funds that assist state and local social service providers. The same day, the White House announced htat it wopuld oppose the funding. The budget priorities of this administration are sickening.

A recent General Accounting Office study found that half the states have cut chlid care funding in the last two years.


And, the IRS is supposedly planning on asking the more than 4 million people who claim the Earned Income Tax Credit to provide stringent proof of eligibility. THis proposal would directly effect working poor familioes and undercut perhaps the most effectuve bipartisan program for poverty reduction.


But the worst-so far-is what is hapening to education...

Facing massive budget crises, states all over the nation have been forced to make deep cuts to school budgets. As President Bush's failed policies continue to drive our economy further into stagnation, states and local communities are hard-pressed to find the money they need to keep vital educational programs growing. What's more, Bush's broken promises in the No Child Left Behind act left states with an unfunded mandate, giving them even more obligations they can't fulfill.

Just a few examples of these state budget cuts show what a dire crisis many states are facing:

New York has proposed $2.1 billion in cuts to education and plans to cancel state-funded pre-kindergarten programs.

South Carolina cut aid to school districts by $127 per student.

Cleveland, Ohio officials canceled summer school classes.

Portland, Oregon is cutting the number of teachers, increasing class size from 30 children to 42.

A suburb of Dallas, Texas has cancelled a program that ensures teachers are highly qualified.

Willmar, a small town of 19,000 in Minnesota, canceled after-school enrichment programs.

California informed 30,000 teachers they may be laid off next year.

Oklahoma cut $160 million from schools and eliminated bus routes for students.

Georgia cut $2 million from a scholarship program that helps outstanding high school students pay for college.

President Bush broke the promises he made when he signed the No Child Left Behind Act when his budget failed to fund the goals laid out in that bill. Without additional federal funds, many states are now forced to pay for the additional testing and teacher training mandated in that bill without the help they need, forcing them to cut vital education funds.

Democrats have introduced an economic stimulus plan that would include aid to the states to help them weather budget crises without severe cuts to education and other vital services.

But Republicans, led by the White House, have repeatedly blocked this plan, instead pushing enormous tax cuts that go mostly to wealthy Americans, with no help to the states. Bush's similar tax cut passed in 2001 is largely responsible for the economic situation that has left state budgets in dire straits.

I'm fairly affluent. I eat well, and there are no poor people where I live. I know that from that position, it's easy to say you see no suffering when you don't bother looking for it.

Starkjudo
23rd June 2003, 20:27
Originally posted by elder999

I'm fairly affluent. I eat well, and there are no poor people where I live. I know that from that position, it's easy to say you see no suffering when you don't bother looking for it.

Well, gee, excuse me since I must not care as much as you do. I live in a small-ish size town in Mississippi, population about 20,000. Maybe i'm not breaking bread with people below my income class (which is right at 30K, single), but i'd have to be blind, deaf and dumb not to see the people around me. I've worked in grocery stores and drug stores in this state and been face to face with the poorest this state has to offer. I've delivered papers to their doorsteps.

There are some of them, yes, that are extrememly poor off. However, they've been that way since long before Bush took office. The american dream may have failed them, but I have yet to see that this particular administration has made that much of a change in their lives.

Oh, and the fact that enourmous tax cuts are going to wealthy Americans? That couldn't have anything to do with the fact that the top 10% of wage earners pay 67% of the taxes, and the top 50% of wage earners pay 96% of them could it? Obviously i'm a bad person, cause I consider that there's something wrong with this kind of governmental transfer to money from earners to non-earners.

Rob Thornton

elder999
23rd June 2003, 20:32
Originally posted by Starkjudo


Well, gee, excuse me since I must not care as much as you do. I live in a small-ish size town in Mississippi, population about 20,000. Maybe i'm not breaking bread with people below my income class (which is right at 30K, single), but i'd have to be blind, deaf and dumb not to see the people around me. I've worked in grocery stores and drug stores in this state and been face to face with the poorest this state has to offer. I've delivered papers to their doorsteps.

There are some of them, yes, that are extrememly poor off. However, they've been that way since long before Bush took office. The american dream may have failed them, but I have yet to see that this particular administration has made that much of a change in their lives.

Oh, and the fact that enourmous tax cuts are going to wealthy Americans? That couldn't have anything to do with the fact that the top 10% of wage earners pay 67% of the taxes, and the top 50% of wage earners pay 96% of them could it? Obviously i'm a bad person, cause I consider that there's something wrong with this kind of governmental transfer to money from earners to non-earners.

Rob Thornton

Hold on pard...no one said you were a bad person except you.

To be honest, I'm against a lot of government interference in some things, and I'm very much against all the inequalities of the tax system. That said, I don't really think I was missing the money that I'm now getting back from the government-and I'm in a fairly high tax-bracket. If it means that children will get their shots, eat, and that shcools will keep teachers and text books, I'll give the money back-and that IS what it means;I'm giving my tax cut to charity.

This particular administration is making things worse for all of us at home, just like his dad's. If you don't see that now, you will.

Starkjudo
23rd June 2003, 20:54
The last paragraph of your earlier post appeared to be directed at me; If i'm wrong I apologize.

At the time, I was willing to blame the problems that happened with the economy at the end of Bush I's administration on him, and I voted for Clinton. Now, looking back on it, I believe most of the "misery" was propoganda from the Clinton campaign as much as anything. I don't believe the presidency, whoever it is, has a great deal of power over the economy. I do believe they have the ability, alogn with Congress, to take more of my money than they have a right to. If you wish to give yours to charity, than that's your decision and I fully support you. But at least you then had the choice of what to do with it.

Rob Thornton

Shitoryu Dude
23rd June 2003, 20:55
There will never be a utopia. Regardless of how wealthy we become as a whole, there will forever be a class of people who are poor and do without many of the things those in higher social classes take for granted. The reasons will be many, and they will change constantly to reflect the current situation, but for most it will be a condition of their own choosing or perhaps of their innate abilities or maybe of their circumstances for which they feel no need to rise above.

Nor can you just give utopia to them. Experience shows that what is not earned is disregarded, abused, and left to fall apart from neglect. If you give them food, then they expect it to be always given to them and will not work for it. Their children will likely be the same. All that can be really done is to provide the opportunity for escape and not hinder those who take it.

:beer:

Starkjudo
23rd June 2003, 21:14
You said it, Harvey.

Gene Williams
23rd June 2003, 22:15
I get a little weary of this social "Epiphany of the poor" with all the litanies of imbalances and mean old Repubican insensitivity. If you want Biblical paradigms, the New Testament, especially Paul, sees poverty as desirable or, at least, a condition not to be avoided. The entire thrust of Jesus' teaching is toward spiritual riches; he is indifferent to our earthly condition, with the exception of an occasional admonition to the rich to give to the poor. But, this is not preached as a panacea for social ills. Repentance is the cure for all social ills, and that only because it will bring about the true Epiphany of the New Jerusalem and Resurrection life. Paul, expecting the imminent return of Christ, was about as indifferent to one's social condition as it is possible to be. The desert fathers preached poverty, martyrdom, and self denial. It is very difficult, and theologically questionable, to build a social ethic on the teachings of Jesus or Paul. Jesus taught a highly individualistic "ethic", based upon individual repentance, belief in Christ as savior, and love and service to the individuals with whom we come in contact. He was indifferent to politics and social change..."render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." The tribute money was found in the mouth of a fish, a circumventing of government or social methods. Jesus did not take the cripple to the welfare office or register him to vote Democratic, neither did he pick him up and put him in the pool of water, rather told him to get up off his butt (sic) and walk (a plug for individual initiative, perhaps:D ).
Liberals, who's Jesus is the bastard son of Mary, want to use Scipture to shame us or somehow theologically justify their "Social Gospel", often attributing our ills to fear, poverty, or some such modern social catechism, while completely missing the theological point. It is evil, unbelief, original sin, "caritas." There are those who will never have enough, and they will attempt to take more by force. Hitler had plenty of "vines and vineyards;" Ted Bundy wasn't poor, indeed, the most heinous crimes are committed by those with the most resources to perpetrate them. Like the old preacher I grew up listening to said, "It takes a steady hand to hold a full cup." It ain't about poverty...give a poor person a hundred thousand dollars, and in six months he'll be poor again. Liberals just don't get it. And, yes, I would prefer that we had political and military hegemony in the world. "If you want to insure peace, prepare for war." And while you are preparing, repent and believe the Gospel. Gene

Tamdhu
23rd June 2003, 22:59
It'd be nice if, instead of laying off teachers and bus drivers, the school departments would drop some of their own administrative bloat instead, starting, perhaps, with the entire Department of Education, a Carter-era legacy we are long due to do without.

Much easier to yell 'fire' in a crowded theatre, of course.

Gene Williams
23rd June 2003, 23:18
Amen! Preach on! Gene

wendy ongaro
24th June 2003, 02:36
I believe Americans are also hungry for peace. What are the things that make for peace?

I think above and beyond the idealism, the impetous for war is dissatisfaction. When people see a greater benefit from becoming involved in a war than from continuing in their current existence, then they are more likely to take up arms and rise against the perceived oppressor. This is why I quoted the Tao above.

The danger of inequality is the schism that lies between the haves and the have-nots. It is easy to live in a home in a separate community, think oneself isolated from the rest of humanity, and not see the many and complicated ways that all of our lives are intertwined. The thinking and position of the French aristocracy just before the French Revolution is a good example of this. The greater that schism of inequality becomes, the greater the dissatisfaction of those without and the greater the xenophobia of those with. The result is increasing hostility and war. As Americans are the undeniable Haves, it may be worth our time to consider this perspective, as our national security and long term well being may well depend on the dissatisfaction of the Have-Nots in the third world. It is from that dissatisfaction that charismatic and cultish leaders like Bin Laden can plant their seeds of disharmony and wreak trouble for everyone.

My "bleeding heart liberalism" is practical in nature. When people have access to jobs and can afford to purchase decent food and shelter, they are less likely to revolt. When children are immunized, and people are healthy, the 'herd immunity' protects us all from plague and maintains the public health. When people feel their customs are encouraged and not persecuted, they get on with practicing them, and don't wasting energy defending them.

I am for greater stability and self-preservation, and I see this as being best built from the bottom of the heap up, and not necessarily from the top of society down.

elder999
24th June 2003, 14:14
Originally posted by Starkjudo


Oh, and the fact that enourmous tax cuts are going to wealthy Americans? That couldn't have anything to do with the fact that the top 10% of wage earners pay 67% of the taxes, and the top 50% of wage earners pay 96% of them could it? Obviously i'm a bad person, cause I consider that there's something wrong with this kind of governmental transfer to money from earners to non-earners.

Rob Thornton

Well, I don't know how you interpret those statistics, but as someone who will admit to being well near the top of those "top 50%," I can tell you that a majority of us do our level best to pay as little as possible, and succeed.

I fired my accountant last year. I hated to do it, but he had a good idea that morally offended me.

Ever hear of Niue?

This tiny Pacific nation specializes in Intenational Business Companies, shell companies used as fronts by people who are trying to hide their wealth. Wealthy Americans have an estimated $500 billion squirreled away overseas. These arrangements allow these people to escape paying the equivalent of every tax dollar paid by everyone in New York state and New Jersey who earns less than $200,000- that's a lot.


I apologize if you felt my last comment was directed at you, Rob;I was only pointing out the gulf that exists between the middle-class and the truly poor, and how easy it might be not to see the quality of life-or lack of quality-that some people have.


I get a little weary of this social "Epiphany of the poor" with all the litanies of imbalances and mean old Repubican insensitivity.

I spared us the repeat of your little Biblical lesson, Gene.Thanks, though.
The reason for my quoting the Bible-and Jesus-was because that is the language of your President,(and to bait Tony, of course.:p ) His faith based initiative is doomed to failure, and his "No child left behind," while a good idea, is a lie, Gene.

He's a liar, and he's responsible for a lot of reprehensible policy: the potential undoing of every good environmental policy of the last 20 years, the creation of new nuclear weapons, and the gutting of needed domestic and social welfare programs.

Shitoryu Dude
24th June 2003, 14:32
Screw the poor. Let them work their ass off and get out poverty if they have the gumption. It's not hard, it only takes the will to do so and not blaming the world for your own retarded decisions. If they want to sit around in a trailer park and drink generic beer instead of attending classes at the local community college I have no sympathy for them.

It is immoral to tax someone at a higher rate merely because they have more money. Would you charge somebody more for a cheeseburger because they had a bigger bank account? It is also counterproductive - higher taxes discourage investment and spending which lead to fewer and lower paying employment opportunities, and in the long run lead lower tax revenues. Cutting taxes invigorates the economy, raises the general standard of living across the board, and increases tax revenue.

:beer:

elder999
24th June 2003, 15:50
Originally posted by Shitoryu Dude
Screw the poor. Let them work their ass off and get out poverty if they have the gumption. It's not hard, it only takes the will to do so and not blaming the world for your own retarded decisions. If they want to sit around in a trailer park and drink generic beer instead of attending classes at the local community college I have no sympathy for them.

It is immoral to tax someone at a higher rate merely because they have more money. Would you charge somebody more for a cheeseburger because they had a bigger bank account? It is also counterproductive - higher taxes discourage investment and spending which lead to fewer and lower paying employment opportunities, and in the long run lead lower tax revenues. Cutting taxes invigorates the economy, raises the general standard of living across the board, and increases tax revenue.

:beer:

I kind of agree with you, Harvey. Remember the "Socialism" debate, about the time I got here?:rolleyes:

I think that much needed social welfare, environmental and educational programs are beeing gutted, though, and that's counterproductive as well. I don't think I'm alone in believing that some programs for the poor are necessar-that there are children who would go hungry if not for food stamps-children of working poor, not malingerers in any sense of the word, just people that don't make enough money.

While my dad's family has always been pretty well off, my mom's is a great example of the sort of thing that still happens in this country, though for differing reasons. Both her parents had college degrees, but couldn't get jobs in their fields becvause nobody hired Iindian or black teachers in Wyoming then. My grandfather was a coal miner-and they were poor.I've often wondered why they didn't just move, but that's never my call, or anyone else's-and it WAS the depression;moving might not have changed a thing, and he was "lucky" to have the work that he did. My mom and all of her sibs went to college, though, and, like you, I have to wonder why some people don't make better for themselves. Fact is that they don't, and I don't think their kids should suffer unecessarily for it.

As far as taxes, well, you're kind of right, but you're also wrong. I don't agree with a higher rate-I think we should all be taxed at the same flat rate, and be allowed the same credits and allowances across the board. I'm also not so sure that cutting taxes is going to invigorate the economy this time around.

My real point is that I haven't exactly missed the money I'm getting back from the government, while I think we will miss the things that that money came from...like textbooks for our kids.

Shitoryu Dude
24th June 2003, 16:48
Well, I miss every dime that gets cut from my paycheck. :D

I will readily agree that over the last couple centuries that many of the social reforms and programs that were instituted were needed and of great benefit. I also think that some of them (unions for example) are not only no longer needed, but actually a hinderance to their stated goals. They have gotten a life of their own and are out of control in nothing more than a drive to hang on and, if possible, expand.

Of course, what I see as the great equalizer is unfettered access to education for anyone with the gumption to go after it. The GI Bill was perhaps the greatest driver of prosperity of all time. It created a "middle class" that is generally more educated and affluent than the upper echelons of most other societies, past and present. However, I can't be moved to much sympathy when I get an email from somebody I went to school with and they bitch about their life sucking because they life a run down shack in the sticks. We both had the same opportunities, but I decided to get an education and not start having kids at 19 while they barely graduated high school and had a family of 5 by the time they were 23. I don't care that they work 3 or 4 menial jobs to make ends meet - that is what they chose to do. Perhaps their kids will see that mom/dad are stupid and decide to do better.

:beer:

Vapour
24th June 2003, 21:55
Now, I've just read the thread. This thread got nothing to do with Jesus or Homeland security, does it?

Now, as far as I'm concerned, the size of government (or welfare spending) is matter of political choice. If American want to abolish public education, it certainly their choice though I don't think anyone would go that extrem. Similarly, none shouldn't complain if Sweeds want to have Cancer Research Centre in every town. However, inability to balance budget is a definte sign of failiure. On this account the current administration has failed badly.

Oh, here is a quote from Mark.

"And Jesus sat over against the treasury, and beheld how the people cast money into the treasury: and many that were rich cast in much.

And there came a certain poor widow, and she threw in two mites, which make a farthing.

And he called unto him his disciples, and saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That this poor widow hath cast more in, than all they which have cast into the treasury:

For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living."

It's seems that Jesus prefer progressive taxation. :D

elder999
25th June 2003, 21:44
In Bush' political autobiography (A Charge to Keep) he places himself squarely in the mainstream of evangelical thought. Recounting his pilgrimage to the Holy Land Bush writes of entering into the waters of Galilee in the apparent baptism of "a Jewish friend. " It was then that the hymn came to his mind:


Now the time is approaching, by prophets long foretold
When all shall dwell together, One Shepherd and one fold
Now Jew and Gentile meeting ,from many a distant shore
around an altar kneeling, one common Lord adore

I don't know if the president has read Hal Lindsey, but much of what he says shows a similar perspective. Having sold fifteen million copies, Lindseys' book The Late Great Planet Earth remains the most influential text shaping fundamentalist thought on apocalyptic matters. Written within the geopolitical fantasies of the Cold War Lindsey writes,

" As Armageddon begins with the invasion of Israel by the Arabs and the Russian confederacy, and their consequent swift destruction, the greatest period of Jewish conversion to their true Messiah will begin. "

I'd rather not believe that Bush is moving according to Lindseys' game plan, but the simple fact is that we don't know. The administration's systematic alienation of our Arab allies (soon leaving Israel as our only viable ally in the Mideast) raises disturbing questions, eforts for a Palestinian homeland notwithstanding.

Lindseys' book influenced not only American fundamentalist culture but had a pervasive effect on fundamentalist Islams' apocalyptic worldview. According to David Cook, an American expert on Islamic apocalyptic literature, until the late eighties this element of Muslim culture had been fairly static for centuries. " The contemporary Muslim," says Cook, " sees the present world turned upside down by Christian millennialism.... In defense, Muslims make heavy use of the Bible, or one might say the Bible as seen through the eyes of Hal Lindsey. There are Muslim readings of the book of Daniel, Ezekial and Revelation. The only difference is the 'good guys' are Muslims, not Christians." This strange cross-fertilization between cultures has placed us in the situation in which the current administration and Radical Islam share a common worldview in which peace descends after Evil is defeated in an apocalyptic battle. Both parties sing the same song: God will lead our warriors to victory against the forces of darkness.

We are at an extraordinary and critical historical moment. When Bush was in Germany trying to garner support for invading Iraq the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the Pentagon leaked its unanimous objection. More recently Brent Scowcroft, the elder statesman of the Republican foreign policy establishment declared that Bush' plans could unleash "an Armageddon in the Middle East."


The religious underpinnings of Bush's war against evil are evident as is the absolutist theology he shares with Radical Islam. Both of them see such wars as we may be facing right now as righteous, good and necessary. It is clear, we should be afraid for we are profoundly endangered by the passions of both Christian and Muslim fundamentalisms.

The Reverend Billy Graham taught Bush to live in anticipation of the Second Coming, but it was his friendship with Dr. Tony Evans that shaped Bush's political understanding of how to deport himself in an apocalyptic era. Dr. Evans, the pastor of a large Dallas church and a founder of the Promise Keepers movement taught Bush about "how the world should be seen from a divine viewpoint," according to Dr. Martin Hawkins, Evans assistant pastor.

S.R. Shearer of Antipas Ministries writes, "Most of the leaders of the Promise Keepers embrace a doctrine of 'end time' (eschatology), known as 'dominionim.' Dominionism pictures the seizure of earthly (temporal) power by the 'people of God' as the only means through which the world can be rescued.... It is the eschatology that Bush has imbibed; an eschatology through which he has gradually (and easily) come to see himself as an agent of God who has been called by him to 'restore the earth to God's control', a 'chosen vessel', so to speak, to bring in the Restoration of All Thingss." Shearer calls this delusion, "Messianic leadership"-- that is to say usurping the role usually ascribed to the Messiah.

In Bush at War Bob Woodward writes, "Most presidents have high hopes. Some have grandiose visions of what they will achieve, and he was firmly in that camp."

"To answer these attacks and rid the world of evil," says Bush. And again, "We will export death and violence to the four corners of the earth in defense of this great nation." Grandiose visions. Woodward comments, "The president was casting his mission and that of the country in the grand vision of Gods Master Plan."


Bush has said: "Freedom and fear, justice and cruelty, have always been at war, and we know God is not neutral between them."
words created for Bush by his chief speech writer, Michael Gerson, an evangelical Christian. Historian Boyer notes that when Bush said in his State of the Union address that Saddam Hussein could unleash "a day of horror like none we have ever known," the President not only played on memories of September 11 but also invoked "a powerful and ancient apocalyptic vocabulary that for millions of [Christian] prophecy believers conveys a specific and thrilling message of an approaching end -- not just of Saddam, but of human history as we know it" -- complete with the return of Jesus to lead a much-expanded flock.

As humans we live within stories. Some stories, like apocalypse are thousands of years old. The scriptured text that informs Bush understanding of and enactment of the End of Days (Revelations 19) depicts Christ returning as the Heavenly Avenger. Revelations is the only New Testament book that justifies violence of any kind, and this it takes to the limit: Christ himself the agent of mass murder.
"I saw heaven open and there before me was a white horse who is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and makes war...He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood and his name is the word of God...Out of his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the Nations. And I saw an angel standing in the sun who cried in a low voice to all the birds flying in midair--come gather together for the great supper of God, so you may eat the flesh of kings, generals and mighty men, of horses and their riders, and the flesh of all people, free and slave, small and great."

Such is "the glory of the coming of the Lord." Truth, carnage, and the ecstasy of vultures. In a ruined world the Messiah slays the antichrist and creates "a new heaven and a new earth." The dead are judged, the Christians saved and the rest damned to eternal torment. The New Jerusalem is established and the Lord rules it "with an iron scepter."

It is not inconceivable that Bush is literally and determinedly drawn, consciously and unconsciously, toward the enactment of such a scenario, as he believes, for God's sake. Indeed the stark relentlessness of his policy in the Middle East suggests as much.
It dishonors the profundity of the Christian tradition if one doesn't note that Revelations has always been a rogue text. Because of its association with the Montanist heresy (which like contemporary fundamentalists took it to be literal rather than allegorical) it was with great reluctance that it was made scripture three centuries after the death of Christ. Traditionally attributed to St. John, most Biblical scholars now recognize its literary style and its theology has little in common with John's gospel or his epistles and was likely written after his death. Martin Luther found the vindictive God of Revelations incompatible with the gospels and relegated it to the appendix of his German translation of the New Testament instead of the body of scripture. All the Protestant reformers except Calvin regarded apocalyptic millenialism to be heresy.

Revelations is also a rogue text because it is unmoored from its
origins, which are far from Christian. It is a late variant on a story that was pervasive in the ancient world: the defeat of the wild and the uncivilized by a superior order upon which a New World would be established. Two thousand years before Revelations depicted Christ slaying the antichrist and laying out the New Jerusalem, Marduk slayed Tiamat and founded Babylon.

This pagan myth recycled as a suspiciously unchristian Biblical test found new credence in the 19th century when John Darby virtually revived the Montanist heresy of investing it with a passionate literalism. Given to visions (he saw the British as one of the ten tribes of Israel) Darby left the priesthood of the Church of Ireland and preached Revelations as both prophecy and imminent history. In this he inaugurated a lineage in which Bush's mentors, the Reverend Billy Graham and Dr. Tony Evans are recent heirs. Revelations is much beloved by Muslim fundamentalists and like their Christian compatriots they also thrill to redemption through apocalypse. Jewish fundamentalists of course do not believe in Revelations but have nonetheless made common cause with the Christian Right.

"It's a very tragic situation in which Christian fundamentalists, certain groups of them that focus on Armageddon and the Rapture and the role of a war between Muslims and Jews in bringing about the Second Coming, are involved in a folie a deux with extremist Jews," said Ian Lustick, the author of For the Land and the Lord: Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel. The Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition (and yes it is a single tradition) is being led by its fringe into the abyss and the rest of us with it.

The world has been readied for the fire but the critical element is the Bush Administration. Never in the history of Christendom has there been a moment when this rogue element has carried anything like the credibility and political power that it carries now

Gene Williams
25th June 2003, 22:34
Aaron, It is "Revelation" singular, not Revelations, plural. Your exegesis of Revelation is essentially correct. Lindsey, et al are crack pots, but I think you attribute to Bush a degree of radicalism that isn't there. Gene

Shitoryu Dude
25th June 2003, 22:54
Further proof that religion needs to be purged from human consciousness.

I think the best thing that could happen to the "holy land" is nuclear sterilization to the point that it is unihabitable for the next 50,000 years. Perhaps then hate-filled little groups of fanatics will quit fighting over a patch of desert that is really rather worthless.

:beer:

elder999
25th June 2003, 23:03
Originally posted by Gene Williams
Aaron, It is "Revelation" singular, not Revelations, plural. Your exegesis of Revelation is essentially correct. Lindsey, et al are crack pots, but I think you attribute to Bush a degree of radicalism that isn't there. Gene

The Book of Revelation is really an interpretation of earlier apocalyptic prophesies, specifically the Book of Daniel. It was most likely written within a few years after the death of Nero in 68 C.E.. The author therefore is not believed to be the author of the Book of John, written three decades later. John speaks of a loving God which is in stark contrast to the vengeful God of Revelation. The author of Revelation was not fluent in Greek and is believed to have been an Aramaic speaking resident of Palestine, possibly a wandering prophet. “The Apocalypse,” in its original form, was written in barbaric Koine Greek by a man whose native language was Aramaic. Its composition can be precisely dated to the time of the siege of Jerusalem. The author was aware of the death of Nero, which occurred in 68 C.E.

Consequently, while its original name: Apocolypsos would translate as
“The Apocalypse,” it has been brought down to us as “Revelation” in the King James Translation, and pluralized in various other-more accurate-translations.………

As for Bush...his spiritual advisor is Billy Graham-among others of the same breed; how could he help but have exactly that degree of radicalism?

Gene Williams
25th June 2003, 23:12
C'mon Aaron. Billy Graham is about as tame a bourgeois American as you can find. There isn't a radical bone in his body...he doesn't want to leave this sphere and all his blandishments one moment sooner than necessary, neither does Bush. That kind of pseudo- apocalyptic preaching is heard in Baptist pulpits all over this country every Sunday by preachers who drive expensive cars, live in expensive houses and wear 1000 dollar suits. They ain't going to the mountain top to await the Second Coming any time soon. It is salesmanship, pure and simple. The ones I'd be worried about, if they had political clout and money, are the wiry little mountain folk who handle snakes every Sunday, gobble strychnine, and believe the US government and every political party are agents of Satan. Gene

Iain
26th June 2003, 01:05
Bush is a shallow minded, dim witted, dogma spewing, malfunctioning republican mouthpiece. I've been saying it since he won the party nomination. He has no political, financial, or military acumen, no public speaking skills, and will misinform and lie to the public to achieve his goals. This would be machiavellian, but his failure to achieve said goals makes it simply moronic. I don't know how many people you'd have to shoot before Colin Powell ends up in charge, but someone should really get on it.

Bush will run your country into the dirt with expensive and excessive military excursions abroad, poor (re: no) financial planning on the home front, and a general inability to control government spending.

Yup, Bush is a useless turd. Even -shudder- Al Gore would have been a better choice. John McCain was by far the most promising prospect, and Ralph Nader was a close second.

I hope you all enjoy your tax cut, because they'll be coming back for all of it and more in less than 10 years; I guarantee it.

wendy ongaro
26th June 2003, 01:34
so Aaron, are you proposing that Bush is essentially the anti-christ? :D

Vapour
26th June 2003, 02:51
Originally posted by wendy ongaro
so Aaron, are you proposing that Bush is essentially the anti-christ? :D

I have the proof.

http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/class/notices.html

Second one from the bottom. :moon:

glad2bhere
26th June 2003, 03:15
".... Be not deceived; God is not mocked.

For whatsoever a man sows, that also shall he reap."

Best Wishes,

Bruce

wendy ongaro
26th June 2003, 13:51
hajime... that is hysterical. I'm suprised it didn't come off the ONION.