Mr.Xingu: The article from the New York Times( the paper of record) states that Iraqi ties to Iran creates new risks for Washington. The Times may indeed be correct but, As a loyal American Citizen, I hope that they are mistaken.
However, Mr. Xingu, It may be that now that the leader of AlQaeda was turned in by one of his own and killed by a US bomb raid, and that now the Iraqi Prime Minister has named a Shiite and A Sunni to head the two vacant cabinet posts in the government, the ties may be a little less important.
The ties will not be weaken because religion is a very strong bond. Sunnis and Shiites hate one another. Think of Irish Catholics and Irish Protestants. They can get along together if no crisis arises that will ignite their hatred for one another. If America attacks Shiite Iran you can bet the Shiites of the Middle East will rally to their support.
You may be correct, Xingu, when you say that Religion is a very strong bond. Is that why so many people who consider themselves to be practicing Christians, voted for G. W. Bush?
A majority of people on the far right practicing Christian voted for Bush and still support him. As of the March 15
Pew Research Poll 54% of white evangelicals still supported him vs. 33% of the general population.
Here's what a lot of them fantasize about.
Quote:Glorious Appearing, End of Days: LaHaye and The Council for National Policy
In the last two decades, Tim LaHaye has emerged as not only the theological brains behind the best-selling Left Behind series, but also as one of the most influential figures in the American Christian Right. Indeed, when the Institute for the Study of American Evangelicals decided to name the most influential evangelical leader of the past 25 years, they chose not Billy Graham, Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell, but Tim LaHaye, in large part because of his work in evangelical politics. Not only is LaHaye an influential preacher and interpreter of prophecy and revelation, he has also become a remarkably powerful force in domestic and now even international politics through the highly secretive Council for National Policy, founded in 1981. Called by some "the most powerful conservative group you've never heard of," the CNP includes among its members Reverends Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, Ralph Reed, Jesse Helms, Tom DeLay, Oliver North, Christian Reconstructionist R.J. Rushdoony and, formerly, John Ashcroft (himself a Pentecostal Christian). Recent speakers at the Council's highly private meetings have included Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, White House counsel Alberto Gonzales, and Timothy Goeglein, deputy director of the White House Office of Public Liaison. Although the group initially focused primarily on domestic agendas like abortion and homosexuality, LaHaye's Council has recently begun to turn to larger international issues such as U.S. policy in the Middle East and the state of Israel.
Published from 1995-2004, the Left Behind series has provided a key outlet for spreading LaHaye's political agendas to a massive audience of American readers. The twelve-volume story is not simply an evangelical reading of the Apocalypse, but also a Christian Right perspective on contemporary global politics. LaHaye's interpretation of the final days is "pre-millenarian" (as opposed to post-millenarian or a-millenarian): Christ must return to defeat the Antichrist before the great Millennium of divine rule and peace can be established. The events of the series take place immediately after the Rapture, when a few chosen souls have been suddenly taken up to heaven, and the rest of those "left behind" must struggle against the rising power of the Antichrist. A small group of former sinners-turned-believers forms a "Tribulation Force" to fight this divine war, led by pilot Rayford Steele, his daughter Chloe, journalist Buck Williams, and pastor Bruce Barnes.
Much of the narrative is clearly a commentary on the processes of globalization and America's role in a transnational era. The Antichrist, in the person of a sinister Romanian named Nicolae Carpathia, has progressively taken over the United Nations and the world's economic system, unifying all political states ("Global Community"), media ("Global Community Network,"), and religions ("Enigma Babylon One World Faith") under a Nicolae-appointed supreme pontiff. The millions of the Antichrist's followers are branded with a loyalty mark and even "vaccinated" with a bio-chip embedded with their personal information. Eventually, the Antichrist establishes "New Babylon" as the epicenter of the world's political and financial networks, spreading its digital tentacles into every aspect of life and commerce in the new global order. Meanwhile, the Tribulation Force is led by (mostly white male) Americans, who manage to persuade a few converts from other countries and religious faiths to join their brave coalition and resist this global menace.
In the penultimate volume of the series, "New Babylon" is destroyed by the Lord's ongoing series of apocalyptic dispensations, throwing the world's entire economic structure into chaos. This leads the way for Christ's return in the last volume, Glorious Appearing, in which the Tribulation Force and the armies of the Antichrist gather around Jerusalem for the final conflict. As the apocalypse unfolds, the Jews at long last begin to return to Christ and accept Him as the true Messiah (though the millions of those branded by the Beast refuse to do so, God having "hardened their hearts"). In the spectacularly violent final battle, the returning Christ mows down the Antichrist's massive armies in the most gory fashion, splitting bodies apart and spilling entrails across the earth with the sharp two-edged sword of His Word. In the end, only the small remnant of believers survives to "populate the Millennium" and inhabit the New Jerusalem.
SOURCE
Check out
their chat room.
Are you seriously telling me that a significant proportion of otherwise intelligent sane rational Americans actually believe this sh1t?
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:Are you seriously telling me that a significant proportion of otherwise intelligent sane rational Americans actually believe this sh1t?
I have no reason to believe that right-wing fundamentalists can reasonably be described as sane and rational.
Steve,
No, I don't believe a "significant" number of Americans believe the nonsense of radical evangelical Christians. Xingu is just playing fast and loose with his rhetoric again. It may be true, though no evidence is offered to support the contention, that a majority of Americans who support the President are practicing Christians, whatever that means. Does it mean the person who attends church a few times each year, or even the average Joe who when asked if he's a Christian replies, "yes"? There is no standard as to what makes up a "practicing Christian". On the other hand the term seems to mean those who are baptised, attend church regularly and take some pains to live according to the teachings of their denomination. They have a strong faith. No one knows a "practicing Christian" from a "Christian ... in name only", its a subjective judgement made mostly by observers outside the set. It is almost certainly true that the great majority of Americans consider themselves Christian, but perhaps as many as 30% do not. What is a "significant" number? 1%? More, or less? I suppose if I weren't so lazy, I'd google the question(s) and have a more authoritative set of numbers/percentages. If the reader will be so kind as to check and report back, I'm sure we will all appreciate the information.
Xingu links that not unreasonable assertion with a "Pew Poll" that reports that 55% of their respondents support the President. I suppose that a "Pew Poll" was carried out at recent evangelical church services, but we don't know what what churches, nor any of the polling methodology. Let's suppose that the polling was done properly. The result is only valid for the churches polled, and can not be extended to all Christians in the United States. So what percentage of all "practicing Christians" are those described as radical evangelicals? I'm only guessing, but I doubt that evangelicals make up between 1 and 5% of regular church goers in America. I'm pretty sure Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, and other mainstream Christian denominations make up the vast majority of American Christians. Evangelicals (event that term is fuzzy) tend to be loud and "in your face" with their radical interpretation of the Bible ... most Christians (even the 7th Day Adventists) are positively demure by contrast.
Xingu puts the two data bits together so that it appears that a poll taken of (probably) radical evangelical church attendees should be applied to ALL "practicing Christians". So it is made to appear that 57% of all "practicing Christians" support the President at this time, though the poll is only valid for a small percentage of all Christians.
Next Xingu gives us an article voicing extreme views, implying that it is believed by 57% of the "practicing Christians" of America. There isn't the slightest bit of evidence beyond Xingu's assertion that even 1% of the most extreme evangelicals believe this article. Mr LeHay is a novelist who has made a lot of money sensationalizing "The Rapture". The Rapture, some believe will occur in the "Last Days" before Armageddon, and that all "True Christians" will be swept up to heaven in a heartbeat to be with God while the World of Wickedness must suffer through their idea of the end of the world. Very few mainstream Christians put any great stock in The Rapture, but the extremists go a little nuts on the subject. Sells a lot of novels. LeHay has next to zero impact on public policy in the United States, though there probably are a few Congressmen who think he's cool ... after all there are a lot of them representing virtually all aspects of American political and religious belief.
Consider our source. Is Xingu a person whose views are objective, dispassionate and solidly based on known facts? Or is Xingu a person whose partisan hatred of the President and U.S. policy colors every pronouncement we see here? What does Xingu want to accomplish in this posting? To inform, or honestly to persuade us that the United States is made up of crazy right-wing religious nuts akin to the radical Islamic movement that has adopted terrorist tactics against the West? Why is it that Xingu expends so much time and energy trying to convince the world that the United States is EVIL, EVIL, EVIL, yet so seldom has the slightest criticism of enemies who have sworn to destroy us? Some sources are better than others, how good a source for ANYTHING has Xingu ever shown themselves to be?
Shucks, I was hoping to make this post long enough to get us all back onto a page where the postings could be read without going through gymnastics. Oh well .... Perhaps someone else will write something long enough to accomplish our objective.
It's not the length of the post, it's the number of posts per page. Maybe this will help.
Well, that didn't help, but maybe this will. If Xingu would learn how to embed a link, it would certainly help.
Thanks for responses.
Its just when the neo cons the disciples of Leo Strauss and the fanatical followers of Jesus get together to make common cause, I get very worried.
It is quite possible I have gone mad. But somehow I cling to my version of reality, which still has some residual sense in it, at least to me.
Well, here's another contribution to the common cause.
Steve,
Congress and the Administration are mostly elected by the people, and the people of the United States are not in mental shackles. We pride ourselves on the variety of our beliefs, and our variety (coupled with opportunity) is a critical part of what has made the United States strong, dynamic and innovative. Our Constitution is designed to prevent domination for any lengthy time by proponents of one policy over all others. Ours is a system that depends upon compromise and accommodation. Its a messy system that probably more often than not results in less than optimal functioning. We don't much trust that the opposition isn't in business to enslave the whole of the polity to their notions ... rather than our own. We have radicals and extremists on both ends of the spectrum in both of our major political parties. There are Democrats who are far to the Right of some Republicans, and there are Republicans who actively support programs and policies that the left-wing of the Democratic Party heartily agree with.
It is generally the radicals and extremists we see and hear. They are the shock troops of the political world, but only occasionally do they really speak for the majority of their Party, much less for the whole of the nation. The two Parties are in eternal contention for political power that can only be temporarily achieved by appealing to the the great middle of the American Electorate. In modern times the Republican Party has tended to be more conservative in policies than the Democrats. The American People in recent times have for a number of reasons had more faith in the conservative platform of the GOP (Grand Old Party) than in the more socially active programs of the Democratic Party. The American People have now the President and Congressional representatives they wanted and elected. Those who are Socialists, Marxists, etc. will probably go to their graves hating the whole process of American political life, and their only allies are the left-wing of the Democratic Party. The left-wing of the Democratic Party can't seem to get beyond their hatred of the GOP and this President. This is worrisome, because if the Democratic Party can't get its house in order and adopt a platform to attract the votes of middle America, they are going to be out of office a very long time. That in itself is a problem because our system NEEDs two viable and effective Parties to balance the system and prevent the extremists from becoming too powerful.
Now, I'll hold my breath in hope that we are onto a new page.
Good post Ash. Common sense personified. And when the lunatics take over the GOP?
(The Trotskyists nearly took over the British labour party in the 1980s)
There is no evidence that the extremists have control of the GOP. If the GOP were extremist, they couldn't get elected because the voters are not. If the American People WERE extremist, then they've elected exactly the sort of government they want and it is thereby legitimate.
There is only danger of extremist policies when the opposition Party becomes completely ineffective and can no longer provide balance. The Democratic Party hasn't reached that point yet, but they may. The Federalists were right in opposing the War of 1812, but that on top of the widely hated Alien and Sedition Acts for all intents and purposes killed the Federalist Party. Between that time and the American Civil War, the Democratic Party dominated the American Political scene. The Democratic Party might have died, but it became the Party of the Defeated and had a strangle hold on the Old South from Reconstruction until the election of Wilson after TR split the Republican Party.
Asherman wrote:There is no evidence that the extremists have control of the GOP. If the GOP were extremist, they couldn't get elected because the voters are not. If the American People WERE extremist, then they've elected exactly the sort of government they want and it is thereby legitimate.
There is only danger of extremist policies when the opposition Party becomes completely ineffective and can no longer provide balance. The Democratic Party hasn't reached that point yet, but they may. The Federalists were right in opposing the War of 1812, but that on top of the widely hated Alien and Sedition Acts for all intents and purposes killed the Federalist Party. Between that time and the American Civil War, the Democratic Party dominated the American Political scene. The Democratic Party might have died, but it became the Party of the Defeated and had a strangle hold on the Old South from Reconstruction until the election of Wilson after TR split the Republican Party.
What has happened is that the extremist has learned how to PC to make their extremist views seem normal and even balanced. (How else can you explain the gay marriage ban getting accepted? Or even being thought important enough to spend time considering all the other events in our country and the world? Also this preoccupation with immigration and the English language and in the past the Shivo case, the list can go on and on.) Also, to give credit where it is due, the republican party seems more united and organized than democrats and are able to get their views heard on all the talk shows and news channels (just watch sunday morning talk shows to see how uneven it is). All the democrats have is kinda flaky idiots like Pilose and the like who are definitely no competition.
Americans were catching on but with a couple of wins for the republicans (I hate to put the death of al-Zarqawi in as a US political issue, but there it is) Bush now has a chance to turn things around for the republicans if the economy don't get too much worse (inflation, interest rates, gas prices, health care...) and if nothing worse happens in Iraq, I imagine that come election time, they will get elected again as democrats don't have anything to offer themselves.
(Your right revel)
At this point, you'd have to be blind to miss the pattern. Every prominent progressive leader who comes along is openly derided in the media as fake, dishonest, conniving, out-of-the-mainstream, and weak. We simply can't continue to chalk this up to shortcomings on the part of Democratic candidates or their staff and consultants. It's all too clear that this will happen regardless of who the candidate or leader is; regardless of who works for him or her. The smearing of Jack Murtha should prove that to anyone who still doubts it.
The recent media treatment of Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.), Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) illustrate this point: No matter who emerges as a progressive leader, or a high-profile Democrat, they're in for the same flood of conservative misinformation in the media. Too many people chalk up outrageous media treatment of, say, Al Gore or John Kerry to the men's own flaws, pretending that if they were better candidates, they'd have gotten better press coverage. That's naïve. The Democratic Party could nominate Superman to be their next presidential candidate, and two things would happen: conservatives would smear him, and the media would join in. To illustrate this, we look back over the last dozen or so years.
http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/37103/
It is my opinion that Mr. Asherman's fine posts are quite correct. The point in his posts which stand out are the assurances that we still have a government of checks and balances. The extremists on both sides will never( as Mr. Asherman points out) prevail. If I had enough time, I would go into great detail on the major decisions made by the Supreme Court which, of course, would show how the Court keeps our country balanced.
Those who follow the court and the court decisions will be able to put the decisions below in context:
Roe Vs. Wade
Zelmon V. Simmons-Harris
Locke V. Davey
Bush v. Gore
Griswold v. Connecticut
Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow
The above decisions show that Mr. Asherman is correct. Checks and balances do work. Those familiar with those cases from the USSC will note that, at times, the "left" is validated and, at times, the "right" is validated. But whoever has their opinion reinforced by the USSC, the vital fact is that the USSC's rulings are balanced. The USSC decisions are the law of the land and must be followed. Those decisions are not politically dictated but rather are based on jurisprudence.
Amigo makes a good point but he is not as on target as he would like to be. When Amigo uses Mrs. Hillary Rodham Clinton as an example of one who receives harsh treatment from the media, he apparently does not know that yesterday, while Mrs. Clinton was attempting to move to the middle with her statement that we can not cut and run in Iraq, she was booed. The booing came not from the right wing but from the left.
I am interested in Mr. Amigo's claim that Mrs.Clinton is being harshly attacked by the main stream media. I must have missed the attacks.
Would Mr. Amigo be so good as to make reference to the specific attacks on Mrs. Clinton by the main stream media in the past year or two?
