This is from an editorial in The Guardian, a left wing and overwhelmingly politically correct newspaper which, I should state up-front, is very, very anti-Bush. Although I doubt much of the world's media is pro-Bush. But anyway, this is today's article. -------------- Their beliefs are bonkers, but they are at the heart of power US Christian fundamentalists are driving Bush's Middle East policy George Monbiot Tuesday April 20, 2004 The Guardian To understand what is happening in the Middle East, you must first understand what is happening in Texas. To understand what is happening there, you should read the resolutions passed at the state's Republican party conventions last month. Take a look, for example, at the decisions made in Harris County, which covers much of Houston. The delegates began by nodding through a few uncontroversial matters: homosexuality is contrary to the truths ordained by God; "any mechanism to process, license, record, register or monitor the ownership of guns" should be repealed; income tax, inheritance tax, capital gains tax and corporation tax should be abolished; and immigrants should be deterred by electric fences. Thus fortified, they turned to the real issue: the affairs of a small state 7,000 miles away. It was then, according to a participant, that the "screaming and near fist fights" began. I don't know what the original motion said, but apparently it was "watered down significantly" as a result of the shouting match. The motion they adopted stated that Israel has an undivided claim to Jerusalem and the West Bank, that Arab states should be "pressured" to absorb refugees from Palestine, and that Israel should do whatever it wishes in seeking to eliminate terrorism. Good to see that the extremists didn't prevail then. But why should all this be of such pressing interest to the people of a state which is seldom celebrated for its fascination with foreign affairs? The explanation is slowly becoming familiar to us, but we still have some difficulty in taking it seriously. In the United States, several million people have succumbed to an extraordinary delusion. In the 19th century, two immigrant preachers cobbled together a series of unrelated passages from the Bible to create what appears to be a consistent narrative: Jesus will return to Earth when certain preconditions have been met. The first of these was the establishment of a state of Israel. The next involves Israel's occupation of the rest of its "biblical lands" (most of the Middle East), and the rebuilding of the Third Temple on the site now occupied by the Dome of the Rock and al-Aqsa mosques. The legions of the antichrist will then be deployed against Israel, and their war will lead to a final showdown in the valley of Armageddon. The Jews will either burn or convert to Christianity, and the Messiah will return to Earth. What makes the story so appealing to Christian fundamentalists is that before the big battle begins, all "true believers" (ie those who believe what they believe) will be lifted out of their clothes and wafted up to heaven during an event called the Rapture. Not only do the worthy get to sit at the right hand of God, but they will be able to watch, from the best seats, their political and religious opponents being devoured by boils, sores, locusts and frogs, during the seven years of Tribulation which follow. The true believers are now seeking to bring all this about. This means staging confrontations at the old temple site (in 2000, three US Christians were deported for trying to blow up the mosques there), sponsoring Jewish settlements in the occupied territories, demanding ever more US support for Israel, and seeking to provoke a final battle with the Muslim world/Axis of Evil/United Nations/ European Union/France or whoever the legions of the antichrist turn out to be. The believers are convinced that they will soon be rewarded for their efforts. The antichrist is apparently walking among us, in the guise of Kofi Annan, Javier Solana, Yasser Arafat or, more plausibly, Silvio Berlusconi. The Wal-Mart corporation is also a candidate (in my view a very good one), because it wants to radio-tag its stock, thereby exposing humankind to the Mark of the Beast. By clicking on www.raptureready.com, you can discover how close you might be to flying out of your pyjamas. The infidels among us should take note that the Rapture Index currently stands at 144, just one point below the critical threshold, beyond which the sky will be filled with floating nudists. Beast Government, Wild Weather and Israel are all trading at the maximum five points (the EU is debat ing its constitution, there was a freak hurricane in the south Atlantic, Hamas has sworn to avenge the killing of its leaders), but the second coming is currently being delayed by an unfortunate decline in drug abuse among teenagers and a weak showing by the antichrist (both of which score only two). We can laugh at these people, but we should not dismiss them. That their beliefs are bonkers does not mean they are marginal. American pollsters believe that 15-18% of US voters belong to churches or movements which subscribe to these teachings. A survey in 1999 suggested that this figure included 33% of Republicans. The best-selling contemporary books in the US are the 12 volumes of the Left Behind series, which provide what is usually described as a "fictionalised" account of the Rapture (this, apparently, distinguishes it from the other one), with plenty of dripping details about what will happen to the rest of us. The people who believe all this don't believe it just a little; for them it is a matter of life eternal and death. And among them are some of the most powerful men in America. John Ashcroft, the attorney general, is a true believer, so are several prominent senators and the House majority leader, Tom DeLay. Mr DeLay (who is also the co-author of the marvellously named DeLay-Doolittle Amendment, postponing campaign finance reforms) travelled to Israel last year to tell the Knesset that "there is no middle ground, no moderate position worth taking". So here we have a major political constituency - representing much of the current president's core vote - in the most powerful nation on Earth, which is actively seeking to provoke a new world war. Its members see the invasion of Iraq as a warm-up act, as Revelation (9:14-15) maintains that four angels "which are bound in the great river Euphrates" will be released "to slay the third part of men". They batter down the doors of the White House as soon as its support for Israel wavers: when Bush asked Ariel Sharon to pull his tanks out of Jenin in 2002, he received 100,000 angry emails from Christian fundamentalists, and never mentioned the matter again. The electoral calculation, crazy as it appears, works like this. Governments stand or fall on domestic issues. For 85% of the US electorate, the Middle East is a foreign issue, and therefore of secondary interest when they enter the polling booth. For 15% of the electorate, the Middle East is not just a domestic matter, it's a personal one: if the president fails to start a conflagration there, his core voters don't get to sit at the right hand of God. Bush, in other words, stands to lose fewer votes by encouraging Israeli aggression than he stands to lose by restraining it. He would be mad to listen to these people. He would also be mad not to. · George Monbiot's book The Age of Consent: a Manifesto for a New World Order is now published in paperback ---------------------------------- I mean, like, really? You know, like, really? This Monbiot guy's got to be a conspiracy theorist, hasn't he?

It's an interesting article. However, I think we should be careful to not stereotype a whole belief system because of a few fanatics. That's what Osama bin Laden is, and because of his actions, along with other less powerful fanatics, the whole Muslim culture has been categorized as full of violent suicidal nuts. In truth, it is exactly what the article says. Some men took passages that had nothing to do with each other and put them together. Just because some Christians subscribe to it doesn't mean we all do. So yeah, I'd say a definite conspiracy theorist. Personally I think that the US just might be tired of dealing with two races that have fought since their creation. Both of them hail to be descendants of Abraham through two rival half-brothers. They've been fighting ever since as to who is supposed to get that land. Centuries of hatred is hard to deal with, especially when neither race particularly wants to get rid of it.

This is exactly why I do not believe in any religion. Simply because religion is what it is, a manmade system of control to suit the needs of its creator.

I think that's one of the reasons that Christianity has become the way it is. It's thought of more as a religion, rather than the relationship that it was *supposed* to build up between the church and God. It seems that everything gets screwed up. Personally, I've seen *way* too many things to not believe in God. Now that in no way means I have Him (ooh...capital H *dodges lightning*) completely figured out, or a lot of what He's up to, but I've seen enough to trust in Him. Ok, enough from me. ^_^ We can always agree to disagree, but if you ever want to talk about it, look me up on AIM, PM me, e-mail me, throw a brick with a letter wrapped around it through my window (no, really, that'd be cool), or whatever to let me know. ^_^

The sad thing is that whatever the reason there are always people that will take a part of the religion be it a behaviour or words from the relevant book and twist it to their own ends. Even sadder is there are people prepared to believe it. I like to believe their is something more than what we have now, whether it be reincarnation, heaven just something more. I used to go church when I was little every sunday I stopped about 14 years ago for personal reasons. I try not to read up too much about various sects and religions although I do have a good working basic knowledge of most of the main ones.

Ah Elvin you have made the classical mistake that many make to my statement. I did not say that I do not beleive in a God or have some sort of beleif, I said I do not beleive in religion. An issue that many confuse with their faith is that they beleive more in the rituals and the religious structure be it the church, islam, hindi the fundamental thing people forget is that they should not worship thier religion they should worship their God, that is the correct way of faith and one that is more then often forgotten by the masses. I do not see why I should be told how to worship my God or in which ways I should kerb my beliefs to suit others. I think deep down everyone knows the difference between what is good and what is evil, it is a sort of natural instinct.

Ah. That's really an interesting way to look at it, one that I'd never heard of before, hence the reaction. Very interesting.

Reminds me of a line in a Laurell Hamiton book, the third Merry one. Something about the Irish are arguing, not about which god to worship, but about how to worship Him. Cricket

It really is a problem, so it doesn't surprise me that there are books in which that is a struggle. One question, what genre would you classify it as in case I decide to look for it? Btw, Cep? Could you still throw a brick through my window? You don't have to write anything, though, unless you want to.

I can do one better for you elvin!

Aaaaah! My posters! *throws roommie into line of fire to save posters* Whoops...oh wait, roommate died, automatic 4.0, so forget that whoops. Rather, turn it into a woo! Woo!

Laurell Hamilton writes, um, fantasy. Yep, fantasy. Only, take a plain paper bag to take it home in. Although, OneBit is reading it now, can't put it down. Says it's because of the plot... Seriously, she's got an awesome society and politics and magic system and theology and characters. It's just that the sex sorta gets in the way of the good stuff a lot of the time. The three so far are: Kiss of Shadows Caress of Twilight Seduction by Moonlight Cricket

That happens a lot in fantasy. A shame, really.

It's actually a common complaint with Laruell's latest 5 books... Both her Merry Gentry series, and her last 2 Anita Blake books. She is obviously graduating from writing horror/fantasy, to a serious interest in writing erotica. On the one hand, I like a well written nookie scene as much as the next sensuist. On the other hand, hellooooo! Plot and character development not involving sweaty naked bodies? At least with the Merry Gentry series, she has established from the beginning that Fey=Sensuality. The entire series is based on a race for power and succession that revolves around fertility and the literal survival of the species through magical procreation. I dunno what happened to Anita Blake...I think the author just likes interspecies shagging. I adore both series, but I am definately ready for some refocus in Anita Blake at least. (Er...not to totally hijack this thread or anything.... ) My opinion on the correct thread topic is pretty straight forward: Zealous /Anything/ makes my teeth itch. I don't trust anyone who thinks making decisions with their heart in leu of their head is a good thing. Strong passions are contagious and I've never seen someone experience intense love without at some point corrupting it into intense hate if given an excuse. Take my stance on child molestors: I love children dearly so in my opinion anyone who molests a child should cheerfully be castrated slowly and with a dull serrated knife. Cutting off both hands would be good too. Should I have anything to do with the decision making involved in rendering justice to people accused of child molestation then? Not in a million years.

Ya know when you are in Gatchamanic bliss when you can read a thread that encompasses Politics , religion, belief systems, fanaticism, brick throwing and dead roomates, erotic sci fi thrillers , and child molestors all in one discussion.. .. DAYUM I love this! Hmm...I wouldnt even know where to begin to debate this one guys.. So allow me to fall back on good ole safety net Rule no. 1 in debating.. Defining terms.. Passion..".A powerful emotion, such as love, joy, hatred, or anger or... An abandoned display of emotion." Fanaticism..".Excessive enthusiasm, unreasoning zeal, or wild and extravagant notions, on any subject, especially religion; religious frenzy, or .. an excessive intolerance of opposing views." I suppose there is a diference between being passionate about something as opposed to being fanatical about them. So, is it passion that governed that Republican meeting or a fanaticism? Personally I dont see a problem with passion..(The Romanitic Idealist in me kinda warps my definition of passion and I cant help equating it to ardent love and desire...but I digress...*cheesy coughgrin* ) . I view passion in a positive light even when used for such emotions as hatred or anger. Passion stirs up the soul, fanaticism dangerously warps it yet it is apathy that commits the most devasting destruction. I suppose even fanatics have their place in the scheme of things..if not for anything else ..to enable us to get passionate about doing something about them.

Well, I think that political conventions are often filled with fanatics, be that group Republican, Democrat, or Green. Basically, the idea of the convention is to decide where the group stands as a whole on issues. One of the big issues that comes up in every party's convention is Israel, primarily because the US was key in setting up Israel. I haven't heard what the Republican party has decided, but it wouldn't surprise me considering that it has always been pro-Israel. However, the rest of it is pretty...well, fanatical itself. It certainly has the most interesting interpretation of the rapture I've ever heard. I think it's probably pretty inaccurate. ^_^ I don't really know how to debate something so...out there. It truly is a work of art in that respect. ^_^ Imi, I agree whole-heartedly with your definitions, and the fact that the two terms/positions intermingle so much and that both have a place (passion moreso than fanaticism). I also agree that this is the best way to debate: going completely off topic and coming back to it constantly. Woo! Though my roommate is starting to get smelly...don't really know where to hide the body. Any ideas?

You know you're getting old and weary when you'd like to reply to this in your usual long-winded way but you don't have a personal typist!! LOL God DAMN but I hate those BLUE smilies!!! DagNabbit!! *looks at that word sideways* That's a real weird word. Where did that come from? *blinks* Is that a profanity??

I want whatever HE'S smoking....

and lots of it....besides you don't have to use the blueies (which are better anyway so nerr ) but you could always use the aliens?

I like the blue dudes...they remind me of smurfs. (Would it be more grammatically correct to spell it "smurves?" I'm confused. They're called smurfs...but...that's wrong... ) Dagnabbit is a word used to replace a particular four letter word that is similar to damn. No wait...that is the word. Primarily used in G-rated films, cartoons, and such, particularly by the "elderly." Though I've yet to hear any adult say it. Hmmm....a mystery!

And speaking of plural smurfs.... what do you call a group of smurfs anyway? We have a gaggle of geese, a murder of crows, and herd of cows, a pod of whales.... A mushroom of smurfs?

ahhhh the replacing of words for our naughty ones. We used to do that at school (when we started getting busted by the teachers for swearing in foreign languages)... some of my favs Schweppes - Shit Fire Truck/fark - F*** Cumquat - uh...that naughty little curly k word. (rhymes with hunt) beyuch - b!tch I don't give a Hawthorn guernsey - I don't give two shades of sh!t (footy reference, obviously) they lasted a whole week before we all said "fark it" and just handled the detention threats and notes to parents. Dagnabbit (snicker) we were Aussie kids....we all watched footy...We watched our heros mouthing these words on National TV... Of course we were going to say naughty words...

Faaarking Oath Yeah!!!