George Monbiot writes a chilling piece today, called Apocalypse Please. It details the effect a radical fundamentalist Christian belief is having on U.S. foreign policy. Disaster awaits… or does it? What do you think?
Local copy below; please see the original for other articles by Monbiot.
religion / Apocalypse Please
Apocalypse Please
- US policy towards the Middle East is driven by a rarefied form of madness. It’s time we took it seriously.
By George Monbiot. Published in the Guardian 20th April 2004
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.1
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ordained by God; “any mechanism to process, license, record, register or monitor the ownership of guns” should be repealed; income tax, inheritance tax, capital gains tax and corporation tax should be abolished; and immigrants should be deterred by electric fences.2 Thus fortified, they turned to the real issue: the affairs of a small state 7000 miles away. It was then, according to a participant, that the “screaming and near fistfights” 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.3 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)4, 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.5 The Walmart 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.6 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 debating 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 between 15 and 18% of US voters belong to churches or movements which subscribe to these teachings.7 A survey in 1999 suggested that this figure included 33% of Republicans.8 The best-selling contemporary books in the United States 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.”9
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 Revelations (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.10
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.
www.monbiot.com
References:
1. http://www.harriscountygop.com/sections/sdconv/sdconv.asp
2. eg. Committee on Resolutions, Harris County Republican Party, 27th March 2004. Final report of Senatorial District 17 Convention. http://www.harriscountygop.com/sections/sdconv/sdconv.asp
3. ibid.
4. Paul Vallely, 7th September 2003. The Eve of Destruction. The Independent on Sunday.
5. eg. http://www.raptureready.us
6. eg. http://www.raptureready.com/rap16.html (note: 5 and 6 are rival sites)
7. Megan K. Stack, 31st July 2003. House’s DeLay Bonds With Israeli Hawks, Los Angeles Times; Matthew Engel, 28th October 2002. Meet the new Zionists. The Guardian; Paul Vallely, ibid.
8. Donald E. Wagner, 28th June 2003. Marching to Zion: the evangelical-Jewish alliance. Christian Century.
9. Leader, 1st August 2003. DeLay’s Foreign Meddling. Los Angeles Times.
10. Jane Lampman, 18th February 2004. The End of the World. The Christian Science Monitor.
20th April 2004
Bigotry in action.
This type of thing is perfectly acceptable for a blog entry, or something like that, but if it is meant to be any kind of journalistic material, its trash.
Why? The author’s religious beliefs are clear. The bigoted anti-christian opinion of the author is clear. The disdain for the republican party is clear. This author obviously believes the belief in and of itself is ridiculous.. and as the root word of “ridiculous” demands, he takes plenty of pot shots.
Finally, in the third to last paragraph of the piece, the author then tries to make a serious argument for the problem with faith based decisions by government leaders, which is a valid argument, but muddies it with domestic vs. foreign policy. The author begins throwing out random facts relevant to his main argument, mostly centering around a letter writing campaing in the second to last paragraph.
So, basically.. the so called article is one big unsubstantiated pot-shot at the theological argument of the tribulation, with random politicking thrown in at the end in a desperate attempt at trying to make the article relevant to his readers, who will undoubtedly be fooled by the bait and switch.
As for my reasoning.. here are some quotes from this guy. How are we , as academically responsible people, supposed to take this “reporting” seriously when it is so obvious this guy has an axe to grind with American Christians? It is like having a huge article blasting the beliefs of the jews, then trying to make a logical case for palestine. His credibility as a fair witness is blown.
To prove my point, I’ll leave you with a few quotes from this “reporter”:
“several million people have succumbed to an extraordinary delusion.” “We can laugh at these people” “…their beliefs are bonkers” “a rarefied form of madness”
” ‘fictionalised’ … (this, apparently, distinguishes it from the other one)” “He would be mad to listen to these people” “two immigrant preachers cobbled together a series of unrelated passages from the Bible to create what appears to be a consistent narrative”
And of course a number of word choices to deliberately make a belief seem preposterous.. “the sky will be filled with floating nudists” (funny, but inaccurate and slanted) “out of their clothes”.. “pyjamas”.. and a bizarre paragraph with an axe to grind over a misinterpretation of a series of fiction books.
I do once again find it interesting that it is considered acceptable fare to belittle Christian beliefs. Its just not questioned, it is considered an “okay thing to do”. I hope you keep this article up on the site as a reference for those who like to wave the flag that says “Christians are the ones who are intolerant”.
Baiting…
I should create a new category of blog postings called “Justin-baiting” 🙂
—
Matthew P. Barnson
IHow to Bait justin
Step 1: Place Burrito on fishing line.
Step 2: lower it to Justin
Bias
–This type of thing is perfectly acceptable for a blog entry, or something like that, but if it is meant to be any kind of journalistic material, its trash.–
Justin, it’s an op-ed – it’s SUPPOSED to be biased.
That said, I’m a little tired of American Christians complaining that they’re being treated unfairly. You make up 80% of the population; you occupy virtually every major political office, as well as the tops of virtually every industry (with the possible exception of the entertainment industry). Christianity is the 400-pound gorilla that is completely ubiquitous in American society. With that kind of all-consuming power, the very least you can do is good-naturedly take a little ribbing.
And besides, the rest of us are understandably a little nervous about the Jesus-based governmental policy that much of the current administration seems to favor.
— Ben Schuman Mad, Mad Tenor
15 Pound Gorilla.
Ben, I’ve read and re-read your piece, and tried to ignore the word “you” from it as I read it. I don’t want this to be about “me” or “you”. We’re all friends here.
I have not made up 80% of the population since I lost all that weight.
That being said..
As for it being an op-ed peice, thats fine… but its trying to be an expose at the same time, and that just doesn’t work.
As for being treated unfairly, I find that probably 15-20% of the people I meet really consider themselves tried and true Christians, and that the majority I meet are agnostic, spiritualist, atheist, or just believe in “a higher power”… but ery few people I meet actually share my beliefs..
As for “a little good ribbing”, certainly from my friends. Certainly when its good natured, but not when someone can just blast a faith like that.. ANY faith.
It gets old every day seeing so many “anti-christian” pieces, bumper stickers, TV shows, comics, people I meet… and then being told that Christians are “intolerant”.
At the same time, the “secularist” ACLU rips apart Christianity wherever they can find it on the grounds that it is offensive to them. The Jewish anti-defamation league tries to destroy a film about Christ because parts of that can be misinterpreted as offensive to them.. but its okay to do mock and degrade Christians and their faith openly?
Wouldn’t it be better if a piece like this really just said, “look, Christians can believe what they want, more power to them.. that’s fine. But to let it drive foreign poilicy in any way is foolish?”
Can one really argue that it is better to have bigotry of any kind?
As for your last comment, yes I too am afraid of a religion driven government. I agree with that. On that you and the author have my full support, if that’s what is really going on. And if it is, we need to know about it so we can vote people out of office, that simple.
So in that regard, I am in complete agreement.
reply
–Ben, I’ve read and re-read your piece, and tried to ignore the word “you” from it as I read it. I don’t want this to be about “me” or “you”. We’re all friends here.–
Oops, sorry. When I said “you”, I mean “You Christians in general”, not “you, Justin Timpane”. Sorry for the confusion.
Now, I’ll respond to a few of your points:
— At the same time, the “secularist” ACLU rips apart Christianity wherever they can find it on the grounds that it is offensive to them.–
Now that’s unfair. The “secularist” ACLU takes legal recourse against an administration (and an increasingly growing American culture) that is trying to conjoin government and religion, two institutions that should have nothing whatsoever to do with each other. Making public policy based on Christian beliefs is a violation of the civil liberties of non-Christians. And protecting civil liberties is what the ACLU was formed to do.
— Wouldn’t it be better if a piece like this really just said, “look, Christians can believe what they want, more power to them.. that’s fine. But to let it drive foreign poilicy in any way is foolish?”–
There have been a bunch of those, and yet people refuse to pay attention. While the story in question was a little inflammatory, I can’t say I blame the author for his frustration.
— Ben Schuman Mad, Mad Tenor
Let me grant.
Religion and policy do not mix, and I agree with you there.
I sense the frustration too, its just no fun being at the receiving end of hate. (Him, not you)
As for “you”.. thank you for clarifying. As I said, I would hate to have a forum that has done so much to bring people together put two people in conflict over a political issue.
Best.. JT
Think about this…
Those who are most vocal against perceived stupidity are some of the supidest people themselves…especially in politics.
It seems like Republicans and Democrats have to take radical positions, leaving the 80% of the middle-of-the-road types who just want to eat a burrito without getting hooked in the cheek in the lurch 🙂
My $.02 Weed
After a long contemplation of this article…..
I have thought about this article and all the comments posted over the last several days. Concerning the article: I find it amusing that some Christians are pushing forward for the signs of the times to take place, kind of like a self fulfilling prophecy. On the other hand are the Christians who are pushing to avoid any of those events from happeneing. Then of course there are plenty of people who don’t believe any of that, which is fine.
I am a Christian but am not in either of those boats. I do however, do my best to respect other people’s beliefs, feeling that even “good natured ribbing” is unacceptable. In turn, I don’t like “being ribbed.” That is a sign of intolerance of others beliefs. In fact, my religion teaches tolerance of other beliefs.
When it comes to government, I find it interesting that there is such a big push for separation between church and state, which is fine, yet when it comes to running for office, people make a big deal about the candidates religious beliefs or lack thereof. Will it ever be possible to keep them separate?
As for me, a believing Christian, I’d better lose all this extra baby weight so that when I’m “flying naked in the sky” people won’t have to close their eyes in disgust! In all honesty, I’ve never thought about “the rapture.”
—
Christy
Naked in the sky
I flew naked in the sky last night, but now I have this awful cold.
Let it be known that I have nothing but respect for Ben and his opinion, but in this case it doesn’t feel any different to have your beliefs mocked whether you are the majority of the minority.
To me, I’m neither.. I’m just me.
I believe in the Rapture
and to say there is not going to be a rapture shows you are totally blind to the fact we are in the last days.
I would advise people to study Prophecy whether they be Christians or not before saying there is no rapture.
*Cough*
I make no claims to foresight in this matter; prophecy is the domain of spiritually-minded anonymous individuals such as yourself.
I would, however, take issue with your statement:
I will not say that there will not be a Rapture; to make such a forward-looking statement would simply be conjecture without evidence. I will, however, say that given the existing body of evidence, such an event seems extremely unlikely. Nevertheless, consciously moving to hasten prophecy, as evidenced by Waco, the Hale-Bopp comet cult events, and other disasters, tends to end in tragedy — without fulfillment of prophecy in any meaningful way.
—
Matthew P. Barnson
Rapture
Matt, I totally agree than an attempt to move prophecy forward can lead to things like Waco.. its a bad idea.
The End Times refers to the period of history right before things start to go nuts. Depending on how you interpret (pre, post, mid, or a-millenialist – which is a whole different story) the prophecies, things will go one of a few different ways.. but there are clear signs that say that it is coming up.
Of significance is Man’s ability to significantly change the earth. With eco-damage, nuclear weapons, and that sort of power, it seems unlikely that civilization as we know it (or mankind for that matter) will still be around say, in 400 years. Things have simply gone so fast recently, that it seems like jsut a matter of time before we destroy ourselves (from a non-spiritualist point of view).
Of second significance is the relatively new “anti-christian” sentiment in both anti-christian nations (like the middle east) as well as in traditionally christian countries (France, America, Germany). MOst people I know now believe in “some higher power”, which is undefined.. and would follow the “proof is in the pudding” idea.. which would lend itself well to an anti-christian religion that many would subscribe to.
Finally of huge importance.. Deuteronomy, Isaiah, Amos, Jeremiah.. all said that the end times would involve the restoration of the nation of Israel.. which did not exist for 2000 years until 1948. This is a huge prerequisite to the “end Times” and it sort of begins there. Following that is the restoration of Jerusalem to jewish control.. again, which did not happen until 1967.
There are more: Many are available at: http://home.flash.net/~venzor/nasbchapter2signs.htm
Its really interesting reading.
There is a LOT more to it than that.. but there are those who believe that there have been significant signs in recent years that point to some of the stuff that is prophesied..
All that being said,I do believe that if the state is taking on faith based foreign policy it needs to stop… but I hope that outlines things better.