The Rapture is not a viable exit strategy
The Pentagon is now a minor branch of the Southern Baptist Convention, it seems.
Last week, after an investigation spurred by the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, the Pentagon abruptly announced that it would not be delivering “freedom packages” to our soldiers in Iraq, as it had originally intended. What were the packages to contain? Not body armor or home-baked cookies. Rather, they held Bibles, proselytizing material in English and Arabic and the apocalyptic computer game “Left Behind: Eternal Forces” (derived from the series of post-Rapture novels), in which “soldiers for Christ” hunt down enemies who look suspiciously like U.N. peacekeepers.
Oh well now wouldn’t that have been a good idea. Clever old Pentagon. What’s it doing, trying to get somebody else to throw a loaded passenger jet at it?
The packages were put together by a fundamentalist Christian ministry called Operation Straight Up…[T]hanks in part to the support of the Pentagon, Operation Straight Up has now begun focusing on Iraq, where, according to its website (on pages taken down last week), it planned an entertainment tour called the “Military Crusade.” Apparently the wonks at the Pentagon forgot that Muslims tend to bristle at the word “crusade” and thought that what the Iraq war lacked was a dose of end-times theology. [T]he episode is just another example of increasingly disturbing, and indeed unconstitutional, relationships being forged between the U.S. military and private evangelical groups.
Oh I don’t know – if you’re going to have a giant military, it probably ought to be kind of devout, don’t you think? Better safe than sorry, right?
The extent to which such relationships have damaged international goodwill toward the U.S. is beyond measure…[A] leading Turkish newspaper, Sabah, published an article on Air Force Maj. Gen. Peter Sutton, who is the U.S. liaison to the Turkish military — and who appeared in the Christian Embassy video. The article described Christian Embassy as a “radical fundamentalist sect,” perhaps irreparably damaging Sutton’s primary job objective of building closer ties to the Turkish General Staff, which has expressed alarm at the influence of fundamentalist Christian groups inside the U.S. military. Our military personnel swear an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, not the Bible. Yet by turning a blind eye to OSU and Christian Embassy activities, the Pentagon is, in essence, endorsing their proselytizing.
Oh, relax. Lighten up. Soon enough our military personnel will be wearing an oath to defend the Bible, not the Constitution, and that’s as it should be. If you’re not good, you’re evil – understand?
I’ve been following this for a while. Operation Straight Up is only the tip of the iceberg.
,a href=”http://www.talk2action.org/story/2007/4/21/113553/663″>This is a good overview. Google produces 1,970,000 million hits for “U.S military + evangelical.”
Armageddon, anyone?
Oops!
This is deeply disturbing bibles for soldiers whatever next! cant the Pentagon just send the g.i.s pin ups and condoms?
Congratulations, Richard, you have once again completely missed the point. I’ll quote the relevant portion of the linked article for your benefit.
“American military and political officials must, at the very least, have the foresight not to promote crusade rhetoric in the midst of an already religion-tinged war. Many of our enemies in the Mideast already believe that the world is locked in a contest between Christianity and Islam. Why are our military officials validating this ludicrous claim with their own fiery religious rhetoric?”
d.z.d. realisticly we are in a war between christianity and islam,its the early stage but make no mistake our enemies see this as a crusade,sending bibles to soldiers wont change what they already think.
So, out of sheer curiosity Richard, what are “our” war goals?
G.W.B. probably didnt help much when he used the term crusade shortly after 9/11 it helped to reinforce the veiw in the moslem world that it was a war between faiths.
Victory?
Now, being French, I have only the flimsiest acquaintence with the subject but, please, enlighten me: what does victory mean exactly, especially in the context of a war of religion? Death to the infidels? Forceful conversion of all “moslems”?
Seems to me the goal of a religious war must themselves be religious, no?
Richard,
“we are in a war between christianity and islam”
Err..no. Reason vs. Superstition, only far too many American politicians can’t see it that way. We’re just dealing with the biggest, most immediate threat first.
Arnaud,
sounds about right! :-)
If Iraq is a war between Christianity and Islam – why are so many Muslims getting killed by other Muslims? And what exactly are the Christians trying to achieve?
PM
Maybe the Catholics are just trying to make sure there are no condom dispensers or abortion clinics?
Traditional presbyterians are telling the Iraqis “Thou Shalt Not!”, and ensuring there is a ‘wailing and a gnashing of teeth’…
and the Baptists think that by smiting some of Israel’s enemies it’ll get them closer to The Rupture…or whatever they call it..
:-)
Arnaud I would define victory as spreading liberal democracy to the moslem world,my basic point is that the enemy defines this war in terms of chritianity v islam nothing we do will change that. Andy are you saying that there will be a war against christians after this,what do you mean by threat? is christianity threatening? I cant see anything scary about Jesus.
Hmm, liberal democracy, not doing too well then are we?
And funny we’re propping up Egypt, Pakistan, Saudi et al.
Richard, your position doesn’t make sense. The fact that “the enemy defines the war in terms of Christianity v Islam” doesn’t mean we have to accept that. In fact, it is downright insane to wage war following terms dictated by your enemies and the sign of a very poor understanding of military matters.
Need I point out that it is also in complete antithesis of your stated aims of “spreading liberal democracy to the moslem world”. How can you do that when you accept the fact that we go there to make war on an entire culture. My opinion is that you and the other war apologetics see only in Iraq an occasion to kick as many (brown) butts a possible while the nuts at the Convention see it as an opportunity to convert Muslims. Witness in Palestine (and now in Iraq with Maliki) what we do when the resultant democratic process sprout out leaders that are not totally subservient to the West.
As for Jesus I don’t know but I definitely find myself scared by Falwell, West, Sempa, Ham or even you, for that matter (I will assume you call yourself a Christian). Actually, since Jesus, there has been very few Christians I didn’t find scary.
And, yeah, what PM said.
Richard: “is christianity threatening? I cant see anything scary about Jesus.”
If you think Christianity = Jesus, you’ve got another think coming.
Check out CNN’s/Christiane Amanpour’s “Christian Warriors.”
Or, hell, that game they were going to hand out in the “freedom pack”. You know, the one where you slaughter unbelievers for Jesus?
Richard,
There may well be a science & reason vs. ‘some followers of that brand on supernaturalism known as christianity’ “war” that I would, personally subscribe to, but not in the physical sense of blowing things up, shooting people…
Oh, except the “christians” have already been doing this to (entirely legal) abortion clinics & their staff in the US sporadically, haven’t they?
“By their deeds shall ye know them”, hmm?
If christianity isnt about Jesus what is it about P? Arnaud for the record I am agnostic,of course we should not let the enemy define the terms of the war for us,my point was it is daft for us to try to change their minds,however many times our leaders repeat the islam is a religion of peace, or this is not a war on islam mantra,however much we wring our hands over the latest insult to islam(cartoons,knighthoods ect)the enemy will still hold the same point of veiw!you also seem to be sugesting that my support for the war is because Iraq is a brown nation,cant you just acept the fact that some people who are in favor of the war might not be racists? Andy I am not sure it is fair to sugest that violent kooks like Eric Rudolph(he bombed an abortion clinic) represent christians in general?
Wasting oxygen again Richard! We don’t convince haters in the Ummah that this is not a religious war, and you won’t do it here either.
I have to try Cris,for the sake of the children.
I’m suprised that no one has mentioned that bibles can replace body armour – the old story that the bullet would have gon through the heart but for the bible over it.
Best version of this story is from Billy Connolly about his great uncle Willie in WWI. The sniper’s bullet would have gone through his heart, but the bible in his breast pocket deflected the bullet, which shot up his nose and blew the top of his head off!
Richard, Christianity is about Jesus in the same way that bureaucratic collectivism is about Marx.
Oh yeah, but at least Marx was an actually existing historical personage.
‘If christianity isnt about Jesus what is it about…?’
Richard, if there really was a historical person who preached the beatitudes, do you imagine he’d look at the last couple of millenia of christian history and say, ‘Yep, that’s what I had in mind.’?
As for our being engaged in a religious war, I hope that the US/UK don’t see it that way – I’m pretty sure about the UK and optimistic about the US. Do moslems? Depends who you ask, I guess. Polls are unreliable and only reflect a particular time and place, but a quick overview of polls of the last four years shows figures of between 40% and 60% feeling that way.
(Google ‘War on Islam polls’ and spend a little time reading the results.)
That’s a high number, if true. Many, probably most, have likely been persuaded by the mullahs who are often the primary source of information in remoter areas. But a significant number may well have tipped into that view by crusader type rhetoric coming from some areas of the US military/political establishment. Bush may have used the word ‘crusade’ only once (to the horror of his more historically literate advisers) but how often do you imagine that clip is used?
As Arnaud pointed out, framing the war in this way is exactly what the enemy wants (even secular enemies such as the remnants of the ba’athists). You suggest we reinforce that position?
I certainly don’t buy into the ‘religion of peace’ schtick, nor do I hold with giving in to sectarian blackmail over freedom of speech. But that is a far cry from seeing moslems per se as ‘them’ and christians as ‘us’ (?!).
Oh, and my definition of ‘the enemy’ is limited to those trying to hurt me and mine (including military personnel). Yours seems a little under-defined. I’m concerned it might include friends of mine.
Chrisper-
“We don’t convince haters in the Ummah that this is not a religious war, and you won’t do it here either.”
Please enlighten me as to precisely who “here” is a “hater”, exactly what it is they are supposed to “hate”, and how you are (apparently) uniquely entitled to identify them as such…?
Unless, of course, you were just indulging your known penchant for sweeping, unsubstantiated ad homs, perhaps?
Richard –
From 1977-2007, in the USA & Canada, anti-abortion violence resulted in:
7 murders, 17 attempted murders, 41 bombings, 173 arson attacks, 4 kidnappings, 162 assaults…
If you want to see the numbers for death threats, anthrax threats, harassment,etc, then go to:
http://www.prochoice.org/pubs_research/publications/downloads/
and scroll down to “clinic violence”
We could discuss anti-homosexual violence, too, if you like…there’s a nice roll-call of self-identifying christians who appear only too glad to show gay folk just how much of an abomination they find ’em…
Then there are the organised groups, like the Army of God, or how about the seriously violent “National Liberation Front of Tripura” in India (, funded by the Southern Baptist Church, which is affiliated to the Baptist World Alliance?
And those are just on the “direct action” side… of far greater concern are the guys Arnaud mentioned and the level of their influence. Millions of Americans (& others) regard the King James bible [the one commissioned by a bisexual & written by a political committee, let’s not forget :-) ] as the INERRANT WORD OF GOD. And then we’ve got the fundamentalist evangelical churches from Africa, the bleedin’ catholic church contributing to poverty & the spread of AIDS with their anti-contraception dogma, etc,etc…
So. Who are “christians in general”, eh? Some woolly CoE beer-&-village-green cricket nostalgia trippers? A bunch of tambourine-waving “Toronto Blessing” Alpha-course indoctrinees? Or are they the evangelical missionaries who were out on the streets of Dunfermline on Sunday, saying “Jesus is Love” while handing out pamphlets advocating sexism, homophobia & theocracy?
Andy the fact that there is a small percentage of people who behave in a crimanaly violent way can be applied to any organised group,christians are no differant than any other group in that regard,what makes islam stand out is the unwillingnes of a large number of moslems to speak out against this sort of behavior,this gives people like myself the impresion that the behavior is endorsed by their religion. Using your definition of who is our enemy this nation would not have stood up to Hitler because we were not in danger in the direct sence? I think it is fair to conclude that Jesus existed as a historical figure P although there is little evidence that points to his divinity,as to what he would make of the last 2,000 years I think he would see a mixed bag.
Richard – I don’t know what country you are in – but what selfless reasons do you think motivated UK or US entry into the second world war?
Richard, you might as well say that Hercules was an historical figure, but maybe he wasn’t really sired by Zeus. I have it on good authority that he and Samson were gym budddies.
Richard you keep changing your position every time your arguments are shown to be without value. The point of OB’s post was that the SBC was sending (through the Pentagon!) proselytising material in Iraq, some of which was clearly intended for Iraqis.
So first we had: we are in a war between christianity and islam, so we can do this kind of things; now you tell us that “moslems” see it that way so there is no reason to try to convince them otherwise. Might as well blow them all up, I suppose.
Now, I have no sympathy for islam as a religion. I actually have no sympathy for any religion, to be clear,but of all of these I find islam the most repellent but I don’t really hear that many christians “speaking up against this sort of behaviour” either, when it comes from their camp. There must be some, I am ready to concede, but I suspect the vast majority is happy to shut up and not to think about it.
Come to think of it, when ChrisPer mentioned his religious war, I didn’t hear you rushing to deny it. So what is it, Richard, one position for the bleeding heart liberals on B&W and another for your more rabid friends?
One other thing: what make islam stand out is not the “unwillingness” you describe but the fact that it has such an importance in the public, political and social life of these countries. They are theocracies. To my mind, the only reason christianity seems more benevolent is because, some time ago, we took as much power away from them as we could. It’s easy to appear harmless when your claws and fangs have been taken away.
This is why the Pentagon was way out of order in associating itself with the SBC.
PM, it’s obvious: the UK and the US went to war to spread liberal democracy to Germany.
Richard,
Please name the agnostic terrorists who have been murdering people because their agnosticism teaches them that it is ok to do so…?
Your ability to ignore facts (you obviously choose to know nothing about militant christian fundamentalism because it doesn’t fit your personal politics/prejudices, despite having been presented with a great deal of evidence by various contributors to this forum) is breathtaking, but renders debate with you pointless.
And as for this piece of mildly poisonous tripe:
“Using your definition of who is our enemy this nation would not have stood up to Hitler because we were not in danger in the direct sence?”
You drag in the lowest form of non-argument, the good old Nazi analogy, while blatantly misrepresenting what I have said.
I know my posts are so tedious you can’t be bothered paying attention, but in an earlier response to you I wrote:
“We’re just dealing with the biggest, most immediate threat first.”
Pretty damn clear I was referring to Islamism.
“I have to try Cris,for the sake of the children.”
Not my children, thankfully.
this is a complete waste of time.
Arnaud – good luck banging your head against the brick wall.
Andy Gilmour said: “Please enlighten me as to precisely who “here” is a “hater”, exactly what it is they are supposed to “hate”, and how you are (apparently) uniquely entitled to identify them as such…?
Unless, of course, you were just indulging your known penchant for sweeping, unsubstantiated ad homs, perhaps?”
Andy, I confess to the “sweeping, unsubstantiated ad homs”, but despite my comment being a negligible throwaway wisecrack the substantiation is available.
IN MY OPINION your posts Andy are the majority of B&W comments that display a hate element. IN MY OPINION you consistently maintain a tone of aggressive contempt for christians, repeatedly lumping them all with criminal and violent extremists and terrorists. You select their foul hate speech, criminal and violent acts as ‘typical’ products of the members and teachings of christianity as a whole. This is no different to extending the minority racial crime evidence to defame all members of that minority race as drug dealers, murderers and whatever. It is a standard technique of hate groups everywhere, served up along with the cognitive traps of confirmatory bias and projection.
Andy if the shoe fits, wear it. Or not. The good opinion of the fine minds at B&W is well worth having, but I now feel maturity requires I not give a hoot what Andy Gilmour thinks. No “unique qualification” is required, just my opinion.
Arnaud christianity is more benevolent than islam(it dosnt just seem like it)the reason is because the central figure in christianity is Jesus,Islam on the other hand has mohamed as the central figure hence why moslem nations tend to emulate his behavior.P.M. I dont know what selfless reasons the U.K. or the U.S had for w.w.2 but I asume that the leadership believed that a non facist Europe was in our best intrests.
I dont ignore the evidence of christian acts of evil Andy I just put those acts in perpective.
Richard, I will try again. You cannot take the current behaviour of western countries as proof of christianity’s benevolence.
First, because the West is definitly not without glaring stains on its reputation, stains which you don’t ignore as much as simply dismiss (witness your defense of the old South as not racist, a few days ago). Second, because the West is not christianity and if we’d left the churches in charge we would most likely live in a very different world. Man, even the US, probably the most religious western country, still has a secular constitution!
I will certainly not say that whatever is wrong with us is down to religion (even if christians have a marvelous ability to do nothing, or even cover it up, when “mishaps” occurs. Not so much turn the other cheek as advert both your eyes…) but I would say that whatever is good with us didn’t come from the church, and most of the time came in the face of direct opposition from it.
As for Jesus being the central figure of christianity, it’s a bit like saying Socrates, and not Plato, is the central figure of western philosophy. It may be true but it’s missing the point. You seem to forgot a guy named Paul…
“christianity is more benevolent than islam(it dosnt just seem like it)the reason is because the central figure in christianity is Jesus,Islam on the other hand has mohamed as the central figure hence why moslem nations tend to emulate his behavior.”
Where do you get your information? My First Book of World Religions?
“I dont know what selfless reasons the U.K. or the U.S had for w.w.2 but I asume that the leadership believed that a non facist Europe was in our best intrests.”
Now I know you’re taking the piss. Or that there is someone out there with no idea of what Pearl Harbor or the Polish-British defence pact have to do with WWII.
Although many are popular and have large initial sales, not all partworks ever get completed. This was especially so with Every Boy’s and Girl’s Big Book of Knowledge.
_
P.m.I obviously wasted my time reading Churchills history of ww2 and watching the complete world at war t.v.series.
Obviously you did Richard ;-)
ChrisPer,
An insult from you is like a minor campaign medal – I shall wear it with pride! ;-)
But still…Please give one example where I have EVER stated “all supernaturalists do ‘HateCrimeX'”
“You select their foul hate speech, criminal and violent acts as ‘typical’ products of the members and teachings of christianity as a whole. This is no different to extending the minority racial crime evidence to defame all members of that minority race as drug dealers, murderers and whatever.”
Prove it. Plenty of boring, pointless posts of mine to go through.
Demonstrate where I have made such generalisations, claimed that extremists were “typical”. Beware – I’m usually very careful in my use of quotation marks – like, say, “christians” have been saying X…it’s a small distinction, maybe, but a crucial one nonetheless. I might have been more careless in the past – go on, take the time, and give me a good kicking based on some facts for a change!
In this current thread, if you bothered to read posts fully, and in context, you’d have seen that all I did was provide examples that challenged a very “rose-tinted-specs” view of a supernaturalism, showing that extremism was far more prevalent & virulent than someone was claiming.
It’s very, very obvious I didn’t say that “All American christians follow Jerry Falwell”, or anything of that nature. But it’s a fact that millions of them do – I just pointed it out.
You can keep up the petty smear campaign – hey, at least YOU didn’t drag in the Nazis! :-) – but without worthwhile evidence, “In Your Opinion” doesn’t count for much, does it?
Oh, you are right about one thing – I confess to being fairly contemptuous (“aggressively” ?? – interesting. Proof again, please – unless this is just another pathetic label like “strident”?)
of anyone who claims the right to censor or control the lives of others, based on the alleged statements of an undetectable deity (who is, according to those statements, prone to outbreaks of quite astonishing violence). The precise flavour of the supernaturalism in question is irrelevant. Doesn’t make me a “hater”, though.
Cheers,
Andy the “Hater” (and, apparently, would-be Nazi appeaser)
Actually, The World At War was a damn good series. Not a waste of time watching it at all.
I’ve got the video boxed set, tenner well spent at Bellingham car boot sale.
But Richard, both the UK and the US were dragged into a war they desperately wanted to avoid. There was no revulsion at facism among the establishment – in fact there was quite a fan base for Herr Hitler. Anti-facist sentiment was largely the preserve of the left, the unions, and some (by no means all) of the intellectuals of the day. Pretty much sidelined, except where their views chimed with those wary of German and Japanese nationalistic ambitions.
Now, I agree that World War Two was our nation’s finest hour, but our leaders were not in the remotest way considering regime change or ideological anti-facism when war started. They were pushed reluctantly into war by a bloody maniac who was trying to take over the world.
Cheers Andy.
Damn, you nail me again – not reading posts carefully is a bad failing.
I enjoyed Ophelia’s comment in the other thread more – gave more laughs. There’s a possible research grant for “The risibility visibility-adjustment of non-accepting candidates in human mate selection, and the perceptual narrowing co-incident with descended location of gonads…”
Plainly I don’ get out enough.
Thanks Don (and Richard). I just added all 5 discs of _The World at War_ to the “saved” portion of my Netflix queue.
P.m nations dont act selflessly they act in their own intrests sometimes their actions in pursuit of those goals may apeare selfless,a good example of this would be the use of the R.A.f to feed the people of Holand cut of by the fighting in ww2.is what I should have said.
Chrisper,
“Plainly I don’ get out enough.”
Nor do I!
:-))