Dear Robert,
Thanks for your comments. They are vary helpful. I'm not sure I
understand this "Neo Con Dispensationalist principle" but I also have
to confess I don't understand the Neo Cons all that well.
Not all NeoCons are dispensationalists, nor are all
dispensationalists NeoCons, and I certainly can't claim to understand
either. (I find dispensationalism the most confusing eschatology ever
devised by mankind!) There are enough people in powerful positions
who use one perspective or the other to justify policies that amount
to fascism, and by couching their rhetoric in pseudo-religious
phrasing lead a great many sincere people astray. This is a complex
issue, so by being brief, I will not do justice to the topic. It has,
however, been discussed at length in this forum, and you can learn a
lot by searching the archives.
You are likely aware that the United States is a very diverse nation,
comprised of people from a wide range of political and religious
persuasions; among these a large group of very zealous Christians
constitutes a kind of critical, political mass. Many Christians
believe that "worldly" society opposes their core belief structure,
they feel "persecuted and oppressed" by "liberal" society, and
further, that it is their "right" as Americans to demand political
representation for their point of view. This has been exploited by
some people in Christian leadership circles who seek to galvanize
support for legislation that would return "morality" to American
society. (Has American society EVER been "moral"?)
Because this group of Christian people is actually rather diverse,
there are some "common denominator" issues that cut across many
racial, ethnic and denominational barriers. I will explain these as
best as I can. At its core, the most widespread Christian point of
view sees the world as a hostile place, where strong moral leadership
is necessary to guard against danger. Thus, a powerful "father
figure" helps to focus support. (This explains the vehement
opposition to Mr. Clinton we witnessed a few years ago.) In a world
filled with evil, strength is necessary for protection; therefore, a
large military budget and strict policing benefits society. Business
exists in a competitive environment, so a legitimate role of the
government is to protect American business interests from hostile
actions by foreign companies and governments. These people see
themselves as intrinsically "good" and moral. Their affluence is
taken as an indicator that God is blessing their course of action.
Anyone who lives beyond the bounds of their narrowly defined morality
can be dismissed as worthy of nothing more than punishment.
Therefore, these "moral" people want strict laws, long imprisonment
for criminals, and think nothing of killing "godless" foreigners or
ignoring the plight of the poor, a group of subhumans deserving of
God's wrath for not following his edicts. (That must be, after all,
why they're poor!) They see "liberal" people as weak, immoral and
oblivious to the "truth" of their perspective.
A radical political movement has overtaken the Republican party, but
interestingly, it started with disgruntled Democrats. (In the 1980s
they were called "Reagan Democrats") The NeoCons (and their allies)
see an opportunity for popular support among the above described
"conservative" Christians (an utter oxymoron from a biblical
perspective) to promote an agenda of American greatness and power.
After Vietnam and Watergate, the American military and the Republican
party were in disarray; providing perfect platforms from whence to
project radicalism. Galvanizing the support of the Evangelical
Christians I've outlined above by the clever manipulation of certain
media outlets (it began with radio, moved to cable television and now
has evolved into internet blogs), they are promoting their
pro-business, pro-military and pro-empire agenda in the name of God
and country. The NeoCons seek to use American economic and military
power to quite literally dominate the world for the "good" of all
people. The Christians who support them really believe that doing so
will prepare the world for the parousia of Jesus Christ, but really,
what they're prepare for is the coming of THE ANTICHRIST, as they
refer to him.
This is where dispensationalism enters the picture. The eschatology
is so confusing that only a "true believer" who is steeped in the
doctrine can comprehend all of its nuance. It's been hammered from
pulpits, in print and by TV preachers for so long, traditional
Christian eschatology has been utterly eclipsed. Dispensationalism
teaches that God's promises (particularly those relating to land of
the "Fertile Crescent" in the Middle East) to Abraham's descendants
must be literally fulfilled. (This conveniently excludes the
descendants of Ishmael, Abraham's first born son, from whom the Arabs
claim their lineage.) God supposedly divided his attention between
the "Jewish dispensation" of the Old Testament, and the "Christian
dispensation" of the New Testament, supported, in their view, by a few
texts such as the famous prophecy:
"Behold, I will make a new covenant with my people. It will not be
like the old covenant. . ."
Dispensationalism dissects a certain prophecy in the book of Daniel
(its in chapter 9, if you're really interested), removes verse 27 from
its contextual connection (these people really don't understand
pronoun / antecedent relationships!) with the Messiah and instead,
transports this section well into the future and inserts a seven year
reign of THE ANTICHRIST (though the scriptures say there are many
antichrists) into the prophecy. Then, in order to prevent God's
people from living through the "seven last plagues", dispensationalism
teaches that they will be secretly raptured up to heaven while the
rest of the world suffers through the plagues. (The word "rapture" is
not found in the scriptures, and the concept has to be twisted from
the context of several verses in order to be supported.)
Many people believe this nonsense, and the impact it has on American
policy is profound. Keep in mind that the political support for the
NeoCons is largely derived from a group of people who insist that
those promises to Abraham are literally fulfilled in the modern state
of Israel. Hence, Israel becomes an instrument used by God to bring
about the long anticipated battle of Armageddon. America's role as
guardian and protector of Israel is seen as harmonizing with God's
purpose, and any dissension from that view is interpreted as
anti-American, immoral, and therefore worthy of dismissal or
accusations of treason.
Do you think the is a political philosophy here or is it just another name for
business interests who want no limits on their prerogatives and
profits?
The "other" name for this is Fascism.
Who would you suggest reading o understand them better?
http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/Chronicles/April2003/0403Wolf.html
http://thewitness.org/agw/eltscher100104.html
http://blog.lewrockwell.com/lewrw/archives/006265.html
http://www.springhillatcanfield.com/neoconswho.html
Do a Google search for "dominionism" and "dead constitution" too!
How much of what Bush does is connected with their philosophy?
All of it is connected with their philosophy.
I guess the most important questions for me are how much of the administrations
positions on environment are philosophical and how much pragmatic.
Why would anyone who believes that the world and its resources were
created by God for his people to exploit give a rip about the
environment? If you believe you're going to be raptured anyway,
what's the big deal about environmental degradation? If your
perspective insists that middle class, consumerist prosperity is an
indication of God's blessing, then why on earth would you concern
yourself with energy efficiency and resource depletion?
This view is neither Christian, nor biblical. It's a perversion of
the scriptures; writings which demand stewardship of creation.
As several people have pointed out the collapse of cheap energy i.e., oil
and gas will have the most profound effect on peace and war, economics,
and even the nature of life itself in the very near future. The energy
corporations seem to be looking at this from the standpoint of just
maximizing profits with no attention to other consequences. Is this
just shortsighted self interest or a political philosophy?
It's both.
robert luis rabello
"The Edge of Justice"
Adventure for Your Mind
http://www.authorhouse.com/BookStore/ItemDetail.aspx?bookid=9782>
Ranger Supercharger Project Page
http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/
_______________________________________________
Biofuel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel
Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable):
http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
