Not just another ism; it's the why of what has been happening. Here are a couple of references to get you caught up on this phenomenon:
I found this article to be profound in its insight into the reality of relations between Israelis and Palestinians living in the camps. Note that this speech comes to you from Tel Aviv.
The fact that there are Jews who have the freedom to say these things while the same views cannot be articulated by mainstream presidential candidates in the USA is testament to the influence of Armageddonist clout here.
All is not lost yet. You can make a difference. You can help to be part of the new generation of hope which has the audacity to talk-back to the doom-and-gloomers.
It seams that for all his good intentions, Barak Obama is suffering from the effects of the Armageddon bug. While trying to reach-out for the Evengelical vote, he was poisoned by their world view and is now grapling to make sense of the world as seen through their point of view.
Here's how you know Obama has bought into the Armageddonist Hype: when instead of tempering the call to violence coming from the Pat Robertsons and Hagees of the world he joins the choir and sings along. Here are a few google hits from today when searching Obama Iraq:
John Hagee had the audacity to propose a war scenario which is in-line with his Armageddonist Ideology. And what's wrong with FOX NEWS that they let this happen?
Has FOX News exposed itself as the quintissential anti-American news show? Isn't John Hagee really saying "Death to America" by advocating policies which in his belief system should destroy the world in the process of bringing back Jesus.
What if a congressman or representative were to come out and say, "I only care about national security. And all my decisions are based solely on secular considerations; my religious views have nothing to do with policy making decisions."
Is this person really secular? Or an Armageddonist in secular clothing?
To answer this question you need to address not only how to neutralize national security threats, but also how this threat came to be.
If you think of the national security threat as a flooded swamp. Solving the threat means clearing the swamp. It doesn't make sense to just pump out the water. You need to cut off the various streams which replenish the swamp. If you don't do this, you will end up having to clear the swamp endlessly. Just when you think you are done, here it fills up again.
It is madness to keep doing the same thing, yet expect different results.
This is the example of the policy maker who asserts his/her desire to eliminate national security threats, yet fails to cut off the sources whose sole intent is to exacerbate the threats.
What if a small group of evil people wanting to destroy the middle-east for the purpose of fulfilling Bible-Prophesy in hopes of bringing back Jesus Christ were instrumental in maintaining the blockade over Iraq which resulted in the deaths of something like a million people.
Suppose that the Iraqis did not like that and that certain individuals who sympathized with them were to inflict violent acts toward our country because of it.
There should be no doubt that we must defend ourselves from the threats coming at us. Equaly, we must not give a free pass to those who hide behind a moral agenda in order to direct our foreign policy in ways which seek to fulfill their odd interpretations of prophesy. To them, Armageddon is a mission to be accomplished; not merely prophesy to be observed.
Of course Armageddonists are free to believe as they want. However, it is shameful that secular people tolerate people with such frames of mind to control foreign policy. Suppose that the so called secular leaders knew about these people's goals and desires; yet neither criticized them nor tried to warn of the danger they pose.
Does that not mean that the so called secular leaders are more unpatriotic that the religious zealots who hope to bring about Armageddon; simply because they provide the cover under which Armageddonists will destroy our society from within?
Think about it.
I started reading up on Hitchens after viewing his commentary on the legacy of Jerry Falwell. Somehow he manages to both hate Falwell and support the Iraq war. Any ideas why? From watching the video below, you make your own conclusion:
Some people in their rush to scrub clean Falwell's legacy ignore the fact that when all is said and done, Falwell advocated a speedy destruction of the world due to his staunch support for Armageddon. Very disappointing.
Here is Christopher Hitchin's summary of Falwell's legacy:
If only Barack Obama would stand up to this menacing Armageddonism so many evangelicals rally around instead of trying to "reach out" to them. Unless of course by reaching out he means to correct their tendency to support the road to Armageddon. I think this may be the direction he should take, but somehow I imagine it is too hot of a topic to touch even for Obama. To his credit he does mention that Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson are negative influences on the evangelicals:
"...if we don't reach out to evangelical Christians and other religious Americans and tell them what we stand for, Jerry Falwell's and Pat Robertson's will continue to hold sway." [source]However he does not, and I believe no politician is able to directly criticize the addiction to Armageddon which these bible thumpers spew from their pulpits.
The Winograd Reort exposes a stark difference between the Jewish Zionist vision for Israel and the "Christian Zionist" (Armageddonist) vision for Israel.
The Jewish desire is summed up by the Winograd report which notes "Foreign Ministry not sufficiently included during war in Lebanon." This shows that Israelis would very much like to settle differences without having to unleash the arsenal of weapons Armageddonists have so generously put into their hands.
On the other hand, if you look at what Armageddonist preachers and cheerleaders on the Right Wing are saying, the only problem with the destruction of Lebanon is that it does not go far enough. See this fox news video for how the Armageddonists think:
