The Children of Palestine and Israel are Cannon Fodder for the Rapture

This article proves the point of our previous post of today:

by Robert Weitzel

Saturday March 15, 2008

Safa Abu Saif, a 12-year-old Palestinian girl, was visiting a friend’s apartment when the bullet fired from an Israeli rifle slammed into her chest, punching a gaping exit wound in her back. No ambulance could reach her because of the fighting. Safa died in her father’s arms three hours after being shot.

Danielle Shafi, a 5-year-old Israeli girl, was killed by the bullet fired from a Palestinian rifle as her mother combed her hair in the child’s upstairs bedroom. Drenched in the blood of her wound, Danielle slowly stopped breathing and died in her mother’s arms minutes after being shot.

According to a United Nation’s report, 971 Palestinian and Israeli children were killed between September 2000—the beginning of the second intifada—and July 2007. Of those destroyed children, 854 were Palestinian. The intifada and the dying continue.

Safa and Danielle are two of the children whose lives the evangelical political action committee, Christians United for Israel, are willing to sacrifice on the alter of their fundamentalist eschatology in the hope of bringing about Armageddon and the Second Coming of Jesus Christ.

Pastor John Hagee, televangelist to 99 million viewers and pastor of the 18,000-member Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, Texas, established the CUFI in 2005 following the publication of his book, “The Jerusalem Countdown: A Warning to the World.” Hagee envisions CUFI as the Christian version the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the powerful pro-Israel lobby whose political clout has a significant influence on U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East.

The late Molly Ivins, a Texas political commentator and author, described Hagee as a “pre-millennial dispensationalist, whose theology focuses on selected apocalyptic passages of the Book of Revelation.” In 1998, Hagee teamed up with Christian filmmakers to produce, “Vanished in the Twinkling of an Eye,” a docudrama about the tribulations following the Rapture.

Despite Pastor Hagee’s obvious interest in eschatology, he insists that CUFI’s support for Israel has nothing to do with end time prophecy. But in an unguarded moment in the intimate confines of his 50,000 sq. ft. multimedia chapel, Hagee set the truth free, “The judgment of the nations is going to happen as soon as Christ returns to earth. As soon as he sets up his throne on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, he’s going to rule the world with a rod of iron. That means he’s going to make the ACLU do what he wants them to . . .. We will live by the law of god, and no other law.”

The problem with Hagee’s version of the truth is the fact that the Temple Mount is Islam’s third most sacred site, upon which sits the al-Aqsa mosque and the Dome of the Rock, the oldest extant Islamic structure in the world.

According to Judaism, the Mount is where the final Third Temple will be rebuilt before the coming of the Jewish Messiah. Unfortunately for CUFI, the Second Coming of Jesus is on hold until the temple’s completion, and that cannot happen until Islam is destroyed—Hagee’s holy grail.

Predictably then, the good pastor opposes any peace plan to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, supports Israel’s persecution and “imprisonment” of 1.5 million Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, and advocates pre-emptive nuclear strikes against Iran. John Hagee lives, and CUFI exists, to light the fires of the Apocalypse using Israel as the match.

To get a candid look at CUFI and its members, journalist Max Blumenthal took his cameras to the CUFI’s Washington-Israel Summit held last July in the nation’s capital.

His video, “Rapture Ready: The Unauthorized Christians United for Israel Tour” opens with Blumenthal cornering disgraced former Republican House Majority Leader Tom Delay and asking him how important the Second Coming is in his support of Israel. The “Hammer” replied, “Obviously, it is what I live for. Really, I hope it comes tomorrow. Obviously, we need to be connected to Israel to enjoy the Second Coming of Christ.”

Blumenthal mingled with the 4,500 CUFI rank and file attending the Summit and asked their opinion on Armageddon and the identity of the Antichrist:

Q. “Are you looking forward to Armageddon?”

A. “I’m looking forward to Armageddon and the cleansing of the earth.”

Q. “Who is the Antichrist?”

A. “He will be a man of peace. So he will be one who has promoted peace for many years. The one who forces Israel into a peace treaty with the Arabs is the Beast.”

A. “Another reason that we support Israel is that we have a common enemy, the Muslims. We are fighting what is behind the Muslim people, which is Satan. Satan is actually the one who is trying to destroy the human race.”

After asking Pastor Hagee the “wrong” question during a Summit news conference, Blumenthal and his crew were escorted out of the building by off-duty police officers.

John Hagee is not without fawning friends in Washington. Presidential hopeful John McCain made a campaign stop at the Summit and admitted to the audience that, “It's very hard trying to do the Lord’s work in the city of Satan . . .” House Minority Whip Roy Blunt followed McCain to the podium and assured the faithful that “This is a mission, this is a vision that I believe is a vision for God's time.” Senator Joe Lieberman was there and described Pastor Hagee as an "Ish Elokim," a man of God.

Never one to be left out of a well-attended Christian Right convocation, President Bush sent his best wishes, "I appreciate CUFI members . . . for your passion and dedication to enhancing the relationship between the United States and Israel. Your efforts set a shining example for others . . .”

Cultivating his friendship with the man who believes the U.S. will be in Iraq for the next one hundred years, Pastor Hagee endorsed—and hugged—John McCain for president at a news conference held at the Cornerstone Church. Senator McCain graciously accepted, saying, “I'm very honored by Pastor John Hagee's endorsement today,” When asked about Hagee’s extensive writings on Armageddon, McCain responded that “all I can tell you is that I am very proud to have Pastor John Hagee’s support.'’



Considering the above, the following should not need to be said. Pastor Hagee’s right-wing Jewish allies will do well to consider that after Islam is destroyed and the Temple rebuilt and Jesus comes and raptures all “true believers,” all non-believers—including Jews—will be hunted down and converted or destroyed . . . that is, those few who survived the nuclear holocaust that was prayed for and schemed for by the “Ish Elokim” and the CUFI.

In the meanwhile, Palestinian and Israeli children will continue to die singularly or in small groups by the bullets and the bombs and the fire send their way on the wings of CUFI’s prayerful machinations.

On Barack Obama's Minister

How many "mainstream" ministers, preachers, rabbis and priests regularly preach sermons filled with hateful rhetoric about LGBTQ people? Muslims? "Illegal Immigrants?"

How many "christian" leaders have claimed that a natural disaster or terrorist attack on an American City was a sign that God is angry about governmental support for gay and lesbian people?

If I were Barack Obama, I would simply post YouTube clips of sermons by Dobson, Hagee, Falwell, Robertson and Phelps and ask voters to compare those to the video clips of his preacher who is rightfully calling out the hypocrisy of US foreign and domestic policy and how it unfairly treats people of color.

So what if his sermon is impassioned?

So what if he is angry.

He was preaching in a church to a congregation who needs to be lifted up and validated.

Let it go.

Personally I think they are all whack-jobs. The idea that there is some guy in the sky who will save you from death is just crazy sounding -- to me. But if you want to believe and they want to preach to you, who am I to stand in your way?

I saw this comment on a blog that educates about the origin of the Unity Christian Church:

by: Bob Sr
Date: Mar. 15, 2008 - 8:56 AM EST

"Let's talk a little about the Congregational Church (UCC), Obama's Church, and its traditions. How does Obama know about this BOTTOM UP point of view to move the country forward? Well, my view is because he is a Congregationalist. This is the church of the Pilgrims and was the dominant religion in this country until probably the mid 1800's. This is the New England Church of the town meeting houses.This is the Church where there isn't organization at the TOP directing things. Congregational churches are all governed individually by the members of each Church. Every Church picks their own ministers by vote of local Congregations. Each Congregation can also vote to change a minister (tell them to leave). NO ONE can "close" a church except the individual members of that church. Where do you think people like John Adams got their ideas for a formation of this government and the Constitution? It came from the Congregational Church with its BOTTOM UP and NOT TOP DOWN ideas and management. These people came here and wanted to get away from Dukes, Kings, Popes, etc.

Another possibility is that in Hawaii Obama also learned about "town meetings," where the "bottom up" government is modeled on the Congregationalists. Most of the missionaries sent to Hawaii were from New England and were Congregationalists. Most Americans don't know about or have "town meeting" style local governments anymore. In a town meeting, the PEOPLE get together once each year(usually in March) and vote on the town budget, talk about the paving of their street, discuss the new fire truck purchase, how "grand" the new school should be (or if we vote to have a new one at all), whether to "impeach" Bush and Cheney, and micro manage each town department and budget. It's true bottom up government. The elected officials (selectmen) and the department heads appear and answer the voters questions prior to voting on the town business, usually in the form of "warrants". Votes are usually by voice or by hand. If you don't attend town meeting and speak about an issue, no one will listen to your whining.

The Congregational Church is now called the United Church of Christ ( I was against this name change), and I think there are probably very few people who really understand this history. How ironic it is to me to have the IRS investigating this Church, my church as well, the first Church in America, because Obama, as a Church member, gave a speech there for their annual meeting.

My local congregation (gathered in 1685) is probably 99% white, and his Chicago church may be 99% black. We both sing hymns from the Pilgrim Hymnal (although I think they probably do a better job!), and we all read from the same Bible. There isn't any "sermon of the week" from above. Each pastor speaks about the issues in light of his own religious views, tailored to the needs of his/her congregation. It would not be unusual for people to disagree about sermons and points of view. Sometimes people get up and leave if they feel strongly. Sometimes they find another Church. It sounds like I might get up and leave if I was sitting there hearing some of these views, but I would defend his right to speak them and really could not judge the totality of his points based on his church members and their history. It's clear some might find reasonable and important points for further discussion, and others might find them totally unreasonable. This is a church that LOVES to discuss things among themselves. The Congregational Church is a BIG TENT, and like our FATHER'S HOUSE, has many mansions.

In a country "now virtually illiterate about its history" (that line thanks to David McCullough), Obama seems to have gotten the message right - if WE THE PEOPLE WANT IT, we can have it. The problem is people don't believe it because they have been totally turned off to the process, especially in the latter part of the 20th Century. People are not used to the fact that their individual vote really can be empowering! He is EDUCATING the people( us) about this. Why do you think most people under thirty love this message? Because they have never heard it before and don't know the history of their country! It's apparently not convenient to teach this in the schools today. (in my view.) Democracy has ALWAYS required a caring, concerned, and educated electorate.

You can argue perhaps that Obama is running in the wrong direction on some (maybe most!) issues, but you can not argue with the fact that HE IS NOW EDUCATING this historically illiterate electorate about BOTTOM UP power of the people. This has to be A GOOD THING. It's only bad for lobbyists and those whom C Wright Mills called (in the 1960's) the "power elite."

I would not lose any sleep over where Obama stands in relation to some of the most controversial statements from his Pastor. In totality, this pastor obviously has some very good points, and Obama is one of the smartest people on the political scene. He won't be bamboozeled!

Watching excerpts of specific sermons given by a 1960's activist minister is certainly eye opening, but not surprising if you consider the congregation and the struggles of black people for the last 3 centuries. But knowing the tradition of my Church, trying to explain some of this from a religious point of view is both acceptable and proper. Looking at the overall totality of what this minister had to say over 30 years is far more positive than negative.

There are some of us who love a good discussion, and controversy is a great way to start a discussion. These sermons are not Dogma coming down from some man made hierarchy, but the thoughts of one man ministering to his particular flock. Believe me, I am SURE many of his flock disagree with some of what has been said from his pulpit. But that is precisely the point. It is about STARTING a discussion with thinking people. Others hearing some of these points out of context and not knowing the traditions are now completely wrong in thinking that everyone listening agrees. That's not our tradition. We are in America where there is room at the table for ALL points of view. But that doesn't mean we will all agree.

Who among us who goes to ANY church regularly agrees with EVERYTHING that is said? Many "unchurched" and from different traditions really don't understand how this church works, and looking at a few pejorative excerpts on u-tube is more like "sensational journalism" than reality, in my view. Hopefully this sheds a little light on the subject.

Coming to you from a family here since 1638 in the LIVE FREE OR DIE STATE, New Hampshire"

How is Hillary like George W?

Like most Americans -- especially progressives -- after 8 years of Bush II following 8 years of Clinton-esque triangulation, preceded by 12 years of Reagan and Bush I, we are desperate for real change in Washington.

That is why we are supporting Obama for president.

We are really impressed with the way he has been conducting himself in this unfortunately divisive primary campaign.

As rumors abound -- on the Internet and in the media -- that:

• Obama is a Muslim;
• he does crack and gives blow jobs in the back of limos;
• he is a good friend of domestic terrorists and Louis Farrakhan;
• he is anti-Semetic;
• he's the antichrist;
• and -- even worse -- that he only got where he is because he is lucky enough to have been born a Black man!
  

Throughout it all, Obama has remained above the fray -- refusing to get in the gutter with Clinton. And there is a wealth of anti-Hillary fodder to tap into if he wanted to do so. We are impressed that he has resisted gutter politics as he is also being besmirched with much mudslinging.

Hillary's dirty campaigning style is enough to make Karl Rove proud.

And just as she is running a Rove-Bush style campaign, we see evidence that a Hillary Clinton presidency may very well be Bush-like as well.

How do we know what kind of president that Hillary Clinton would make? We don't. No one can read the future. The best we can do is try to analogize what might happen based on the information we have now.

For example:

1. Bush waged a war without a long-term plan because he believed it would be a cake-walk. Hillary ran a campaign without a long-term plan believing she would be the front runner throughout and that she would be the only Democrat standing after Super Tuesday -- in other words -- winning the Democratic nomination would be a cake-walk.

2. Bush declared "Mission Accomplished" and 5 years later we are still at war. Clinton declared herself the winner and offered the VP spot to Obama -- even though she is losing the race to him. Obama has won more states, has more pledged delegates and more popular votes. It is now mathematically impossible for Hillary to beat Barack yet she still claims to be the front runner.

3. Bush 's economic strategy has broken the American bank. The economy is in the toilet and we are awash in debt. Clinton's campaign ran out of money in mid-February forcing her to loan herself 5 million dollars. Barack on the other hand has spent his campaign money wisely. He has broken all fund raising records and has used the money to get out his uplifting message of change and hope.

4. Bush surround himself with incompetent and blindly loyal (for a little while) cronies who have little or no experience and who are loathe to tell their boss and the American people the truth. Clinton hired old and loyal friends who had little experience running a campaign and who spent her money as though the campaign would be over on Super Tuesday. Again, for the most part, Obama's staff has been respectful -- and when they are not -- he wastes no time to remove them from the campaign.

5. When members of his cabinet and staff -- or even one of his most ardent supporters (remember Ken Ley and Jack Abramoff?) have f'd up, Bush quickly distances himself -- claiming he barely knew them or that their errors were not his fault. Just as Clinton did when Geraldine Ferraro, Bill Clinton, PA Governor Ed Rendell and other supporters have played the race card -- overtly or subtly -- against Obama. So far, no one in Obama's camp has resorted to making mysogenistic attacks against Hillary. If you disagree with this point (and we are not referring to the media) please let us know and we will happily make a correction.

6. The best word to describe this Bush administration might be "secretive." Second only to Bush in surrounding themselves in secrecy are the Clinton's. How can we hope for change if we are kept in the dark about how policies are being made and for whom?

7. When it seemed as though he couldn't win the majority of popular and/or electoral votes in 2000, Bush simply stole the election to become President anyway. It seems Hillary is willing to do the same if she does not receive the majority of votes. She is pushing to have delegates seated in Michigan and Florida even though she previously agreed that those primaries would not count. She is also threatening to steal the nomination by getting the super delegates to nominate her even if she does not win the popular vote. We fear she will not give up her pursuit of the White House even if she eventually loses the Democratic nomination. Hillary and Bill want to win so much that it seems they prefer that McCain win so that Hill will have another shot at it in 4 years.

This begs the question -- if Hillary and Bill want to win so bad that they would stoop to destroying the Democratic Party and presumably maintain an illegal and unethical war that sends thousands more to needless deaths, why even have an election in the first place?

Whats all the campaigning about if Hillary is just going to screw it up anyway?

We should just let her have it if she wants it so bad that she feels the need to snuff out hope as though it were some annoying bug.

Obama has waged a brilliant campaign and against all odds -- against the Clinton machine and the un-level playing field -- he has shown himself to be a strong and competent leader.

We predict here and now that if Hillary loses the Democratic nomination, she and Bill will take all their marbles and -- rather than go home -- she'll run as an Independent thus ensuring a win for McCain in November.

Ugh. Hope we are wrong!

The Pink Dress

The photo at right is our 5 year old grandson, Jareth -- taken February 2008.

An article in today's RainbowZine touches on some of the same issues we are dealing with as Jareth stretches socially constructed gender boundaries.

It is an interesting read, especially given that recently a young boy in Florida was killed for wearing "women's clothing."

From the article:

"At seven o'clock on a Thursday morning, my 4-year-old son announced, "I'm going to wear a dress to school today." I froze, teacup halfway to my lips. I shouldn't have been entirely surprised by the statement, given Sam's history on the pink side of the dress-up box, but this time something was different. We were forced to make a decision: protect him from ridicule or cultivate his self-expression?"

Hope for Homophobic Culture Warriors

Check out this lovely homophobic rant by Oklahoma State Representative Sally Kern as she compares homosexuality to cancer:



Luckily, according to gay scientists, there may soon be a cure for this sad condition:



And even if there is no cure for homophobia, finally and at last we may be witnessing the end of the culture wars!

"We are at the beginning of a new era in which large, secular problems related to war and peace, economics and the United States’ standing in the world will displace culture and religion as the electorate’s central concerns. Divisions on “values” questions will not disappear, but they will be far less important to voters and campaigns.

Just four years ago, we were arguing over whether Bush was reelected primarily because of his strong support from voters who told the exit pollsters that “moral values” had guided their decisions. We parsed the political preferences of those who attend religious services frequently and those who never go — and found the former group rather staunchly Republican, the latter strongly Democratic. It was 1928 all over again. Culture and religion ruled.

In truth, Bush’s victory rested both on 9/11 and on enthusiasm from religious voters. But what’s most important is that 2004, like 1928, is destined to be the last in a long line of contests in which culture and religion proved central to the outcome."