God and the Democrats
Christian conservatives in Florida are all het up over remarks made by Mark Alan Siegel, the Palm Beach County chairman of the Democratic Party. Siegel, it appears, was not happy with his party's decision to reinsert the word "God" into the platform. Evangelical Republicans had spent a good 24 hours damning the godless Democrats for eliminating both an entirely bland and pointless reference to the Creator and a statement that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel.
My own Senator, Dick Durbin, when he tried to explain away his party's gaffe, only dug the hole deeper. The Democratic leadership, understanding the price they were going to have to pay for their party's militant atheists, orchestrated the reinsertion of God and Jerusalem--though the rank-and-file did their party little good when they booed the proposal. They actually booed God!
Some Democrats apparently do not yet understand that hypocrisy, not Christianity, is the American religion. We are happy to elect godless sinners who only go to Church for weddings and funerals, so long as they make the usual noises, as the deist Lincoln did, about "the author of our being," etc. If Cardinal Dolan understood the reality of American religion, he might not have wasted breath at either convention and spared us a Christian prayer in which Christ and Abraham are put, rhetorically at least, on the same level.
Mr. Siegel is more candid. Caught off guard he responded to a reporter's question, by saying the obvious, “I’m Jewish, I’m not a fan of any other religion than Judaism.” Pressed about Christian support for Israel, he went on to declare: “The worst possible allies for the Jewish state are the fundamentalist Christians who want Jews to die and convert so they can bring on the second coming of their Lord,” and added, for good measure, the observation that Christian Zionists in the US had exerted an unwholesome pressure on the Israelis to pursue hardline policies that are antithetical to the security and existence of the Jewish state.
When the perky reporter suggested that Siegel was anti-Christian, he calmly replied that he did not believe that Fundamentalist Christians were true friends of Israel. This is a classic case of a political gaffe, so clearly defined decades ago by Michael Kinsley of The New Republic. Whenever a politician inadvertently says what he thinks or lets the truth slip out, it is called a gaffe.
The response of the Christian Right was entirely predictable: ANTI-CHRISTIAN HATE SPEECH SPEWS FROM THE PALM BEACH DEM CHAIR, screamed the headline of the website Blaze, whose editors are apparently unaware that "spew" is a transitive verb meaning something like eject.
Siegel has inevitably taken a leave of absence and apologised, but for what? For saying that as a Jew he cares about his own religion? I take my hat off to a man who prefers his own religion to any other and has the guts to admit it. He did not say he hated other religions, only that he cared only for his own. Bravo!
He obviously did not intend to attack Christians per se, only the Fundamentalists who, he claimed, only support Israel to bring on the end times, when all Jews will either convert to Christianity or die as prelude to the reign of Christ on earth. Obviously, Siegel was painting with a broad political brush. Not all Fundamentalists believe in the pre-millennialist theory of the end times, and not all pre-millennnialists are Fundamentalists. On the whole, however, his characterization is as accurate as his assessment of the impact of Christian Zionists on Israeli policy. Many Israelis agree with his assessment, and I am not sure they are wrong,
This episode brought to mind a dinner party in Tel Aviv I attended not too many years ago. The hosts were the Serbian ambassador and her husband, a distinguished Serbian writer. Among the guests were several veteran Israeli journalists, a distinguished American Jewish policy analyst and editor, and a leader of a major American Jewish Zionist organization. The trouble started when I described a trip I had made to a Jewish settlement in occupied territory.
"Occupied territory?" shouted the Zionist leader, "You mean Samaria-Galilee." This was not my fight, and I said I was happy to call the region whatever was most acceptable, but the journalists broke in to tell the American that they did not appreciate his long-distance militancy. All he wanted to do, they argued, was to create trouble in Israel, while keeping his family safely in California. They had both served in the IDF, and so did their sons. They were not at all amused by the posturing of American Zionists, whether Jewish or Christian.
The subject then turned to the American's strongest allies, Evangelical Christians. I pointed out delicately to him that the very people he so counted on for support were hoping and praying for the day when all Jews were either Christian or dead. "With friends like these...." I left the rest to his imagination. He was an intelligent man, and he confessed he did not know much about his allies' theology and would look into it.
Poor Mark Alan Siegel, in disgrace for loving his own religion and caring so much about his other homeland, Israel, that he did not much like the people who were leading it down the path to destruction. Many Israelis feel the same way, a majority if we can believe some of the more doveish policy experts I have spoken with.
The debate between ultra-Zionist hawks and pragmatic doves is carried out every day in Israel, where there is far more freedom of speech on this subject than exists in the United States. Whether the Israeli left (a term that only has relevance for the Palestinian question) is correct, it is not up to me to say. I simply do not know.
What I do know is that the flames of hatred in the Middle East are kept hot by the religious tales told by Muslims, Jews, and Christians. Christian Zionists only pour gasoline on the fire.
The Democrats were right in the first place when they took God out of their godless party's platform, but an even better idea is to take God out of the politics of Israel.
Legalled Again!
Entries(RSS)
V'hen darkness is a virtue, legalled again is stellar. Oops, get d'hat outs dah platform, step-step crush crush so dah weeds can chokes out all dah grass. Oops, sorry edit at will, they do.
The only long tern solution for the 60 year war between the Palestinians and the Jews is single state encompassing both groups into a single democratic state. In the US, this is considered heresy and anti-Semitic thinking and of course runs counter to the eschatological theology of the American Zionists who are expecting the second coming any day - these modern day zealots think that God is tarrying a bit too too long so they want to help Him speed up the timetable with war and their donations for continued illegal settlements. With or without encountering the WMD threat sooner or later, demographics and time are not on the side of the Israelis. In Dr. Fleming's article the Zionist himself argues for a one state (Jewish) solution by calling the occupied territories Judea-Samaria or Greater Israel as the Likud party holds as policy. In fact, the West Bank as of 2006 was only 9.4% Jewish and the Gaza Strip is 100% Arab. Arabs who stayed within the bounds of Israel and accepted citizenship may become a majority in Israel in 2035, and they will certainly be the majority in 2048. Similar to the native Europeans the Israeli's are committing suicide by not having babies and the non-Israeli Jews throughout the world may preach zionist militarism and provide financial support but are unwilling to make the real sacrifices required for a Jewish state to survive long term.
I suspect Mr. Siegel's response more likely reflect a visceral antipathy toward religious zealot Reds (no pun intended) than it does a careful consideration of the nuances of Christian End Times theology. That said, he actually makes an accurate point. One of the paradoxes of the theology to which he refers is that it does predict that bad things will happen to many of the Jews in Israel before a remnant converts and is rescued. This isn't hidden, but I don't think it really occurs to a lot of pre-mils until it is pointed out to them.
I think dispensational pre-millennialism engenders a sort of cognitive dissonance. Conservative Evangelicals are exclusivists nearly by definition, meaning they don't believe there is salvation outside of Christianity, hence the emphasis on evangelism. No self-respecting conservative Evangelical would deny, if asked directly, that Jews need to convert. Yet they see Jews as Jews playing a future role that they couldn't play if they were to all convert in mass, something that no evangelical could possibly deny would be a good thing. (Contrary to the contention of some, dispy pre-mils do not teach a dual covenant theology, although arguably Hagee does, but if he were to say so in so many words he would be roundly condemned.)
I once was part of a conversation with a pre-mil in which she was discussing a commercial she had seen asking for donations to help send Russian Jews to Israel. I asked her if Russians Jews were more likely to convert to Christianity if they moved to Israel or remained in Russia. Hmmm. It was a good question. She hadn't thought about it.
Dispensational pre-millenialism does not require cognitive dissonance. It is possible, I guess, to view it all fatalistically. That this is what God tells us is going to happen so it is what is going to happen and there is nothing we can do about it. But this would, it seems to me, generate more of an attitude of pity for Jews and Israel than it would the current attitude of veneration. Therefore the need for a happy faced cognitive dissonance.
Dr. Fleming,
Could you explain to the dinosaurs and neanderthals, like myself, what the significance of "a moment of silence" is in a post christian culture? I like the music of silence and have heard that the spheres in the heavens above have a music all their own as they move across the night sky. I have also been born and raised in a backwater spot where a few folks pray on their knees and the majority bow their heads to pray. As a father of several children, I have also frequently asked for moments of silence either collectively so I can restore order to what might become an unruly mob, or individually to prevent the impudent prig from harrassing conduct. Yet, I am always intrigued in public when asked over a loud speaker to engage in a moment of silence for what exactky? Thank you for your help. .
A moment of silence is a prayer to the nothingness that one believes to be at the heart of the universe. For someone in a Christian culture, the moment of silence is a complete betrayal of the faith.
So THAT'S why I've always felt uneasy and irritated on these occasions. I tend to steer away from large crowds and gatherings where this sort of thing might be expected, but I'm going to try to remember this little item in case there is a next time. I suppose it would be jerkish behavior to burst out in a Hail Mary, but at least I can remember to say one silently.
Precisely. Thank you, Dr. Fleming, for stating what I have failed to put into words, perhaps out of cowardice.
What about a moment of silence that occurs after a prayer has already been spoken, as is often the case? I suppose it depends on the exact nature of the event, but that strikes me as more dignified than an immediate transition from a prayer back to some frivolous topic.
This whole incident gives leave for us to reflect on several important points:
1. The sheer ridiculousness of asking people to "respect" different religions beyond respecting the integrity persons who practice them and the edifices in which they are practiced;
2. The sacrilege of either "a moment of silence" or the invocation to the Deistic god that takes place at official public ceremonies in the present United States.
On the whole, however, I tend to share Dr. Phillips's sentiments - a few nuts and fruits notwithstanding - and I might add that A) when I was living in Miami in the mid-2000s, it definitely wasn't the "Fundamentalist Christians" who were expressing the large amount of sentiment that I witnessed FOR the invasion of Lebanon and AGAINST the evacuation of the Gaza Strip, and B) if a Christian politician publicly expressed similar sentiments about the impact of the legacy of the British Mandate on the Christian population in the Levant, he would, beyond simply being denounced, probably not be able to leave his house.
Taking God out of politics is the answer? OK, sure. Let's do that and lets assume for a moment it has happened. Now, how do you remove the real root cause of the violent clashes in the middle east and everywhere else on earth? Does anyone still think religion causes war? No sir, religion is given as a reason to be sure. However, lots of reasons are given to justify all sorts of things. Remove religion and we have profit as a reason. Remove profit and we have power as a reason. Remove them all and we still have survival. You know, them danged - fill in the blank - ain't camping on my land, no sir. I need that land to grow my crops and water my cows. So, somebody has to go. I'm pretty sure somebody wrote a story about that kind of thing happening between the savages and peace loving settlers. Between ranchers and farmers, between tribes all over the middle east and so forth. lets not forget about love. Love was the reason for war against lovely old Troy, wasn't it? Or was it pride or vanity or jealousy? Well, you get the picture, or should anyway.
Say, why don't we just take people out of politics? No, that won't work. OK, I have it. Why don't we plan to win? Why don't we choose our battles more wisely? Why don't we stop making excuses for killing our foes? Maybe some folks haven't noticed, but our enemies don't cry over our dead. They fight to win and are not confused. And finally, if we have a strong cultural bond with an allied nation, why should we abandon them? Won't other potential friends notice something like that?