This is a difficult article to feel free to express oneself and not feel that someone may become offended, either way.

The first admendment seems to clarify this situation, however, rules are made to be broken (it seems).

The irony, to me is that more wars are started in the name of religion than for any other cause in the history of people on this planet.

As far as our environment, well, it seems to justify the need to plow right ahead recklessly and without concern to our immediate health as large corps monopolize the energy and food supplies on a global level. Can we all walk coma- like and smile because it really doesnt matter- I would just hope that if the end is near then why not clean up and show some appreciation for this time we are sharing here on this old earth? Perhaps such reasoning instead justifies the measures to show lack of respect to the environment and just take advantage of an open window of opportunity to be irresponsible and have the freedom to not be held accountable.

If all things are to be used here on the earth because of what the right wing says, then why are some herbs illegal?
At what point does responsibility come into play and thevconvience for large corporation to get away with not having to be responsible occur. Such dualities dont work unless I become coma-like and smiley, nodding my head to the brainwashing being feed to us all by ways of mass media.

Yeah, gggg, I realised this article's subject is almost impossible to discuss openly here.However, I feel it is certainly very important to note & wanted to share.

For even more insight, check out the letters from readers - & I think Sherer's final words (edited for discretionary purposes) say it all....

***Exit polls found that Pres___ won 79 percent of the 26.5 million evangelical votes in 2004, according to The Washington Post. That proves relig__ matters. And it matters on nearly every issue. End-Time beliefs, or other extreme C___ theologies, may play a role in influencing policy decisions on the environment, education, the deficit, nuclear proliferation, and even the war on terror. My article has gone a little way toward opening this discussion. But much more needs to be said.***

(Personally, from what I've read & understand about the end-time contingent & their '-ology' - they ARE a nice crop of macadamias >= P )

Here is a link that might be useful: Letters & author's reply

Most if not all religions and belief systems incude a end-of-the-world mythology, I think.

In Sihk and Hindu scripture it's known as a 'disillusion'; they are said to come periodically, where the world and civilizations are destroyed to greater or lesser extent. The ending paroxysm in the last such event was supposedly a great war amongst humans, and involving similar technologies to ours. The "anti-christ" figure is called an avatar, working equally for the ruler of this world (known as the devil by some) and a higher power.

This or other end of the world scenarios could certainly happen, with or without the help of fundamentalists and messiahs. The thing about not being a fundamentalist is that one has to assume that it may also not happen at all or any time soon, and that managing existing resources accordingly would be prudent.

Prudence is not a hallmark of today's people. I'm not sure it ever has been widespread; Calvinists often named their daughters Prudence but they exploited the new world as fast as they were able.

For the record....I believe in an "end time", a dispensation of grace, a return of Christ. I trust that I am not ashamed of that gospel......If that makes me a nut, I gladly bear that reproach.

I would defend your right to hold any religious beliefs; however, I would defend with equal zeal against imposition on political life many of those same beliefs. You are not a nut in my eyes. That's a judgement best made by your Maker.

I hope y'all...(see, I'm becoming Americanised...NOT) realise that the macadamia is a native Australian!!!

On a serious note, Carol's posted link had me almost gasping for breath...I hadn't realised the extent to which the Righteous Right had permeated the US...this literally puts a whole new light on my understanding of the USA's place in the world (and its raison d'etre)...truly mind-boggling...

Please tell me it isn't so!

Regards (and lotsa luck),

Shax

Sorry Shax, but sadly it's so. On the one hand the RR cares about the unborn and on the other hand they appear to welcome with zeal a death wish for all mankind.

Folks who believe in the apocalypse is not new, what is a fairly new development is the formulation of US environmental and foreign policy explicitly based on the idea of end times. I am still alittle unsure how much of this end times policy in the environmental arena is religious based and how much is simply conservative anti-regulatory, pro-business policy with a religious facade to bring along the masses. As the article mentioned too, environmental policy has always been viewed by the right in the context of 1960's leftist extremism despite the support of many old time Republicans in actually creating policy in clean air, clean water, EPA, etc. Whatever the case, I think it is one of the most dangerous developments in US history - fundamentalist Christians vs fundamentalist Muslims - both of whom seem intent on confrontation.

Wayne, I don't view religious beliefs with scorn - I grew up in the conservative South where that is the norm. I do have a problem with this idea that we should be steering gov't policy to facilitate the end of time - that I think is the height of religious arrogance and hubris. It is also suicide and the Bible forbids that. People have been predicting the end of time for many hundreds of years and all have been wrong. My opinion is that Christians should be living life according to the basic teachings (Sermon on the Mount) and not Old Testament prophesies. Lets take care of our planet up to the last day and let the maker take care of end times.

How exactly do the 'end of world' predictions of religious fanatics of every sect around the world differ significantly from the 'end of civilization' predictions of radical environmentalists and their prophets of doom? I see exaggeration, personal agendas, propoganda, and nut cases on both fronts.

Wayne - I certainly do not include you & your obvious rational state of mind in w/ extremists.I also do not equate ALL evangelical Chr___s w/ extremism. I'm not that simplistic of a thinker & I happen to know there are plenty of sincere, spiritual Chr____s ( & those of other faiths as well). Are you familiar w/ Sojourners, BTW?

It seems, despite what our individual, personal experiences may be, the numbers quoted in the article RE: politician's votes on environmental issues indicate a trend we ignore @ our peril.

I understand that people are admonished NOT to try to anticipate or hasten the End-times - but to live in the present, to do good works, to live in a godly way.So it seems that many of these folks may actually be acting in opposition to their professed beliefs?

IMPO, such behaviour is demonstrably UNchri____n.

Did anybody else click on the linked sites contained in the article? The whole thing is dense w/ info....

Here is a link that might be useful: Sojourners Magazine

Shax, you have every right to be alarmed just as many in this country feel varying degrees of angst over the matter. There is some sort of madness afoot, a lashing out at real and imagined evils in the world. Evil, of course, has always been among us; only, the US never promoted a G-inspired crusade to bring any and all declared miscreant to heel. Note that friendly despotic regimes need not worry. They will see the error of their ways, of course, and become democratic by divine grace.

I feel as a whole that most Christians have been layed-back and fairly "benign"....probably too apathetic. Recent decades have seen a push for "rights" that many Christians believe threaten the fabric of family and country. I feel that there is a back-lash afoot to those pushes....rather more so than anything else............Question........Who started the pushing?

Hasn't hard-line religion been known to drive politics in many places and times?

Local and even state gov's in this country have been heavily influenced by _ristianity in the past, and I think it's fair to say that we have often had congress and president united as dedicated believers in the past. I mis-remember which ones were particularily so, but it was common and unremarkable.

What has changed is general public feeling about it. Many, probably most, no longer assume that our rulers would be fundamentalist and are shocked to find that it is so.

"The irony, to me is that more wars are started in the name of religion than for any other cause in the history of people on this planet."

This statement doesn't stand up. Period. A list of wars NOT started or fought over religion, off the top of my head:

WW1
WW2
Korean War
Civil War
Revolutionary War (US and France, though freedom of religion played a part in the US)
Vietnam War

These wars killed more people than all the religious wars combined. In fact, WW2 did that all by itself.

This was a cute saying put forth by anti-religious zealots that was accepted by shear repetition, with no thought used by those who spread it.

The wars of the 20th century killed more than any others before or since, and all major conflicts were started by secular regimes.

I'm not saying that you have to be religious, or believe anything, but Quakers and Southern Baptists didn't run concentration camps and gulags, athiest humanists did.

In fact, the inquisition is ofen held out as "Christain warmongering". Yet, just the bare facts don't illustrate this. It was in reponse to Muslim invasion, and a war to save western ideology as well as theocracy. But, it's better to read some nut cases site, rather than just study history.

Let's see, did Billy Graham just announce that he was in an "all-out war against democracy"?

No, I believe that was Al Zaqari (sp).

There have been abuses in the times of Christianity, but by evil men, without real biblical authority.

But I would be worried about the man who wants to bring human rights, freedom and democracy to the world, at least in rhetoric, than people such as Al Zaqari (sp).

I'm not a rabid Bush supporter. But the man seems decent. Not evil. But not perfect either.

I can and will bring in my disagreements with this administration when warranted. But just as I think most people who post here do so with good intentions, so I I give the benefit of a doubt to Bush. And for that matter John Kerry.

And certainly, Christianity has gotten a bad rap that it just doesn't deserve. More good has been done in it's name than any other ideology, even as Christains help Muslims more than their brethren after the szunami (sp).

After reading the statement again, I realize the catch: "STARTED than for any other reason". Quite posible. But the damage done by secular forces dwarfs those killed in comparison. Mea Culpa on not reading straight.

Durn my hide! Meant to say "crusades" instead of "inquisition". Wake up, Randal, wake up!

Randy - the flaw I see in your argument is that you appear to be lumping ALL Chr___n sects into 1. The article I linked clearly addresses 1 faction of Chr___nity & the alarming scope of its influence over public policy making. It's a disproportionate influence to be sure.& I think that's what makes it all the more alarming.

These are emphatically NOT mainstream Chr_____ns.I noticed here & also in the readers' letters I linked, that it seems to be an easy assumption for some people that the author (& anyone who might agree w/ him) is attacking Chr___nity, is somehow anti-Chr___n. I suggest a closer reading of his report.

Perhaps so, Carol, but it kind of leaves a bad taste in the mouth.

Randy, in terms of sheer all-encompassing repression and prosecution, the religious-sanctioned wars and repressions of the first 1800 years of C... and much of I... periods kept much of the "known" world in upheaval. Yes the 19th and 20th centuries (and all of the 21st century to date) had massive death tolls. Have you compared the relative casualty rates of modern with those ancient conflicts?

I've pointed out elsewhere in these fora that most of people who ever lived are still alive.

This debate over the history of religion and warfare and Islm vs Chrstnty is not going to be productive and is steering us into dangerous ground per the forum rules. We are arguing around the periphery instead of addressing the core issue of the article - which concerns Gov't embracing "end of times" religious faith in its foreign and environmental policy. Wayne, Monte, and Randy, I am interested in your opinion on this or is this something you are unwilling to discuss. If not, then lets drop the thread before we get shut down.

The Civil War certainly had a very strong religious component. Many southerners felt that slavery was sanctioned in the bilble and that they were doing god's work in defending it. Many southern officers were evangelical C's.

The abolitionist movement in the north was church-based, and they saw the destruction of slavery as a holy grail.

Thinking about all this last night, I saw an interesting connection between the mythology of the 'raising of the dead', wherein the true believers regain their physical bodies for 1000 years, and paganistic northern european belief in the physical body's participaton in the after-life. I think this is another case of early C absorbing wholesale (with minor alterations) of pagan ritual and belief, parallel with the xmas/winter solstice festival and easter/spring solstice. This was really the great genius of early _ristianity, to be flexible and compromising. It certainly tossed off that quality once it became all-powerful.

The belief in the raising of the dead and persistence of the physical body (nor any of the festival/rituals) is not a part of escoteric _ristianity.

Pn(et al.) - if you're not familiar w/ its history, you might want to do a bit of research about the 'Rapture'.

An internet search for 'rapture history' & then 'John Darby' is a good start......

Yes Marshall, I agree that the numbers are skewed because of birthrates and people alive. But, it needs to be pointed out that:

a) Here and now, religious conflict is still a problem, but not on the order that WW1 and WW2 were. Those of us who support middle east involvement want to keep it that way by stopping radicals. Which, as of right now, is a small minority of Muslims. I do think we all can coexist, once terrorists are removed, and human rights are agreed upon throughout the Muslim world.

b) End time theology and it's impact on this president is very, very overstated. The fact is, Afghanistan is a fledgling democracy. There is some hope new Palestinian leadership will work for peace, Khadafi is cooperating. And Iraq is going to have a historic election. I believe that he is trying to work for peace. Someone trying to bring on Armegeddon should be pretty depressed right now.

c) If he were trying to bring on Armeggedon, 1 nuke into China or Russia would do it. Why mess around? It could be made to look like we were provoked...

d) The problems that are really formenting, are split between countries influenced by Muslim radicals ( Iran, Syria) and secular communism (North Korea, Russian reentrenchement, the growing sphere of China's hedgemony, and the growing influence of South American socailism). Hopefully, competition in the world marketplace and diplomacy, will help quell these problems.

e) I never expect a totally peaceful world. Quite simply, humans are too selfish and judgemental to get past rivalries for goods, services, land, love, and espousing ultimate "truth". Even among democracies, the economic wars rage - "in this corner the US, and in this corner, the EU..."

The best we can hope for is limited conflicts, and the elimination of hot spots so that the "big bang" doesn't happen.

Heck, we argue here with intensity. YOU WILL AGREE WITH ME OR I'LL....

Anyway, end time theology and those who want to bring it on should be easy to keep in check. But if we are still stupid enough to follow a David Koresh/Hitler into oblivion...

And in this instance, talking broadly about movements (end time theology, communism, democracy, etc.) in the context of whether there is going to be an environment to sustain or not, hopefully isn't over the line.

Just in case, however, this is my last post on this subject... be kind Spike, just warn me, don't hurt me, pleeease...

Randy - I think you're missing the point that this alliance between the legislators & the 'believers' is not necessarily connected w/ any sincere 'endtime' belief on the part of many lawmakers.

An alliance based on mutual exploitation?

Randy, since you profess to cease commenting on this subject, I won't belabor the fallacies in both your facts and interpretation. Suffice to say I disagree.

Now these guys are going after the Newest Evil of our times :

{{!gwi}}

Here is a link that might be useful: Move over Galileo....No safe place to hide....

KT, My main core belief is that there is a sovereign God who does as He sees fit. Perhaps some on this forum don't believe in a G/god, but rather spontaneous combustion or something. Others are somewhere inbetween perhaps...I can't read your mind.

Anyway, I subscribe to the belief that things are truly preordained to play out. "The world is a stage" and the actors enter and depart in their time. Yes, we are not robots, but do imprint our own little ad-libs.

I believe that events will play themselves out, so I just want to do my best in my little part. In other words, Someone is in control as far as I am concerned and what I believe should be our leaders policies.....I don't know. I do believe that righeousness becomes a nation. Many might argue what that entails, but some things are self evident to borrow a phrase.......and somethings are hard to discern.

At least we are all looking at the same stars , the same full moon (tonight) and from there the interpretations of life have created herstory.

Hope we all get through this life time well. I personally would like to see more attention on organic agriculture and seeing the world eat healthier.

Randy, thank you for the correction. I thought and thought on this issue only to realize that I stated that without really knowing, only heard it so many times I believed it.

I did some searches and did discover that it still is not really a clear right or wrong statement. It seems that as a token of ownership after a territory had been overpowered that religion of the new powers to be were put in place as the reminder of the powers in control, as well as all the cultural habits and costumes of new territory take overs in wars, much like flying a flag.

I was raised as a strong Christian, I use to teach bible school, and as a young adult I use to go church hopping to check out other religions. Christmas eve was the best, go to as many churches as I could just to hear the incredible singing...aint no church rock like the spiritually moved ones! I hope not to offend anyone and I appreciate and respect all religions also the constitution of our country-

Who knows what our forefathers might of dreamed this country would become and how religion would develop over time as well.