Thursday, December 6, 2007

NPR Commentator Ken Harbaugh's "Most Soldiers Return from War Just Fine" (NPR, All Things Considered, 12/6/07) misses the point

Email response to a story heard on NPR:

Commentator Ken Harbaugh's "Most Soldiers Return from War Just Fine" (NPR, All Things Considered, 12/6/07) misses the point and comes dangerously close to glorifying war.

As a psychiatrist who spent several years in the VA system treating veterans from every conflict from World War II to the Iraq, I can assure Mr. Harbaugh that the idea of a generation of traumatized veterans is no myth. The fact that none of his friends seem traumatized by war is anecdotal and misleading. Comprehensive studies conducted by the military and the Department of Veterans Affairs have shown that about a third of those exposed to heavy combat suffer from posttraumatic stress disorder. Many are ashamed of their symptoms, so may not confide them even to close friends, and others do not develop the disorder until years after the trauma.

War, particularly in its industrialized, high intensity, mass casualty modern form, is toxic to the human central nervous system. No one claims that 100% of soldiers are permanently traumatized by their experiences. In small doses, with proper support, training, and rotation, combat will not permanently traumatize most of those exposed, but repeated tours in a hostile foreign land with no clear front lines or rear areas is a recipe for a psychiatric public health disaster.

The fact that someone is proud of their service says nothing about whether they were traumatized. In fact, survivor guilt is more often the rule than the exception.

Mr. Harbaugh engages in some well-intentioned stereotyping of his own, when he implies that a veteran suffering from posttraumatic stress disorder could not be employed, out of jail, or grateful for having served.

As a West Point graduate, I am deeply appreciative of many aspects of military service, but let us never forget the words of President Carter that war, although sometimes a necessary evil, is always evil. I agree that caring for the traumatized veteran is a high moral imperative, but not starting unnecessary wars in the first place is an even higher one.

Friday, October 5, 2007

Mr. President, We Can't Afford NOT to Insure Our Children

October 6, 2007: Mr. President, We Can't Afford NOT to Insure Our Children

President Bush vetoed a bipartisan bill expanding healthcare coverage to 10 million children. The president believes denying healthcare to children today is preferable to the possibility of government-run healthcare for everyone tomorrow. His stance betrays two flawed economic assumptions: 1.) that government and corporate bureaucrats are not already heavily involved in running the healthcare system; and 2.) that shifting the government involvement from protecting corporate profits to guaranteeing universal access would lead to economic and medical disaster.

American healthcare is delivered via an uncoordinated patchwork quilt of public and for profit systems. Medicaid covers the very poor. Medicare covers the old and disabled. Managed care companies choose from among the employed healthy who are wealthy enough to pay premiums but not sick enough to require much treatment. The children Mr. Bush feels we cannot afford to insure are among the 47 million Americans who fall into the enormous gaps between government and for-profit systems. CEO William McGuire was paid $124.8 million because his company, United Health Group, could cherry pick from mostly healthy employed Americans. Since healthcare insurance is ultimately a zero sum game, in a very real sense, those $124.8 million represented thousands of denied pap smears, mammograms, cancer treatments, vaccinations, or denied new or renewing patients. Shockingly highly paid CEOs represent an enormous government-created transfer of wealth.

It is no coincidence that drug company lobbyists on Capitol Hill outnumber lawmakers. Big pharma knows the source of its extraordinary profit margins is no invisible hand. Americans pay a third more for the same medications as do Canadians or Europeans even though many of those medications were created with taxpayer-funded research and development because our government guarantees and enforces drug company monopolies for several years after a drug is launched. The premium we pay represents a de facto government subsidy to drug companies, enforced with taxpayer-funded courts and policing agencies and possible because of the absence of a Walmart-like agency with the economic muscle to negotiate lower prices for all of us. (Indeed, the bill creating Medicare drug benefits expressly forbade the government from negotiating lower prices at all!) Intellectual property rights should be protected. But as the President misleads us with talk of "government-run healthcare," let's not forget that we've already got it. I believe the government should protect patients as zealously as it protects patents.

Since the government is heavily involved every stage of health-care delivery in this country, let's stop the posturing and figure out how to make it work for us rather than against us. Those who believe free markets do no wrong and governments nothing right should pack their bags for Zimbabwe.

The brewing battle over healthcare is really not between advocates of free markets versus supporters of government intervention. Instead the fight is about what the role of an already heavily involved government should be. Currently most of the activity of the government is directed toward enhancing the profitability of the managed care and drug companies. Is it so outrageous to demand that our government shift its focus to protecting the taxpayers who support it while advancing universal access to healthcare, at least among our children?

Currently, those without insurance have no advocate. There is simply no agency, private or public, who takes ownership of this growing problem. To continue to insist that the status quo should work in theory despite mounting persistent evidence that it does not work in practice verges on psychotic. If the current mix of public and for profit insurers could deliver healthcare efficiently and rationally, they would have long ago. 47 million Americans, 90% of them working, 50% of them children, would not lack health insurance. Infant mortality, vaccination rates, and life expectancy at birth would not be markedly worse than those of countries with universal health coverage. There would not be the scandalously higher mortality rate among those without insurance. We would not pay so much more - 16.5% of GDP in 2006 - on healthcare but get so much less.

Let's not forget that access to healthcare, unlike access to a luxury car or a larger home, is ultimately a matter of life and death. We can forgo luxury expenditures; we should never forgo healthcare for our children.

President Bush fears something sinister about a government spending as much on children's health as it spends in 9 weeks in Iraq. The president who successfully frightened Americans into believing that Saddam Hussein had to be stripped of weapons that he did not have failed to convince us a fully funded public health system would be an apocalypse. He failed because most American families experience in practice the system he seems to know only in theory. If the President spent a day in a public health clinic, or even in my psychiatry private practice, he would understand the futility of giving tax credits to the poor who pay no taxes. There is something almost comical about a president expecting those denied private insurance to find solace in his promise that the government will not provide it either.

The apocalypse of American healthcare is now, not in the form of a government bureaucrat deciding healthcare but a profit-driven managed care bureaucrat denying it. The exact details of any solution are less important than our commitment to get it done. It is hard to envision any proposal that would not heavily involve the federal government, at least as a referee. Get over it.

My modest proposal: expand Medicare to cover all American citizens. As a private practice psychiatrist who accepts all major private plans as well as Medicare and Medicaid, I generally elicit surprise when I tell people that Medicare is one of the best plans to work with. They were among the first to go electronic, and they pay promptly and well. You would never know it from Bush's misinformation, but Medicare is far more efficient than any private system. The Medicare administrative costs of about 2% are comparable to the administrative burdens of most national health systems. This is in contrast to private plans' administrative costs of 15%-25%, including compensation of top executives, lobbying, marketing and advertising. The fact that Medicare can deliver healthcare to the old and disabled at a fraction of the cost of private plans means that if the risk pool were expanded to the young and the healthy, the economy of scale savings would be enormous, driving down administrative costs even more.

If universal coverage is too much to swallow, why not at least expand it to cover our children? If those under 18 and over 65 were guaranteed healthcare, we could always work on those in the middle later. Families relieved of the burden of finding and maintaining continuous private insurance for their children would experience huge premium savings on their family policies. Those who develop chronic and persistent illnesses before age 18 could seamlessly shift into a Medicare disability policy as adults. Such a change could end overnight our failed for profit managed care experiment.

Bush misrepresents Medicare and other public programs such as the S-CHIP program he vetoed, confusing government-refereed with government-run. The Veterans Administration is a government-run, centrally planned bureaucracy. Medicare and Medicaid, on the other hand, simply pay a benefit, or supplement a private policy; the benefit can be taken to any participating provider. Such a system offers far more choice than a for profit plan which restrict choice to contracted providers (some pay for out-of-network services, but usually at a steeply discounted rate). The President is simply wrong when he says that Medicare restricts freedom; to the contrary, it allows optimum matching of client to provider and introduces market forces and competition to regions currently carved up by HMOs and managed care companies.

When Bush, a heavy recipient of pharmacy and health insurance campaign donations, speaks of the threat of squeezing out private insurers I wonder if he would have opposed the development of the light bulb because of its impact on the candle industry, or fought the polio vaccine because of its economic threat to iron lung manufacturers. A healthcare system exists not to protect one favored group of workers but to serve patients. Determining the optimum mix of private or public systems should be driven by what works, not who works.

No doubt, we could help many of the for-profit bureaucrats and claims processors get jobs in an expanded Medicare program. Some might even become healthcare providers in the countless clinics that would spring up as millions of previously uninsured or under-insured Americans took their new benefit to the physician of their choice. Consumers and providers will vote with their feet, responding to market incentives and differences in quality of care. Providers will have a strong incentive to provide excellent care and customer service since their patients will no longer be constrained by insurance to see only a limited number of physicians. Hospitals and clinics could downsize their billing departments, reducing overhead and ultimately fees. Emergency rooms, currently the only place where the uninsured cannot be denied care, could focus on those truly in crisis.

Corporations should embrace universal healthcare. Aggregate profits should soar as the liability for current and future healthcare is shifted from individual corporations and shared fairly by all of society. As earnings rise, so too should stock prices, fueling a tremendous bull market. General Motors could focus on making cars instead of providing healthcare, and would no longer be at such a competitive international disadvantage. Many lawsuits motivated by the uninsured desperate to get someone to pay their medical bills would disappear, reducing litigation and insurance costs. Millions of Americans stuck in dead-end jobs could leave if insurance were de-linked from employment. They could start businesses or return to school. Our entire society would benefit from the new outburst of labor mobility as millions of Americans moved into optimally-matched positions. Millions of Americans dependent upon Medicaid or Medicare disability could re-enter the workforce confident they would not lose their healthcare as a punishment for appearing too functional.

If we can afford to spend a trillion on the invasion and occupation of Iraq without suffering a collapse of our society, then we can certainly afford another $30 billion to insure 10 million more children. After the initial transitional costs, the savings will be enormous. Delaying what is probably inevitable only compounds the ultimate total cost. Not paying upfront for the universal healthcare of all Americans is about as economically wise as making a minimum payment on a large credit card bill; short-term cash flow is improved but long-term liabilities snowball.

Since universal health-care coverage is a tough sell in, let's at least agree to cover our most vulnerable citizens. No child should ever go without health insurance, at least not in a wealthy country such as ours. President Bush believes we cannot afford to insure poor children; I believe we cannot afford not to. Indeed, how we treat the least among us is the ultimate measure of the strength of our country. As the bumper sticker says, freedom isn't free, but either is healthcare. Let's stop the ideological posturing and misinformation campaigns and get to work.

Thursday, September 6, 2007

On Conspiracy Theories

I agree that certain individuals today and throughout history have had a disproportionate impact on how decisions are made, resources allocated, rules favoring one group or another are tweaked or modified or overturned. Many are unelected and many work behind the scenes. The Federal Reserve Board is a good example.

However, I also believe that there are constraints in the equation even among the most powerful. Louis XVI was an absolute dictator but was murdered by his own people. Napoleon rose to power and declared himself emperor and established an empire that continues to influence us today (the legal code of Louisiana, for example). Mao murdered millions and had a centrally planned economy but the heirs of his system find even they have had to make some modifications after 1989 that the early leaders would have never dreamed of. They didn't do this because they wanted to but because they had to. The people demanded it and even an absolute monarch must at some level heed the will of the people.

My view is that this tug of war between the few and the many, between the rich and the poor, the owners of capital and the workers has been playing out since the most primitive cultures developed surplus income, and with it, the ability to accumulate wealth. The history of ancient Greece, Rome, and the more recent conflicts in Europe over the past 200 years between the liberals (advocates of representative parliamentary democracy) and conservatives (monarchists of one form or another) seems a messy, noisy struggle over how best to organize a society. I believe several different formulae work. For now the liberals have won in the West, but the Chinese hybrid model or a Singapore model may be demonstrating it is at least a viable alternative.

Rupert Murdoch may buy papers, but ordinary people have to read them. The oligarchs may declare their currency must be at a certain level by fiat, but clearly traders around the world may have different opinions. We may want to cut interest rates to goose the economy, but there are real world consequences in terms of the dollar, inflation, etc. The small group of people you feel is in charge of the world may desire to punish Iran, but Russia clearly is not interested in going along with this plan. They may want to punish China, but China helps buy a billion dollars of our debt every day. They may want to be greeted as liberators and plant Jeffersonian democracy in Iraq, but the Iraqi people clearly have other ideas about the matter (and they are prevailing despite all the power and high technology and concentration of power we enjoy).

If the oligarchs completely ruled everything, the world would look much more like Europe in the 1200s than the West today. We would not have Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, the 5-day week or the 8-hour workday, OSHA, the FDA if the owners of capital, who gain nothing directly from these programs and would gain quite a bit from their elimination, if the wealthy few were entirely in charge. True, they got their tax cut, a massive transfer of societal wealth away from the poor to the richest 1% and their war, which was fought disproportionately by the poor, and they managed to convince Americans that the estate tax (the "death tax" as they called it) was a populist issue. But they could not manipulate the 2006 thumping and have little power over the 2008 one to come.

Conspiracy theories implicitly assume that there is one set of levers to control the engine of state and that whoever has their hands on the levers is a unified group with a uniform agenda. History strikes me as much more messy than that. As Kurt Vonnegut said, we are all just farting around down here and anyone who tells you differently is lying.

Our current system, the product of liberal democratic movements mostly in Western and Northern Europe, is at once fragile and strong. The fact that the many have a voice means that voice can be manipulated, and the current occupants of the White House demonstrate that manipulation can be executed with breathtakingly bold effectiveness. But even viewers of Fox News eventually get wind of an external reality, a relative in New Orleans or a friend in Iraq or a surprise jump in their family health insurance deductible, and they usually get it. A little slow on the uptake, but they do get it. That is the strength of our system, that despite all the lobbyists and the secret energy meetings and the sidestepping of laws and oversights, in the end, ours is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Governments, particularly popularly elected ones, do a lot of stupid things that most certainly do not always represent most of the people, but on balance they usually end up getting it right.

If 200 years ago, I had said that one day slaves would be free, blacks could vote, women could testify in court and even vote themselves, that Senators would be directly elected and even 18 year-olds could vote, anyone alive would have called me a fool and a visionary. If I had said there would be an income and an inheritance tax and a social security safety net for the old, poor, and disabled, most reasonable people would have said never.

But of course all those things happened and I think we can continue to surprise ourselves with what we can do under an Obama-Clinton administration. Just a thought.

Monday, August 27, 2007

Even a Small Boost in the African American Voter Turnout Would Drive Republicans From Office

8/28/07

To: NPR, All Things Considered

Re: "Would a Run by Obama Boost Black Voter Turnout?" All Things Considered, August 23, 2007

Last week, you aired a piece during which a political analyst disagreed with Senator Obama's comments that if African Americans turned out in higher numbers, that Mississippi, Georgia, and South Carolina would be Democratic states.

If one uses the 2004 exit poll data supplied by CNN, however, it's quite clear that because African American voters show such a strong Democratic preference (by an 8:1 margin), even a small increase in African American turnout would carry the day for Democrats.

Let's assume that in the 2008 election the racial preferences mirror those of 2004, a conservative assumption since 2004 was pre-Katrina and the war in Iraq had not yet melted down into the debacle it has now become. Many whites (who voted for Bush by a 58:41 margin) are no doubt disillusioned with Republicans, and Katrina solidified the notion, fair or not, that Republicans do not represent African American interests as well as Democrats.

The question then becomes: what proportion of the voters would have to be African American for the Democrats to carry the day? As it turns out, only 20% of votes cast and counted must be African American (80% white) for the Democrats to squeak by with 50.4% of the vote. [For simplicity's sake, I am ignoring other racial groups since the piece mainly focused on black-white politics, but the mathematical principles would remain the same.] If 30% of the voters are African American, then the Democrats would win 55.1% of the vote. If the 40% of Mississippians who are African American vote, even if every white citizen voted, the Democrats would win 59.8% of the vote.

Sadly, African American turnout has historically been much lower and the probability of an African American vote being correctly counted is much lower than for a white American, but if every American voted and every vote counted, it would be very hard for a single Republican to hold onto office, particularly in the South. [This makes it clear why every single "voter fraud" case the Justice Department pursued was always in the direction of decreasing the probability net-net of an African American vote being counted. The Republicans, whose Presidential candidate lost the popular vote in 2000 and barely squeaked into office in 2004, are scared to death of effective universal suffrage.]

Your intro to the piece implied the South had been Republican for decades. Not true. When I moved to Georgia in 1996, it was solidly Democrat. The Republican makeover of the South was a recent phenomenon, and like the Republican-dominated era during Reconstruction, it can be reversed.

- Mark Vakkur, Atlanta

From CNN:

VOTE BY RACE
BUSH
KERRY NADER
TOTAL
2004
2000
2004
2004
White (77%)
58%
+4
41% 0%
African-American (11%)
11%
+2
88% 0%
Latino (8%)
44%
+9
53% 2%
Asian (2%)
44%
+3
56% *
Other (2%)
40%
+1
54% 2%

History and Current Events Home Page

For a more complete compilation of clipped articles, musings, and assorted facts gathered over the year on a range of topics from military history to communism to civil rights to religion, visit http://www.vakkur.com/hx/history.htm.

God's Press Conference: "Don't Kill Each Other Anymore - Ever!"

It's a real sign of the times when the fake news is the most reliable or at least the most direct. In the dark days after 9-11, this was one of the most eloquent pieces I read as a direct rebuttal to the fundamentalist religious impulses that seemed to be behind the attacks. This press conference did something that few commentators in the West have done, challenging us all to see that murderous self-righteousness maybe many things, but it is inconsistent with the teachings of most if not all world religions, certainly all of the Mediterranean monotheisms.

from www.theonion.com 9/24/01

NEW YORK—Responding to recent events on Earth, God, the omniscient creator-deity worshipped by billions of followers of various faiths for more than 6,000 years, angrily clarified His longtime stance against humans killing each other Monday.

"Look, I don't know, maybe I haven't made myself completely clear, so for the record, here it is again," said the Lord, His divine face betraying visible emotion during a press conference near the site of the fallen Twin Towers. "Somehow, people keep coming up with the idea that I want them to kill their neighbor. Well, I don't. And to be honest, I'm really getting sick and tired of it. Get it straight. Not only do I not want anybody to kill anyone, but I specifically commanded you not to, in really simple terms that anybody ought to be able to understand."

Worshipped by Christians, Jews, and Muslims alike, God said His name has been invoked countless times over the centuries as a reason to kill in what He called "an unending cycle of violence."

"I don't care how holy somebody claims to be," God said. "If a person tells you it's My will that they kill someone, they're wrong. Got it? I don't care what religion you are, or who you think your enemy is, here it is one more time: No killing, in My name or anyone else's, ever again."

The press conference came as a surprise to humankind, as God rarely intervenes in earthly affairs. As a matter of longstanding policy, He has traditionally left the task of interpreting His message and divine will to clerics, rabbis, priests, imams, and Biblical scholars. Theologians and laymen alike have been given the task of pondering His ineffable mysteries, deciding for themselves what to do as a matter of faith. His decision to manifest on the material plane was motivated by the deep sense of shock, outrage, and sorrow He felt over the Sept. 11 violence carried out in His name, and over its dire potential ramifications around the globe.

"I tried to put it in the simplest possible terms for you people, so you'd get it straight, because I thought it was pretty important," said God, called Yahweh and Allah respectively in the Judaic and Muslim traditions. "I guess I figured I'd left no real room for confusion after putting it in a four-word sentence with one-syllable words, on the tablets I gave to Moses. How much more clear can I get?"

"But somehow, it all gets twisted around and, next thing you know, somebody's spouting off some nonsense about, 'God says I have to kill this guy, God wants me to kill that guy, it's God's will,'" God continued. "It's not God's will, all right? News flash: 'God's will' equals 'Don't murder people.'"

Worse yet, many of the worst violators claim that their actions are justified by passages in the Bible, Torah, and Qur'an.

"To be honest, there's some contradictory stuff in there, okay?" God said. "So I can see how it could be pretty misleading. I admit it—My bad. I did My best to inspire them, but a lot of imperfect human agents have misinterpreted My message over the millennia. Frankly, much of the material that got in there is dogmatic, doctrinal bulls…. I turn My head for a second and, suddenly, all this stuff about homosexuality gets into Leviticus, and everybody thinks it's God's will to kill gays. It absolutely drives Me up the wall."

God praised the overwhelming majority of His Muslim followers as "wonderful, pious people," calling the perpetrators of the Sept. 11 attacks rare exceptions.

"This whole medieval concept of the jihad, or holy war, had all but vanished from the Muslim world in, like, the 10th century, and with good reason," God said. "There's no such thing as a holy war, only unholy ones. The vast majority of Muslims in this world reject the murderous actions of these radical extremists, just like the vast majority of Christians in America are pissed off over those two bigots on The 700 Club."

Continued God, "Read the book: 'Allah is kind, Allah is beautiful, Allah is merciful.' It goes on and on that way, page after page. But, no, some [jerks] have to come along and revive this stupid holy-war [stuff] just to further their own hateful agenda. So now, everybody thinks Muslims are all murderous barbarians. Thanks, Taliban: 1,000 years of pan-Islamic cultural progress down the drain."

God stressed that His remarks were not directed exclusively at Islamic extremists, but rather at anyone whose ideological zealotry overrides his or her ability to comprehend the core message of all world religions.

"I don't care what faith you are, everybody's been making this same mistake since the dawn of time," God said. "The Muslims massacre the Hindus, the Hindus massacre the Muslims. The Buddhists, everybody massacres the Buddhists. The Jews, don't even get me started on the hardline, right-wing, Meir Kahane-loving Israeli nationalists, man. And the Christians? You people believe in a Messiah who says, 'Turn the other cheek,' but you've been killing everybody you can get your hands on since the Crusades."

Growing increasingly wrathful, God continued: "Can't you people see? What are you, morons? There are a ton of different religious traditions out there, and different cultures worship Me in different ways. But the basic message is always the same: Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Shintoism... every religious belief system under the sun, they all say you're supposed to love your neighbors, folks! It's not that hard a concept to grasp."

"Why would you think I'd want anything else? Humans don't need religion or God as an excuse to kill each other—you've been doing that without any help from Me since you were … apes!" God said. "The whole point of believing in God is to have a higher standard of behavior. How obvious can you get?"

"I'm talking to all of you, here!" continued God, His voice rising to a shout. "Do you hear Me? I don't want you to kill anybody. I'm against it, across the board. How many times do I have to say it? Don't kill each other anymore—ever!

Upon completing His outburst, God fell silent, standing quietly at the podium for several moments. Then, witnesses reported, God's shoulders began to shake, and He wept.

A World Lit Only By Fire, William Manchester

To Jerry Falwell and all those who believe in a "veil of protection" being removed by God:

Consider this quote from William Manchester (A World Lit Only By Fire):

"Once he became Pope Alexander VI, Vatican partices, already wild, grew wilder. They were costly, but he could afford the lifestyle of a Renaissance prince; as vice chancellor of the Roman Church, he had amassed enormous wealth. As guests approached the papal palace, they were excited by the spectacle of living statues: naked, guilded young men and women in erotic poses… One [fete] known to Romans as the Ballet of the Chestnuts, was held on October 30, 1501… [According to Burchard's Diarium] After the banquet dishes had been cleared away, the city's fity most beautiful whores danced with guests, "first clothed, then naked." The dancing over, the "ballet" began, with the pope and two of his children in the best seats. Candelabra were set up on the floor; scattered among them were chestnuts, "which," Burchard writes, "the courtesans had to pick up, crawling between the candles." Then the serious sex started. Guests stripped and ran out on the floor, where they mounted, or were mounted by, the prostitutes. "The coupling took place," according to Burchard, "in front of everyone present." Servants kept score of each man's orgasms, for the pope greatly admired virility and measured a man's machismo by his ejaculative capacity. After everyone was exhausted, His Holiness distributed prizes - cloaks, boots, caps, and fine silken tunics. The winners, the diarist wrote, were those "who made love with those courtesans the greatest number of times." [p. 79]

This sort of activity, unthinkable today, is part of the church's legacy. The point is not that papal leaders were any more depraved than the rest of society - they probably weren't, although they were certainly more wealthy and powerful.

It is also important to remember that the church forbade the teachings of Galileo (and in his time all the teaching of Copernicus) until 1822! In other words, the church was wrong - patently and openly and demonstrably wrong - in its belief in a geocentric universe and took about 300 years to admit its error. It was also wrong about the age of the earth, the time it took to create it, and a number of other technical issues, but my point is that if they were wrong about these issues (as they later admitted), could it be possible that they are wrong about birth control, family planning, and abortion? We have a precedent for the church taking a stand - a very harsh stand punishable by death at the stake - then later admitting (unfortunately far too late for its victims) that it was wrong.

Religious leaders throughout history have modified what they considered to be unforgivable sins. Why should now be any different? Sir Thomas More, whom catholics view as such a paragon of virtue (standing up to King Henry VIII did take courage), thought that reading the Bible in English was a damnable offense. He would have had William Tyndale burned to death for heresy for translating the Bible to English. If he were alive today, he would think any modern catholic should be condemned to hell for reading the Bible in English. You would have argued with him about this the way you argue with me about abortion and no doubt, he would have been as unyielding.

Consider this quotation from historian William Manchester (A World Lit Only By Fire):

"In argument [More] was bitter, vituperative, given to streams of invective. And although as a writer he celebrated religious tolerance in his Utopia, in practice he was a rigid Catholic, capable of having a servant in his own home flogged for blasphemy. He believed that heretics, atheists, and disbelievers in a heareafter should be executed, and as chancellor he approved such sentences."

Adultery in medieval times was also a capital offense, but of course only if women were found guilty.

Cesare Borgia as pope probably had an incestuous affair with his 17-year-old daughter, as he later acknowledged when he legitimized her child via a secret bull. (Earlier, to the sound of open laughter, the canonical judges declared her intacta - a virgin - although she was clearly 6 months pregnant at the time.) He may have arranged the murder of his brother, Juan.

In the name of Christ, millions (adjusted for today's population levels) perished in the petty religious wars that raged through Europe. The Roman Inquisition was particularly cruel:

"The Roman Inquisition, reinstituted in 1542 as a pontifical response to the Reformation, became an even crueler reign of terror [than the Spanish Inquisition]. All deviation from the Catholic faith was rigorously suppressed by its governing commission of six cardinals, with intellectuals marked for close scrutiny. As a consequence, the advocates of reform, who had proposed the only measures which might have healed the split in Christendom, fell under the dark shadows of the hereticators' suspicion. No Catholic was too powerful to elude their judgment… Pietro Carnesecchi, who had been the pope's secretary was cremated in a Roman auto-da-fe. [burned alive] … Possession of Protestant literature was a felony; advocacy of heretical ideas was a capital offense; and informers were encouraged by assigning them, after convictions, one-third of the condemneds' goods. Trials were conducted by a special commission, whose court came to be known as … the burning room. In less than three years, the commission sentenced sixty Frenchmen to the stake. Anne du Bourg … suggested that executions be postponed until the Council of Trent defined Catholic orthodoxy. [French King ] Henry [II] had him arrested… He meant to see him burn, too, but … the King was killed in a tournament. [pp. 201-2]

And of course the Spanish Inquisition was also savage:

"Torquemada's methods reveal much about one of the age's most unpleasant characteristics: man's inhumanity to man. Sharp iron frames prevented victims from sleepig, lying, or even sitting. Braziers scorched the soles of their feet, facks stretched their limbs, suspects were crushed to death beneath chests filled with stones, and in Germany the very mention of die verfüchte Jungfer - the dreaed old iron maid - inspired terror. The Jungfer embraced the condemned with metal arms, crushed him in a spiked hug, and then opened, letting him fall, a mass of gore, bleeding from a hundred stab wounds, all bones broken, to die slowly in an underground hold of revolving knives and sharp spears…

Jewry was luckier - slightly luckier… If the pogroms of the time are less infamous than the Holocaust, it is only because anti-Semites then lacked twentieth-century technology. Certainly they possessed the evil will. In 1492, … Spain's Jews were given three months to accept Christian baptism or be banished from the country. Even those who had been baptized were distrusted; Isabella had fixed her dark eye on converted Jews suspected of recidivism - Marranos, she called them; "pigs" - and marked them for resettlement as early as 1478. Eventually between thirty thousand and sixty thousand were expelled. Meantime the king of Portugal, finding merit in the Spanish decree, ordered the expulsion of all Portuguese Jews. His soldiers were instructed to massacre those who were slow to leave. During a single night in 1506 nearly four thousand Lisbon Jews were put to the sword. Three years later the systematic persecution of the German Jews began." [ p. 35]

You should probably multiply these figures by several thousand to make them proportional to the population of the time.

Yet God did not condemn European society to poverty and misery; far from it - He (if one uses such a puppet master model) raised Europe and its progeny, the United States in particular, to levels of unprecedented wealth, not just in materialistic things, but in intellectual achievement, technological prowess, and scientific discovery. If anyone deserved punishment for their collective sins, it was surely medieval Europe, but if that punishment is waiting, God sure its taking his time.

This is not to say that civilizations won't fall and decline. I just don't think it has anything to do with the intervention or lack thereof of some heavenly hand.

God killed far more infants from disease through the beginning of this century than man ever did through abortion. Who knows how many died throughout Europe because of the church's misappropriation of capital and continued opposition to the scientific method.

My own belief, for all its worth (and in my belief system what you or I think or believe is not that important), God speaks to us, if at all, through the language of mathematics, science, and economy. There are certain rules for us to follow, and if we follow them, we prosper. If we don't, we starve and live short, miserable lives. The fact that we have a longer life expectancy by far that at any point in human history, that we have a higher quality of life than ever before, that we have freed ourselves from the astonishingly high infant mortality and maternal mortality of the pre-scientific, church-governed age, is prima facie evidence that we are doing something right, and, if one is to endorse the belief that God rewards societies that are following his laws or whatever, that we must be pleasing him or her.

At any rate, the number of abortions has been going down in the United States; why were we not hit with a terrorist attack in 1980, when the 1,297,606 abortions worked out to a rate of 359 per 1,000 live births, than more recently, when the rate dropped to 314 per 1,000 live births (1,221,585 total in 1996) if this attack has anything to do with abortion?

If you view abortion as death, it is one of only many causes of death. The fact that our population is growing, and has surged even since mid-century, means that our birth and survival rate must exceed all causes of death combined.

Report Finds No Evidence that Abstinence-Only Counseling

Report Finds No Evidence that Abstinence-Only Counseling
Prevents Teen Sex, Pregnancy, Disease

Panel Votes on Sexual Abstinence
Thursday, April 25, 2002

Associated Press (04.25.02)


A House of Representatives committee has voted to renew a sexual abstinence program after turning back a Democratic attempt to let states decide whether to include discussion of birth control methods. The debate contrasted to five years ago, when Congress included the program in welfare legislation with virtually no public discussion. Majority Republicans defended the abstinence-only program, and the House Commerce Committee voted 35-17 to extend it for five years. Nothing requires states to take the restricted dollars, said committee chair Billy Tauzin, (R-La.).

Democrats spoke in favor of abstinence-plus programs, which already are used in many schools across the country. Such
programs emphasize that abstaining from sex is a person's best choice and the only sure way to prevent pregnancy and disease, but they urge those who have sex anyway to use condoms or other protections. The federal law bars discussion of the benefits of birth control and instructs programs to teach that any sex outside marriage has harmful consequences. "A gag rule on information is no way to solve a serious health problem," said Rep. Henry Waxman, a Democrat from California, the only state that has opted out of the program.

In the last five years, abstinence-only programs have proliferated, drawing on $50 million in annual federal dollars and nearly that much in state money. Congress also has created an additional abstinence-only program that offers direct federal
grants. This program was created after critics complained that states were failing to truly encourage abstinence by using the
money for generic after-school programs and media campaigns. An analysis of the larger, state-run program has yet to
publish results indicating whether these programs are successful in preventing teen sex, pregnancy or disease. An interim report, released Tuesday by the Bush administration, confirmed there is still no evidence that abstinence-only programs work.

Report Finds No Evidence that Abstinence-Only Counseling
Prevents Teen Sex, Pregnancy, Disease

Associated Press (04.24.02)::Laura Meckler


There is still no evidence that abstinence-only programs prevent teen sex, pregnancy or disease, the government reported, as Congress debates whether to renew an abstinence-only initiative. These programs have multiplied in the five years since Congress directed almost half a billion dollars to the effort, but an evaluation aimed at determining whether they work will have no definitive results for years, said an interim report released Tuesday.

The report found the programs offer teens a variety of activities, although they have trouble getting parents and local
schools involved. It also found that, despite claims by advocates, no reliable evidence exists on whether the programs
work. "Most studies of abstinence education programs have methodological flaws that prevent them from generating reliable estimates of program impacts," the report said.

The abstinence-only initiative, created in the 1996 welfare overhaul, has caused heated debate because it bars any discussion of condoms or birth control other than to explain their limitations. Congress is deliberating whether to renew the program for five more years, as President Bush wants, or to allow the money to be spent on a broader range of activities. Several Democrats said at a House hearing yesterday they were disturbed by the program, but most Republicans defended it. Following the subcommittee's debate, the full House Commerce Committee is scheduled to vote today on renewing the program.

The interim report, written by independent researchers [Mathematica Policy Research, under contract to the Department of Health and Human Services] also found:

*In 1999, about half of high school students, and nearly two-thirds of graduating seniors, reported having had sex. This represents a small decline from previous years, but there is a lack of evidence that abstinence-only programs are responsible.

*Programs incorporated many messages other than abstinence, such as building self-esteem, aspiring to healthy marriages, decision-making skills, withstanding peer pressure, and developing goals.

*Many programs try to bridge the gap in parent-child communications by engaging parents in programs or getting teens
to feel more comfortable talking to their parent about sex, but there has been little success.

*"Despite widespread parent enthusiasm for programs, getting more than a small fraction actively involved has proven to be a major challenge for virtually all programs," the report said.


*Establishing partnerships with schools is difficult, both because of competing priorities and debate over sex education
policies.

- source: CDC HIV/STD/TB Prevention News Update

The End-Times Doctrine: An Internet Example

The End-Times Doctrine: An Internet Example

I am not making this up. There is a huge not-so-underground movement in this country that believes that the "last days" are approaching. They base their apocalyptic view of the end of the Earth, the destruction of everyone, the return of Jesus Christ, and the separation of the good (presumably including, in their humble opinion, the authors of this stuff) from the bad (anybody who did anything awful, like not believe this stuff, or having the misfortune to practice or believe in the "wrong" religion) on a dream recorded by Paul.

There is a best-selling series based on this premise (the Left Behind series) and another (sections of the Bible, based on some Christians' interpretations).

There are even Workshops to help get you through the "Tribulation" and "Rapture." Here is a clipping from one I perused on the Internet:

Since there are two events that take place when Christ returns (believers will be rewarded, and the unsaved will be punished), some doctrines believe that these events happen at two different times.

Got that? Goodies rewarded, baddies (the unsaved) punished. Somewhat reminiscent of a snatch of dialogue from the movie, The Others.

This is where most of the disputes come in. Some believe that God would not allow his followers to go through the time of great tribulation, and that Christ will make an invisible return to collect the believers before the tribulation starts. After the tribulation period, Christ will return visibly to judge the rest of the world. This is called the "Pre-Trib" theory, meaning that the rapture will occur before the tribulation period. This is the most widely supported position, although it's not as popular as it used to be.

I love this guy's use of data and facts to support his generalizations. "most of", "not as popular" "used to be." Of course, he overlooks another belief: the vast majority of the human race that either has not heard of or does not endorse this rather narrow interpretation of one of several major religious sacred texts.

Others think that believers will go through a portion of the tribulation period, but not all of it. Various reasoning is used, and various timing is the result. Although it varies somewhat, this version basically says that Christ will remove the believers from the earth at about the middle of the 7 year period of judgement, just as things are really getting bad. This is usually referred to as the "Mid-Trib" theory.

The "Pre-Wrath" theory is very similar to the mid-trib, except the timing is a bit different. It can actually mean a variety of things, depending on how you define "wrath". Most backers of this theory say that the believers will not be removed from the earth until shortly before the unsaved are destroyed at Armageddon, but the term can be applied to several points of time, most of which are during the last 3-1/2 years.

The "unsaved" (presumably, those who are not Christians, or perhaps the exact flavor of Christian this author believes you should be) are "destroyed at Armageddon." Nice. This sounds more like a projection of human dichotomous and sado-masochistic thinking than a deity one would worship, much less admire.

Question: if God is all-powerful, and he is also prescient, according to this model, God creates people by definition knowing he will destroy them. Put another way, he will create them, knowing they are destined not to be "saved." Since most of the world is non-Christian, a literal interpretation of this passage would paint a bleak and dreary picture. Such a "chosen tribe" mentality could allow you to rationalize away the suffering of most of the human race, since they are "unsaved" and only destined for destruction at "Armageddon" anyway, right?

The "Post-Trib" position says that when Christ returns, He will not gather the believers until the very end of the time of tribulation. Although Christians will go through this entire time period, they will receive divine protection from the Lord.

Now I'm not only depressed but confused. Well, which is it? Or this is all some metaphor taken far too seriously, whose original meaning, like much of the Bible, has been lost across translations, cultures, and time, pulled out of context and contorted like a Rorschach to support the prejudices and biases of the "believer"?

Here is the entire clipping:

The Last Days Workshop

(clipped from http://tldw.truepath.com/basics.html)

Introduction

If you're new to the study of Bible prophecy, all of this talk about a "rapture", the "return of Jesus Christ" and a "great tribulation" might be very confusing. In this section I'll try to explain some of the most basic issues, and show you what some of the terms mean. Each of them will be discussed in detail in other portions of this web site, along with the scriptures where these events are discussed. The following will just be "thumb-nail sketches" to give you a basic knowledge of the various issues and terms.

It may be hard for you to understand why there can be so many different opinions about what the future holds. After all, if the Bible is perfect, doesn't it tell us what will happen?

The answer is yes, it does tell us what will happen - but only partially. It gives us very small glimpses of some of the events that will take place, and lets [sic] us try to figure out the rest. It's kind of like having a few pieces of a jig-saw puzzle, and trying to put them in their proper locations - without having the rest of the pieces.

The reasons why God set things up this way are even more complicated than prophecy itself, and we won't get into them here. For now, let's just look at some of the key elements of prophecy, and try to get an understanding of what they mean.

The Return of Jesus Christ

This is the starting point for any study about prophecy. It's the most important part, and everything else revolves around this truth. Fortunately, there are so many scriptures that tell of His return that there isn't any doubt that it will happen.

When Christ returns, He will set up His kingdom on earth. All believers who have died will be raised from the dead, and - along with the living believers - will be given immortal bodies. Our sinful nature will be replaced with a spiritual nature of obedience and service to God. We will live with Christ throughout all eternity.

There are several other things that are associated with the return of Christ. These would include a time of great tribulation, the rapture of the saints, the final battle at Armageddon, and a millennium of peace. Setting these events in their proper order is really what all the debate is about. Of course, if you are excited about the return of Jesus and you like puzzles, it's a fascinating subject to study!

The Great Tribulation

In many of the scriptures dealing with prophecy, a time of judgement is mentioned. This is not an eternal judgement, but a short-term punishment of all nations of the earth because of our disobedience to God.

Most doctrines believe this punishment to last approximately 7 years, with the last 3-1/2 years being the most severe. As a result, some call the entire period "The Great Tribulation", while others save that title for the latter half.

It is during the tribulation period that the Anti-Christ will be a prominent figure on the world scene. He will be a greatly admired world leader, who turns out to be a fraud. In truth, he is the physical embodiment of Satan himself. He will have support from a false prophet, who is also possessed by Satan. Together, they will show signs and miracles that will deceive the nations of the world.

The Rapture

The "rapture" is actually a part of the coming of Christ, but is directly related to believers instead of the world in general. The term 'rapture' basically means "to snatch away", or to be "transported". Although the word 'rapture' is not found in the Bible, it's a term that is used to speak of the gathering of the saints to meet the Lord in the air. The Bible doesn't really give this event a name, but it definitely teaches about it. (You can call it whatever you want, but most people call it the rapture).

Since there are two events that take place when Christ returns (believers will be rewarded, and the unsaved will be punished), some doctrines believe that these events happen at two different times.

This is where most of the disputes come in. Some believe that God would not allow his followers to go through the time of great tribulation, and that Christ will make an invisible return to collect the believers before the tribulation starts. After the tribulation period, Christ will return visibly to judge the rest of the world. This is called the "Pre-Trib" theory, meaning that the rapture will occur before the tribulation period. This is the most widely supported position, although it's not as popular as it used to be.

Others think that believers will go through a portion of the tribulation period, but not all of it. Various reasoning is used, and various timing is the result. Although it varies somewhat, this version basically says that Christ will remove the believers from the earth at about the middle of the 7 year period of judgement, just as things are really getting bad. This is usually referred to as the "Mid-Trib" theory.

The "Pre-Wrath" theory is very similar to the mid-trib, except the timing is a bit different. It can actually mean a variety of things, depending on how you define "wrath". Most backers of this theory say that the believers will not be removed from the earth until shortly before the unsaved are destroyed at Armageddon, but the term can be applied to several points of time, most of which are during the last 3-1/2 years.

The "Post-Trib" position says that when Christ returns, He will not gather the believers until the very end of the time of tribulation. Although Christians will go through this entire time period, they will receive divine protection from the Lord.

Virtually all fundamentalist Christians who take the Bible literally fall under one of these four catagories (pre-trib, mid-trib, pre-wrath and post-trib). In other portions of this web site, you will learn about another possibility that I call the "Post-Armageddon" theory. Although this position would fall under the catagory of post-trib, most post-trib supporters believe that we will be raptured immediately before Armageddon. I believe the Bible tells us that the saved of this world will not be raptured until AFTER the unsaved are destroyed at Armageddon. I hope you will consider this possibility as you continue your study of Bible prophecy. - Larry

Falwell

Jerry Falwell calls Islam's prophet a `terrorist' in television interview

Richard N. Ostling

AP Religion Writer

October 03, 2002 — 2:37 p.m.

NEW YORK (AP) - The Rev. Jerry Falwell says "I think Muhammad was a terrorist" in an interview to be broadcast Sunday on the CBS television program "60 Minutes."

The conservative Baptist minister tells correspondent Bob Simon he has concluded from reading Muslim and non-Muslim writers that Islam's prophet "was a—a violent man, a man of war."

"Jesus set the example for love, as did Moses," Falwell says. "I think Muhammad set an opposite example."

CBS released a partial transcript of the interview Thursday. Falwell's comments occur in a segment about American conservative Christians' political support for Israel.

Falwell stood by his opinion in a telephone interview with The Associated Press. He said Simon asked directly whether Falwell considered Muhammad a terrorist and he tried to reply honestly. The minister said he would never state his opinion in a sermon or book.

"I've said often and many places that most Muslims are people of peace and want peace and tranquility for their families and abhor terrorism," Falwell said. "Islam, like most faiths, has a fringe of radicals who carry on bloodshed wherever they are. They do not represent Islam."

Other conservative Protestant clergy have made sharply critical remarks about Islam and Muhammad in the past year. They include Franklin Graham, Billy Graham's son and successor, TV evangelist Pat Robertson and leaders in the Southern Baptist Convention.

In response to Falwell's remarks, Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relation in Washington, said: "Anybody is free to be a bigot if they want to. What really concerns us is the lack of reaction by mainstream religious and political leaders, who say nothing when these bigots voice these attacks."

Hooper noted that Falwell and Robertson will speak at next week's Christian Coalition convention in Washington alongside a Republican Congressman Tom DeLay and other politicians.

"How can these elected representatives legitimize this kind of hate speech by appearing on the same platform with Islamophobes and Muslim-bashers?" Hooper asked.

Falwell was widely criticized last year after he said on Robertson's TV show that pagans, abortionists, feminists, homosexuals and civil liberties groups had secularized the nation and helped the Sept. 11 attacks happen. Falwell later apologized.

Galileo - As Relevant Today As Ever

Galileo

History doesn't repeat; it rhymes.

Galileo was born in 1564, the same year as Shakespeare. Like Descartres, Voltaire, and Diderot, Galileo received a Jesuit education.

Until Galileo, astrology was linked inseparably from astronomy which was widely believed (by Copernicu and Kepler, among others).

In 1609, Galileo discovered the telescope. This simple tool allowed him to observe things that were contrary to the entrenched belief system of his time and would lead him to a meeting with the Inquisition.

By discovering and observing the moons of Jupiters, he was able to prove that the Earth revolved around the sun and not vice versa.

Much more radically and fundamentally, however, Galileo made the leap from scanning sacred texts for truth to scanning the world around us as it is, not as we wish it to be, measuring, forming a tentative explanatory model, then continuing to test and modify. In other words, he invented the scientific model. He believed that Truth was measurable and objective, that God wasn't tricking us when he gave us senses and the ability to infer governing laws from our observations. "The Book of Nature is written in mathematical characters," he once famously said.

In 1616, the Catholic Church declared Copernican theory, the radical notion of a heliocentric universe, "false and erroneous", losing serious credibility thereafter.

What is not as well known about Galileo is that he reinvented himself in old age. When the Church forbade him from teaching Copernican theory and placed him under house arrest, he obeyed. Although losing his vision and suffering from arthritis, he launched into an exploration of the basic laws of motion. It was Galileo, not Isaac Newton, who articulated the concept of inertia, that a body at rest tends to stay at rest and one in motion tends to stay in motion. Force is necessary only for a change in velocity.

Copernicus, by the way, was not a radical, as he is remembered, but in the employee of the Catholic church when he advanced his heliocentric theory as a hypothesis in 1512. He induced this from the Pythagorean conviction that nature was ultimately comprehensible in simple mathematical terms. The geocentric model didn't explain or predict the movement of planets with any simple models.

Galileo's daughter

Dava Sobel

"Witnesses are examined in doubtful matters which are past and transient, not in those which are actual and present. A judge must seek by means of witness whether Pietro injured Giovanni last night, but not whether Giovanni was injured, since the judge can see that for himself. But even in conclusions which can be known only by reasoning, I say that the testimony of many has little more value than that of few, since the number of people who reason well in complicated matters is much smaller than those who reason badly. If reasoning were like hauling, I should agree that several reasoners would be worth more than one, just as several horses can haul more sacks of grain than one can. But reasoning is like racing and not like hauling, and a single Barbary steed can outrun a 100 dray horses."

- page 93

"The novelty of these things, as well as some consequences which followed from them in contradiction to the physical notions commonly held to academic philosophers, stirred up against me no small number of professors -- as if I placed these things in the sky with my own hands in order to upset nature and overturn the sciences. They seem to forget that the increase in the known truths stimulates the investigation, establishment, and growth of the arts;not their diminution or destruction.

- page 67

"Showing a greater fondness for their own opinions than for truth, they... hurled various charges and published numerous writings filled with vain arguments, and they made the grave mistake of sprinkling these with passages taken from places in the Bible which they failed to understand properly, and which were ill-suited to their purposes."

- page 68

"Let us grant then that theology is conversant with the loftiest divine contemplation, and occupies the Regal throne among sciences by dignity. But acquiring the highest authority in this way, and she does not extend to the lower and humbler speculations of the subordinate sciences and has no regard for them because they're not concerned with pleasantness, then her decision should not arrogate to themselves the authority to decide on controversies in professions in which they had neither studied nor practiced. Why then, this would be as if an absolute despot, being neither a physician nor an architect, should undertake to administer medicines and direct buildings according to his whims – at grave peril to the poor patients' lives, and the speedy collapse of these edifices.

    • page 68

To prohibit the whole science would be but to censure a 100 pages of holy scripture which teach us that the glory and greatness of almighty God are marvelously discerned in all his works and widely read in the open book of heaven. For let no one believe that reading the lofty concepts written in that book leads to nothing further than the mere seeing of splendor of the sun and stars and of their rising and setting, which is as far as the eyes of brutes and of the vulgar can penetrate. Within its pages are couched mysteries so profound and concepts so sublime that the vigils, labors, and studies of hundreds upon hundreds of the most acute minds have still not pierced them, even after continual investigations for thousands of years.

- page 69

The cause of the acceleration of the motion of falling bodies is not a necessary part of the investigation.

    • page 337

It appears to me that they who in proof of any assertion rely simply on the weight of authority, without inducing any argument in support of it, act very absurdly. I, on the contrary, wish to be allowed freely to question and freely to answer you without any sort of adulation, as well becomes those who are in search of truth.

    • Vincenzio, page 17

"Philosophy is written in this grand book, the universe, which stands continually open to our gaze but the book cannot be understood unless one first learns to comprehend the language and to read the alphabet in which it is composed. It is written language of mathematics, and its characters are triangles, circles, and other geometric figures, without which it is humanly impossible to understand a single word of it; without these, one wonders about in a dark labyrinth."

- page 16

Page 63: Those scriptures cannot err, its expounders and interpreters are liable to err in many ways... when they would base themselves always on the literal meaning of the words. For in this wise not only many contradictions would be apparent, but even grave heresies and blasphemies, since then it would be necessary to give God hands and feet and eyes, and human and bodily emotions such as anger, regret, hatred, and sometimes forgetfulness of things past, and ignorance of the future. Holy scripture and nature are both emanations from the divine word: the former dictated by the holy spirit, the latter by the observant executrix of God's commands. But I do not think it necessary to believe that the same God who gave us our senses, our speech, our intellect, would have put aside the use of these, to teach us instead such things as with our help we could find out for ourselves, particularly in the case of these sciences of which there is not the smallest mention in the Scriptures; and, above all, in astronomy, of which so little notice is taken that the names of none of the planets are mentioned. Surely if the intention of the sacred scribes had been to teach the people astronomy, they would not have passed over the subject so completely.

    • page 65

Christianity Notes From Lecture Series

Christianity

Jesus of Nazareth was a Palestinian Jew who was non-observant (he broke the Sabbath, hung out with prostitutes and tax collectors and other outcasts in violation of contemporary Jewish law). He was generally not a law-giver; instead, he tended to criticize the short-comings of contemporary legalistic interpretations of Torah.

An argument following the death of Jesus broke out over whether Gentiles could be Christians. Paul (himself a Jew as were all of the disciples) argued they could. Peter and others resisted. Paul, of course, prevailed and what began as an offshoot of what is still a tiny religion (there are between 14 and 16 million Jews worldwide versus over 2 billion Christians and over a billion Muslims and several hundred million Buddhists and Hindus). Paul also argued that faith, not works, is what really counts. "For the one who loves another has fulfilled the law."

Leviticus also commanded to "love your neighbor as you love yourself."

The teachings of Jesus are at times contradictory and often in parable, so are often open to widely divergent interpretations. He wrote nothing down, so we are entirely dependent upon the accounts created at about 70 CE, decades following his death, often by those who had never met him.

One of the few times he was quite clear about what he believed was his Sermon on the Mount, in which his standard given was actually higher than of the prevailing Jewish law. Not committing adultery was not enough; even committing it in your heart was just as bad. The bottom line, however, was that one would love God with all his heart and soul, and love his neighbor as he would love himself.

Presbyterian means "board of elders" and comes from the old Greco-Roman school system.

Liturgy was a word used in ancient Greece to refer to all public works including sacrifices, prayer, etc.

Gnostics in the first century argued that good Christians should not have sex or even have children. Apologists arguing against Gnostic influence shaped much of early Christian thought.

313: Edict of Milan issued by Emperor Constantine changes Christianity from a fringe religion on the run and hunted by authorities to the official state religion of Rome.

325: Council of Nicea attempted to develop a more uniform creed.

Nave was a long hallway with aisles on the side from naves, an ancient word for ship. The apse is the circular space containing the altar.

Eucharist means thanks giving.

Extreme unction = last rites = anointing of the ill.

Sunday is the first day of the week and is the pagan name for "one" day.

Pentecost was a Jewish holiday celebrated 40 days after Passover. It became a Christian holiday, the time the holy spirit was supposed to have descended upon followers of Jesus, 40 days following his execution by the Romans.

Lent = 40 days prior to Easter, somewhat analogous to Ramadan.

Advent = 30 days prior to Christmas.

Pilgrimage began in Christianity in the 4th Century.

Reverend Doomsday According to Tim LaHaye, the Apocalypse is now

Reverend Doomsday

According to Tim LaHaye, the Apocalypse is now

[I clipped this article which originally appeared in Rolling Stone Magazine.

By Robert Dreyfuss

It might seem unlikely that the commander in chief would take his marching orders directly from on high -- unless you understand the views of the Rev. Timothy LaHaye, one of the most influential leaders of the Christian right, and a man who played a quiet but pivotal role in putting George W. Bush in the White House. If you know LaHaye at all, it's for his series of best-selling apocalyptic novels. You've seen the Left Behind novels everywhere: aboard airplanes, at the beach, in massive displays at Wal-Mart. In the nine years since the publication of the first novel, the series has sold 60 million copies. Next to the authors of the Bible itself, who didn't get royalties, LaHaye is Christianity's biggest publishing success ever.

LaHaye is a strict biblical reconstructionist -- taking the Good Book as God's literal truth. His books depict a fantastical, fictional version of what he and his followers think is in store for the human race. Not allegorically, not poetically, but word-for-word true. If the Bible (Revelation 9:1-11) says that billions of six-inch-long scorpionlike monsters with the heads of men, "flowing hair like that of women" and the teeth of lions, wearing crowns and helmets, will swarm across the globe gnawing on unbelievers -- well, that's exactly what LaHaye says will happen. And soon.

LaHaye's books, and his quirky interpretation of biblical prophecy that stands behind them, revolve intensely around Iraq, because LaHaye believes that Armageddon will be unleashed from the Antichrist's headquarters in Babylon. Since the 1970s -- when Iraq began a reconstruction project on the ruins of the ancient city, near Baghdad -- LaHaye has said that Saddam Hussein is carrying out Satan's mission. In 1999, LaHaye wrote that Saddam is "a servant of Satan," possessed by a demon, and that he could be "the forerunner of the Antichrist." Ultimately, says LaHaye, before Christ can return to Earth, Iraq, led by the Antichrist, must engage in a world-shaking showdown with Israel.

Of course, there have always been preachers on the margins of the religious right thundering on about the end of the world. But it's doubtful that such a fanatic believer has ever had such a direct pipeline to the White House. Five years ago, as Bush was gearing up his presidential campaign, he made a little-noticed pilgrimage to a gathering of right-wing Christian activists, under the auspices of a group called the Committee to Restore American Values. The committee, which assembled about two dozen of the nation's leading fundamentalist firebrands, was chaired by LaHaye. At the time, many evangelicals viewed Bush skeptically: Despite his born-again views, when he was governor of Texas, Bush had alienated many of the state's Christian-right activists for failing to pursue a sufficiently evangelical agenda. On the national level, he was an unknown quantity.

That day, behind closed doors, LaHaye grilled the candidate. He presented Bush with a lengthy questionnaire on issues such as abortion, judicial appointments, education, religious freedom, gun control and the Middle East. What the preacher thought of Bush's answers would largely determine whether the Christian right would throw its muscle behind the Texas governor.

Mostly preferring to stay out of the limelight, LaHaye has been the moving force behind several key organizations on the Christian right that have redrawn the boundaries of American politics. In 1979, at a time when ministers confined themselves to their churches, he prodded the Rev. Jerry Falwell to found the Moral Majority, a group that launched today's cultural wars against feminism, homosexuality, abortion, drugs and pornography. In 1981, he helped found the little-known but vastly powerful Council for National Policy, a secretive group of wealthy donors that has funneled billions of dollars to right-wing Christian activists. "No one individual has played a more central organizing role in the religious right than Tim LaHaye," says Larry Eskridge of the Institute for the Study of American Evangelicals, calling him "the most influential American evangelical of the last twenty-five years."

When the meeting with Bush ended, LaHaye gave the candidate his seal of approval. For Bush, it was a major breakthrough, clearing the decks for hundreds of leaders of the Christian right, from TV preachers and talk-show hosts to Bible Belt pulpit pounders, to support the Bush-Cheney ticket in 2000. "Bush went into the meeting not totally acceptable," recalls Paul Weyrich, the grandfather of the religious right, who has known LaHaye for thirty years. "He went out not only acceptable but enthusiastically supported."

More than half a century ago, as a student at Bob Jones University, Timothy LaHaye began his public ministry as a pastor at a small church in a tiny town in South Carolina, not far from the campus. He'd grown up dirt-poor in Detroit, peddling newspapers during the Depression. His father had died when he was ten. In 1944, after finishing night school and attending a Bible institute in Chicago, he enlisted in the Air Force at seventeen and served in Europe as a machine gunner aboard a bomber.

At Bob Jones, the Christian-fundamentalist college famous for being anti-Catholic, LaHaye met and fell in love with a fellow Detroiter, Beverly Jean Ratcliffe. The two followed the school's strict "no touching" dating rule, which required lovers to stay six inches apart; a year later, they were married. In 1958, they moved to San Diego. At that time, Southern California was a hotbed of former McCarthyites, neo-Nazis and the John Birch Society, a right-wing group so paranoid and extremist that it denounced President Eisenhower as a communist. They all muttered darkly about secret societies, the evil United Nations and one-world-government conspiracies, views that LaHaye would soon make his own. For years, LaHaye spoke at Birch Society training sessions, getting to know many of its leaders and building his ministry in the part of California that, twenty years later, would be the launching pad for Ronald Reagan's 1980 presidential bid.

In the next dozen years, LaHaye built a veritable Christian empire: three churches, twelve elementary and secondary schools, a Christian college, an anti-evolution think tank called the Institute for Creation Research, the Pre-Trib Research Center to promote his views on how the world will end, and Family Life Seminars, a lecture program on sex, marriage and Christian living -- all while writing dozens of books. The Act of Marriage, a best seller published in 1976 and co-authored with Beverly LaHaye, is an explicit Christian sex manual, condemning "petting," abortion and homosexuality.

In the early 1970s, alarmed by laws and court decisions on abortion and school prayer, LaHaye began organizing the churches of Southern California for political action. In 1979, he established Californians for Biblical Morality, a church-based political group that lobbied in Sacramento. In many ways, it was the genesis of the Christian right. "I met Tim and Beverly about thirty years ago, while I was on a preaching tour of Southern California," says Falwell. "I found out that he'd done something no conservative minister had ever done before: He'd organized hundreds of churches into a political bloc. At the time, I'd never heard of mixing religion and politics." LaHaye persuaded Falwell to consider doing the same. "More than any other person, Tim LaHaye challenged me to begin thinking through my involvement [in politics]," recalls Falwell. Paul Weyrich confirms Falwell's account. "He encouraged Falwell to get involved in the political process," says Weyrich, who heads the conservative Free Congress Foundation. "But Falwell was reluctant to do so, because he thought it would ruin his ministry."

In 1979, LaHaye and Falwell established the Moral Majority, with Falwell as its leader and LaHaye as a guiding member of its three-person board of directors. The Moral Majority drafted tens of millions of conservative Christian voters into the culture wars, swelling the ranks of the Republican Party and serving as Reagan's core constituency. But while Falwell was catapulted to national prominence, LaHaye stayed in the background. "He flew under the radar, very behind-the-scenes, and didn't seek publicity," says Falwell.

Two years later, LaHaye founded the Council for National Policy. An elite group with only a few hundred members, the CNP meets three times a year, usually at posh hotels or resorts, going to extraordinary lengths to keep its agenda and membership secret. According to members willing to speak about it, however, the council unites right-wing billionaires with scores of conservative Christian activists and politicians, and these encounters have spawned countless campaigns and organizations. Its ranks have included prominent politicians such as Ed Meese and John Ashcroft, and among its members can be found an editor of the conservative National Review, leading televangelists such as Pat Robertson and Falwell, representatives of the Heritage Foundation and other key think tanks, and activists including Grover Norquist and Oliver North.

Supported by moneybags such as Texas oilman Nelson Bunker Hunt, Amway founder Richard DeVos and beer magnate Joseph Coors, some in the group helped fund Oliver North's secret campaign to aid the Nicaraguan contra rebels during the 1980s and financed the right-wing jihad against President Clinton in the 1990s. (The impeachment effort was reportedly conceived at a June 1997 meeting of the CNP in Montreal.) In addition, the group has funded an army of Christian organizers. Falwell says that in the past two decades, he has raised hundreds of millions of dollars for his ventures, including Liberty University, through the CNP. "My guess is that literally billions of dollars have been utilized through the Council for National Policy that would not otherwise have been available," he says. Bush attended a CNP meeting at the start of his presidential campaign in 1999 to seek support, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld took part in the group's gathering last April in Washington, D.C.

"Without [LaHaye], what we call the religious right would not have developed the way it did, and as quickly as it did," says Weyrich.

Besides the Moral Majority and the CNP, LaHaye established a third organization, Concerned Women for America, run by his wife, Beverly, which today claims 600,000 members. From the late 1970s into the 1980s, CWA, in coordination with Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum, led a successful battle against the adoption of the feminist-inspired Equal Rights Amendment, and it thundered against gay rights, sex education in schools and abortion. While Schlafly organized the women in Republican clubs around the country, Bev LaHaye reached out to the women in churches, "the ones who were never involved in politics, who'd go to Bible-study groups," says Schlafly. "She reached a lot of people, particularly in the Christian churches, that I might not have been able to reach." Many of these women stayed involved, joining the ranks of religious-right activists.

By the mid-1980s, LaHaye was at the top of his game, powerful and well- connected, plugged into the Reagan administration and, through yet another of his groups, the American Coalition for Traditional Values, a pivotal factor in the 1984 election, registering Christian conservative voters through "pastor-representatives" in all 435 congressional districts. But he was also headed for a fall.

Lahaye's free-fall began in the mid-1980s, and by the end he'd almost been expelled from the political Garden of Eden. What set it into motion was his connection with the weird would-be messiah Rev. Sun Myung Moon, whose Unification Church cult of "Moonies" was viewed by most Christians as laughably heretical. When Moon got entangled in legal controversy, LaHaye sprang to his defense, amid reports that he'd received substantial funding from the wealthy Moon. By the time LaHaye backed away, it was too late. His credibility was shot, and the American Coalition for Traditional Values soon folded.

Then it got worse. In 1988, LaHaye was bounced from the presidential campaign of former Rep. Jack Kemp when the media learned of LaHaye's anti-Catholic views (he considers Catholics to have strayed from biblical truth and has referred to popes as "Antichrists"). After that, he was deemed nearly radioactive in politics. When he showed up later that year for a campaign event at the elder George Bush's home, the vice president rushed to Doug Wead, his liaison to the religious right. "Tim LaHaye is here!" Wead recalls Bush saying in alarm. By the early 1990s, LaHaye had retreated to a small Baptist church in Rockville, Maryland, and the Moonie-owned Washington Times noted that he had "left the national stage."

Within a few years, however, LaHaye would ride Left Behind back to the top. As LaHaye tells the story, one day, about 1994, he was sitting on an airplane, watching a married pilot flirting with a flight attendant, and it hit him: What would befall the sinful pilot if the Rapture happened now? What if, as LaHaye believes the Bible foretells, God suddenly snatches up to heaven all of the believers in Jesus? And that is how Left Behind starts. Everywhere, hundreds of millions of people vanish, leaving the unbelievers behind, from insufficiently pious Christians to Muslims, Catholics, Jews and everyone else. What follows is the Tribulation, in which God visits unspeakable plagues on the Earth, amid a climactic worldwide battle waged by a band of new believers, called the Tribulation Force, against Satan and the Antichrist. Seas and rivers turn to blood, searing heat burns men alive, ugly boils erupt on the skin of the disfavored, 200 million ghostly, demonic warriors sweep across the planet exterminating one-third of the world's population -- well, you get the idea. And why does a merciful God visit such horrors on mankind? According to LaHaye, "God intends that the terrible plagues and judgments of the Tribulation might cause the people of the world to repent and turn to him."

Reviewers trashed the Left Behind books as "almost laughably tedious" and "unrelievedly vomitous badness," and prominent Christian leaders condemned them as "unscholarly" and a "perversion" of the Bible. But the series gradually blossomed in Christian bookstores, gaining readers by word-of-mouth. In 2001 alone, the books sold a staggering 15 million copies. The intent of the books is frankly evangelical. "Our hope is that some people will be persuaded," says Jerry Jenkins, who co-authored the series with LaHaye.

The success of Left Behind gave LaHaye an enormous boost, returning him to prominence and making him truly born again. "At meetings of the Council for National Policy now, Tim and Bev are treated like rock stars," says Grover Norquist, perhaps Washington's leading conservative activist. Last fall, LaHaye released the first book of a new series called Babylon Rising, which takes his apocalyptic notions even further. Striking while the brimstone is hot, LaHaye has already received a reported $42 million advance deal from Bantam Books for the Babylon books, built around a swashbuckling, Indiana Jones-style biblical archeologist in the Holy Land.

Now seventy-seven, lahaye is considered rather scowly, even by his friends. A thin man who dyes his hair black, he wears a battery-powered earpiece and favors clashing polyester suits. "He can come across as stern and unloving," says Jenkins, especially when he gets up on his soapbox. "Then people say he can be too severe."

He is certainly gloomy about Earth's future. "We have more reason to believe that ours may be the terminal generation than any generation since Jesus founded His church 2,000 years ago," LaHaye told Rolling Stone via e-mail from his home in Palm Springs, California, citing not only biblical prophecy but weapons of mass destruction, incurable diseases, pollution and overpopulation. Despite Bush's election, Republican control of Congress and the success of his own organizations, LaHaye says that things are getting worse, and that "liberal, anti-Christian secularists still control government, media, education and other important agencies of influence."

That's a succinct summation of the tangled, conspiratorial mind-set conveyed in his books. In Left Behind, the "bad guys" just happen to be the same ones whom LaHaye, the Christian right and their allies usually demonize: the United Nations, the Europeans, Russia, Iraq, Muslims, the media, liberals, freethinkers and "international bankers," all of whom team up with the Antichrist, who ends up heading the U.N. and moving its headquarters to Babylon, Iraq. The "good guys," of course, are Christian believers, Israel and a phalanx of 144,000 Jews who accept Jesus. Another heroic force in the series is the right-wing American militia movement, which, as a world war erupts, makes a last-ditch, ultimately futile stand against the forces of Satan and the Antichrist in the United States.

According to LaHaye, civilization is threatened by a worldwide conspiracy of secret societies and liberal groups intent on destroying "every vestige of Christianity." Among the participants in this conspiracy are the Trilateral Commission, the Illuminati, the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the National Organization for Women, Planned Parenthood, "the major TV networks, high-profile newspapers and newsmagazines," the U.S. State Department, major foundations (Rockefeller, Carnegie, Ford), the United Nations, "the left wing of the Democratic Party," Harvard, Yale "and 2,000 other colleges and universities." All of this is assembled to "turn America into an amoral, humanist country, ripe for merger into a one-world socialist state."

LaHaye professes no knowledge of whether President Bush buys into his views. "I have seen nothing from this president that would indicate that he is influenced one way or the other by my prophesy teaching," he says. But for Bush, an emotional, evangelical president who has repeatedly described the struggle against Saddam as a conflict between good and evil, LaHaye's views resonate with his. And though it's not known whether Bush has read any of the Left Behind books, he is a regular consumer of writing by other evangelists. Just recently, according to Falwell, Bush called a well-known born-again author, Rick Warren, to say he and Laura Bush had loved reading his new book, The Purpose Driven Life. Asked whether Bush is in accord with the End Times views of LaHaye, Falwell says, "My guess is that his views would differ very little, but that's conjecture." Jenkins, LaHaye's co-author, says only, "Every Christian ought to be happy that we have someone in the White House who says he believes what we do."

But the idea that Bush, in going to war against Iraq, might have been moved not by politics but by an apocalyptic vision is terrifying to some. Last October, the Rev. C. Welton Gaddy of the Interfaith Alliance wrote a formal letter to Bush, saying, in part, "Please assure the American people that you are not developing foreign policy on the basis of a fundamentalist biblical theology that requires cataclysm in Israel in order to guarantee the return of Christ." So far, he has not received an answer, and the White House didn't return calls from Rolling Stone asking whether the president has read Left Behind.

The final volume in the Left Behind series appears in the spring.

(January 28, 2004)


Mind Siege
By Tim LaHaye with David Noebel
Word, $21.99
ISBN 0849916720

Buy or borrow this book!

Support your local independent bookseller

Find it in a WorldCat library

Compare prices at major online bookstores


Send this interview to a friend

Tim LaHaye keeps readers enraptured with tales of those Left Behind

INTERVIEW BY DEE ANN GRAND

"When I gave my life to the Lord, I thought I'd be a preacher," says Tim LaHaye, who despite more than 50 years of preaching is now best known as a phenomenally successful author. More than 30 million copies of LaHaye's books have been sold, including eight titles co-authored with Jerry Jenkins in the Left Behind series, the seemingly omnipresent apocalyptic novels.

With his latest book, Mind Siege, co-authored with David Noebel, the soft-spoken minister has raised the bar in Christian book sales. His critique of the ills of modern society premiered on The New York Times hardcover nonfiction bestseller list at number 17. At the same time the Left Behind series had five entries on the hardback and paperback fiction lists.

"I can't tell you what a thrill it is to walk into a Costco and see our books and other Christian books in the secular stores," LaHaye remarks.

And what set off this avalanche of publishing success? "About 40 years ago I had an experience where I wrote a tract," he explains. "After I'd preached a message on Sunday night, I'd print it up." One Monday, he went to visit a patient in the hospital. "Her family had given her the tract, she read it, then gave it to the other lady who was sharing the same room. And that [tract] led her to Christ. I kind of staggered down the hall and thought, Oh God, this is a new way to reach people!"

Years later, LaHaye and his wife took a trip overseas and were surprised to find just how far-reaching his printed products had become. "Bev and I did a trip around the world, and we'd been to Poland, a communist state. The spiritual leaders apologetically showed me a copy of my Spirit-Controlled Temperament. You see, they'd copied it without permission from the U.S. publisher. But I was elated they were using it."

Today, LaHaye's books have been translated into 34 languages. "And I've never done one thing to cultivate that," he says adamantly, crediting all his success to God.

But there must have been a secret formula for the overwhelming popularity of the Left Behind series, which describes the fate of those left on Earth after the rapture, in which Christians ascend into heaven. "It's a series of things," LaHaye says of the books' appeal. "Timing is one thing. All people, even secular people, are seeing books on the market like The End of History. It makes them start thinking, where is this world going? People recognize something's going to happen, and they'd better get ready."

Another component in Left Behind's success, LaHaye says, is his co-author, Jerry Jenkins. "I think it's Jerry's masterful fiction writing. And he's never been given his due credit until now with the Left Behind series." Eight titles have been published in the series, with more to come.

"I think God has chosen to use this as a tool," LaHaye continues. "And Tyndale House has done a good job with marketing. They've done their homework."

With a wide array of topics, from the apocalypse to Bible prophesy, family life and the purported evils of secular humanism, who is LaHaye trying to reach? Both adults and children, he admits. "I have several audiences. That's why I write, with help, children's books, like the Left Behind: The Kids," LaHaye says. "I'm currently working on a Mind Siege for youth. And part of my vision is to do dynamic videos for kids."

But he doesn't stop with videos. LaHaye has set his sights on the big screen. Unhappy with the current Left Behind: The Movie -- so much so, he has filed a lawsuit against the movie's producers -- his goal is to create a "believable conversion" with a top quality, feature film.

At age 74, the author is bombarded with speaking invitations and does a weekly Prophetic Update on the television program The King is Coming. Does he believe his true calling is to warn about the coming of the rapture? "I hope," he says with a smile, but then adds, "Well, maybe that's one of them."

Author photo by Reg Franklin.

© 2001 ProMotion, inc.
www@bookpage.com

Christian Soldiers on the March
by Jennifer Block

In Jerry Jenkins and Tim LaHaye's bestselling Left Behind series (think of it as a Star Wars Trilogy for the religious right--it has sold 35 million copies), one-quarter of the world's population has mysteriously disappeared, and the most God-fearing among those "left behind" form the Tribulation Force, a troupe of evangelicals who believe the End of Days is nigh and the Secretary General of the United Nations is the Antichrist.

There's no evidence that George W. Bush owns the leather-bound collector's edition, but he certainly would sympathize with the T-Force's distaste for multilateralism. To every UN meeting that has occurred since he assumed the presidency, Bush has sent pit-bull delegations seemingly bent on ravaging both the global spirit as well as hard-fought consensus built throughout the past decade on social justice and human rights, especially women's rights.

To represent this country to the world, Bush has replaced career diplomats with career ideologues: John Klink, a former chief negotiator for the Vatican, has been on nearly every US delegation to a UN meeting, joined by Jeanne Head of the National Right to Life Committee, Janice Crouse of Concerned Women for America--the group founded by Tim LaHaye's wife, Beverly--and others from the "pro-family" lobby.

The Administration's international policies on sexual and reproductive health and rights, meanwhile, have been a Christian fundamentalist's dream. Within hours of the inaugural ball Bush was at his desk reviving the "global gag rule," which essentially corners humanitarian organizations worldwide into hushing up about abortion. He then stripped the UN Population Fund (UNFPA) of 12.5 percent of its budget, withheld $3 million from the World Health Organization's Human Reproduction Program and is now earmarking $33 million--almost exactly the amount he took away from the UNFPA--to augment domestic abstinence-until-marriage "sex-ed." He dispatched his emissaries to throw colossal tantrums at the UN General Assembly Special Session on Children, the World Summit on Sustainable Development and, most recently, the Fifth Asian and Pacific Population Conference, bringing all three negotiations to a near-halt over objections to no-brainer public health concepts like "consistent condom use" for HIV prevention and "safe abortion" where it is legal.

Charlotte Bunch, director of the Center for Women's Global Leadership, sees this attack as part of a larger assault on internationalism in general. "Their overall goal has always been to weaken the United Nations, in particular its capacity to be a constraining force on the flow of global capital and militarism," she says. "Attacking reproductive rights is convenient because it also delivers for the right wing." And it's low risk. "The Bush Administration has been able to get away with what would be appalling to most moderate Republicans," explains Jennifer Butler, the Presbyterian Church's UN representative, who tracks the Christian right's activities at the UN. Very few people--including members of the press--pay attention to UN meetings, she observes. "Bush can throw a bone to the Christian right and score some points, and he can do that without a cost."

Bush's first major foray into UN politics was in March 2001, when--perhaps still a little high from the fund-slashing frenzy--he sent the US delegation swaggering into the UN Commission on Human Rights like "cowboys," according to Bunch. The Geneva meeting is six weeks long, and "one of the most highly orchestrated; second only to the General Assembly in attention to detail of diplomacy," she says. The delegation's behavior was so indecorous that at the end of the session, the Europeans declined to re-elect the United States to the commission for the first time ever (they were invited back after 9/11).

Two months later, Bush sent professional right-to-lifer Jeanne Head to represent our country's global health interests at the annual World Health Assembly, quietly laying off the usual crew of reps from groups like the American Medical Association and American Public Health Association.

The Administration finally attracted widespread outrage when at the UN Special Session on Children, held in New York in May 2002, the Tommy Thompson-led US delegation made a grimly ironic alliance with Iran, Syria, Libya, Sudan and Iraq in the midst of Bush's "with us or against us" declaration of war on Islamic fundamentalists. Together, joined by the Vatican, these culture warriors fought to purge the world of comprehensive sex education for adolescents, restrict STD-prevention and contraceptive information to heterosexual married couples, and redefine "reproductive health services" to exclude legal abortion.

Most of the 3,000 activists and diplomats in attendance came to New York intending to negotiate broader definitions and commit more services to young people, who are becoming infected with HIV at the rate of five per minute, according to the UN. Instead, they had to fight tooth and nail just to hang on to language already on the books. "The United States really hijacked the whole session," says Françoise Girard of the International Women's Health Coalition. Example: During discussion of a section referring to children in postconflict situations, Washington harped on the word "services" because it might imply emergency contraception or abortion. "Nobody could understand why the United States would oppose language that was basically saying, 'When there are children who have been victims of violence and trauma in war, we need to provide them with services,'" says Zonny Woods of Action Canada for Population and Development. "But because among those victims of violence there might be girls who were victims of rape, who might be offered emergency contraception or an abortion, they were willing to throw away the whole concept of 'services.' It was just insane."

The US delegation succeeded in watering down the agreement, removing a paragraph on adolescent sexuality education and also some references to reproductive health services. And it blocked consensus on opposing capital punishment for adolescents, a detail that got lost in the media focus on the US obsession with abortion and abstinence.

At the World Summit on Sustainable Development, in Johannesburg last September, it was, as they say, déjà vu all over again. The United States, again in the dugout with the Holy See and a number of Islamic countries, deadlocked negotiations until the eleventh hour, opposing a litany of items, including language that would characterize female genital mutilation, forced child marriage and honor killings as human rights violations. "In the end, at 1 in the morning, they agreed to language that was almost identical to what they'd been fighting the whole time," says June Zeitlin, executive director of the Women's Environment and Development Organization. "We got what we wanted. But the United States succeeded in stalling the conference and in alienating a lot of countries."

Then came the real weapon of mass destruction, as far as women's rights are concerned: On November 1, Bush announced that the United States was considering withdrawing its support from the landmark agreement reached by 179 countries at the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo. For the global women's movement, the ICPD is considered a watershed event--the first time an official connection was made between population control and empowering women with information and contraception. With the Fifth Asian and Pacific Population Conference in Bangkok looming in December--a regional meeting for delegates to review the advances made in implementing the ICPD, not to revisit its basic principles--the United States was threatening to oppose the document unless all references to "reproductive health services" and "reproductive rights" were deleted.

But this time the Administration miscalculated. "They really overplayed their hand," says Françoise Girard. At an especially revealing moment during the December 11-17 showdown in Bangkok, US adviser Elaine Jones, an international relations officer in the State Department, took the microphone to express her country's--our country's--insistence that natural family-planning methods be emphasized in the conference document, offering her own experience with the Billings method of birth control (which involves checking the viscosity of one's own cervical mucus): "I've used the Billings method for ten years," Jones announced, "and it works." As titters spread across the room, one of the first of many responses came from, of all places, Iran. "Well, I'm an Ob-Gyn," said the Iranian delegate. "I have to tell you that natural family-planning methods have a very high failure rate. And by the way, it says so in all the textbooks that come from United States."

Less touchy-feely were the threats reportedly made by the United States to individual countries, specifically to the Philippines, Sri Lanka and Nepal, to withhold their piece of the USAID pie if they didn't vote along with the US delegation. "They were trying to push some governments around pretty hard," said one UN official on condition of anonymity.

"This is the fringe who've taken over US policy on sexual and reproductive health," says Girard. "Some people asked me, 'Do you think they're doing this because they want to save our souls?'" One first-time attendee from the United States said, "If they didn't have so much power I'd feel sorry for them."

In the end, however, the US delegation lost everything. When they demanded a roll-call vote on two sections of the ICPD agreement (dealing with reproductive rights and adolescent health) which they found objectionable, the votes came in at 31 to 1 and 32 to 1, with two countries abstaining--notably, Nepal and Sri Lanka. "They thought calling a vote would intimidate the Asians," says Girard, "when all it did was put on the record that the United States was completely isolated." Another observer remarked that the Americans "played themselves out of the game."

Ultimately, the Americans backed down on their threats to renounce the whole agreement, but they stunned other delegations with their "general reservation" to the document, a schizophrenic two-page addendum expressing disappointment that "the promotion of women's full enjoyment of all human rights is not emphasized more often," while also declaring, "Because the United States supports innocent life from conception to natural death, the United States does not support, promote, or endorse abortions, abortion-related services or the use of abortifacients." (Girard points out that if life begins at conception, the garden-variety Pill would be illegal.) The United States also opposed the term "unsafe abortion," a position explained by Jeanne Head during a fifteen-minute tirade at the closing ceremony: Abortion is never safe, because someone--the fetus--always dies. Thus the US delegation stated in its reservation, "The illegality of abortion cannot be construed as making it unsafe."

Says Girard, "If there was any doubt that Bush wants to overturn Roe v. Wade, it is clear now."
Sally Ethelston, vice president of Communications for Population Action International (PAI), remembers Cairo. "I'll never forget the faces of country delegates the afternoon they had finished their hardest negotiations. People emerged beaming because they knew they had forged something that would take the discussion so much further. And the United States played a major role in that process. What we see now is the United States playing the role of the bully."

"It's like Bush is sacrificing the women of the world to pay his political dues," says Terri Bartlett, also of PAI.

Regardless of whether Bush's machinations are payback to the religious right or born of a core belief that the UN will bring about the fall of man, activists in the global women's movement are not taking any more chances. Though many were expecting a 5th World Conference on Women to take place in Helsinki in 2005 (especially the Finns), the present consensus is that a ten-year follow-up to the 1995 conference in Beijing would be far too much of a risk. "Beijing is an incredible document," says Françoise Girard. "You look at it and really say, 'Wow.'" Still, women's activists are quick to insist that Bush isn't the only factor. "I wouldn't give him all the credit," says Zonny Woods. Conferences are a huge drain on time and resources, taking the best and brightest away from their work implementing the agreement. "If you think about it, we've been either having a major UN conference or preparing one for the past twelve years."

Indeed, the 1990s were not just about globalization of capital: There was the Rio conference in 1992, then a series of negotiations on climate change, forests and biodiversity. There were conferences on habitat, population and development, women, social development, human rights; then each of those had five-year reviews; then there were the conferences on racism, aging and HIV/AIDS; then the Special Session on Children.

"We don't need another conference in 2005," says Charlotte Bunch. "We need to keep working on implementing the Beijing platform. It hasn't been realized. Perhaps in 2010, or 2008, it will be a better political moment."

On the other hand, notes Jennifer Butler, the destructive role of the Bush Administration deserves wide attention. "If we don't tell people what's really going on, how can we mobilize them?" The UN shapes global norms, she argues, and if the superpower breaks away, it gives every other country license to back away from its commitments. "Since Beijing, you can't speak of any major world issue without applying some sort of gender lens," she says. Health ministries have implemented new programs, budgets have been allocated, national policy has been revised. But if Bush is allowed to continue his attack, "we will see a rollback, a slow erosion of the world culture that has been redefined to say it's not OK to violate women's rights."

And it's not only feminists who are fearful. There's plenty of buzz within the UN about how these conferences need to be made more, let's say, childproof. "We have got to figure out a way to avoid this again, because this is not productive at all. Because AIDS won't wait. Unwanted pregnancies won't wait," says a UN official.

Says Butler, "Maybe it's time to sound the alarm bells."


An Empire of Their Own
by Melani McAlister


Print this article
E-mail this article
Write to the editors
have never had such a bad feeling about a war ever before," wrote Sha Twa Nee on the Prophecy Club message board in April. This war, she said, "has given me such a 'heaviness' in my heart, a knowing that it is only the beginning of more to come.... I do believe we are living in the end times and that this war with Iraq is the precursor war to Armageddon...never have there been so many signs as now in history."

As conflict in the Middle East raged this spring, many evangelicals were afire with fears and hopes that they were witnessing the quickening of God's plan for the "end of times." The discussion, which traversed the Internet, Christian radio talk shows and church sermons, was intensified by the fortuitously timed publication of Armageddon, the latest novel in the Left Behind series. Conceived by evangelist Tim LaHaye and written by collaborator Jerry Jenkins, Left Behind is a fictionalization of a particularly incendiary school of biblical prophecy. The eleven books published so far describe the adventures of a group of evangelical Christians who face the rise of the Antichrist, a series of terrible plagues and judgments from God called the Tribulation, the battle of Armageddon and, ultimately, the Second Coming of Jesus. Like the previous four books in the series, Armageddon debuted at number one on the New York Times and other bestseller lists. With sales of well over 40 million (not counting its graphic novels and children's books), Left Behind is a publishing juggernaut.

The series is also a cultural phenomenon that goes well beyond books. Since the eponymously titled first novel in the series was published in 1995, there have been two films, several CDs, an interactive game, mugs and T-shirts, and an impressive web presence, with many active discussion groups (including "The Prophecy Club"), fan fiction, screen-savers, etc. The Apocalypse is at the heart of a growing evangelical popular culture industry, which is aimed at the approximately one-third of Americans who claim to be evangelicals or "born again." This industry includes a rapidly expanding book market, which has major publishing houses, notably Warner Books and Bertelsmann, rushing to sign up evangelical authors for their new "Christian" imprints. Contemporary Christian music is the fastest-growing segment of the music industry. And conservative Christian films, videos, radio, national conferences and community events have evolved into mass-marketed sites for talking about evangelical concerns, from family life to weight loss to global missionary work. Instead of condemning popular culture, as they did in the past, many evangelicals are now feverishly adopting its forms to create a parallel world of entertainment, a consumer's paradise of their own. Just ten years ago, it was still a fledgling subculture; today, it is anything but.

Having carved out this distinct universe, born-again Christians are now able to find almost total product substitution for mainstream media: There are evangelical versions of everything from rock music and films to romance novels and true-life tales. Much of this sprawling cultural universe is not oriented around discussions of biblical prophecy--many committed evangelicals aren't particularly interested in the subject--but an impressive subset takes the "end times" as its subject. Novels and films are churning out an intricate set of narratives that blend fundamentalist orthodoxy and conservative politics in a nightmarish vision of the world's imminent demise. Given that a recent Time/CNN poll showed that 59 percent of Americans believe that the events in Revelation are going to come true, the extraordinary popularity of the apocalyptic Left Behind series is something to be taken seriously indeed.

The series, which will include fourteen novels in all, is one long story. The opening book tells of a group of Americans, either nominal Christians or secularists, who, because they lack sufficient faith, are "left behind" when God takes all true believers into heaven in an event known as the Rapture. These unbelievers soon realize their mistake, and convert to evangelical Christianity. In preparation for the horrific yet enthralling events of the "end times," they form themselves into an underground "Tribulation Force." Rayford Steele, a strong-willed pilot in his 40s, is the head of the group. He is joined by his daughter Chloe and her husband, Buck Williams, a tough-minded crack journalist. The team is soon joined by Tsion Ben-Judah, an Israeli rabbi who has come to understand that Jesus was in fact the Jewish Messiah. As the plagues begin, bringing locust-looking demons and terrible natural disasters, from the drying up of seas to the darkening of the sun, Ben-Judah becomes an end-times prophet, teaching millions of new converts on his Internet site about the biblical meaning of the unfolding events.

Meanwhile, the rising Antichrist is Nicolae Carpathia, a handsome, urbane and lethally devious Romanian national who started his ascent to power as Secretary General of the United Nations (a longstanding object of fundamentalist wrath). Before long, Carpathia establishes himself as a global dictator and foists onto a gullible population a totalitarian, one-world government, a single global currency and a syncretic universal religion that combines Catholic-style pomp with New Age rhetoric. Soon the Antichrist builds himself a massive capital city from which to rule the world--in New Babylon, Iraq. (Obviously, this plot element connected impressively with the recent war, though it was already in place in Left Behind novels from the late 1990s.)

s the series progresses, and the final confrontation between good and evil approaches, the Antichrist intensifies his persecution of all who resist his power, particularly Jews and Christians. Opposing him, the Tribulation Force expands rapidly, gathering other committed converts all over the globe. The revolving cast of characters features not only whites, blacks and Native Americans but also Chinese, Greeks, Arabs and countless numbers of Israeli Jews. They are a tough, multinational cohort of guerrilla warriors, including military men, housewives, computer hackers and pilots--many, many pilots. They fly back and forth between their secret hide-outs in the United States and the sites of the real action, in Israel and Iraq. They manage to keep an eye on the goings on at New Babylon via deep-cover operatives and untraceable bugging devices. In short, they are highly competent and modern people, who whip around the world at a moment's notice in fighter jets or private planes, e-mail one another over highly encrypted computers and rescue those in danger.

In Armageddon, the members of the Tribulation Force join the "Remnant" of Israel, a core group of Jewish converts who have taken sanctuary at Petra, in Jordan, where they are fed manna from heaven each day. This group of Jews is held in special favor by God, thanks to their conversion. When Jesus returns (in the next novel), it is to fight on behalf of Israel against the massed power of the Antichrist. And, as the characters in Left Behind reassure one another repeatedly, biblical prophecy has already made the outcome clear: "We know how it ends. We win."

If this plot summary seems bizarre, the remarkable thing is that the scenario laid out in the novels is in no way outlandish or even very creative, if measured against the rich tapestry of evangelical fiction and nonfiction literature and film over the past twenty-five years. Since 1970, when Hal Lindsey published the hipster-styled book of prophecy interpretation The Late Great Planet Earth, which went on to become the bestselling nonfiction book of the decade, evangelical prophecy scholars have published one popularizing book after another, many of which were Christian bookstore bestsellers. In the mid-1970s, a low-budget film about a group of teenagers facing the Rapture traveled widely on the church-basement circuit. Its theme song, "I Wish We'd All Been Ready," became a staple of youth groups and Christian concerts for a decade. By the 1980s, several authors, including Pat Robertson, started turning the pious tracts into rollicking adventure; Frank Peretti's This Present Darkness (1986) sold several million copies; and the 1999 film Omega Code was the year's most successful independent release. In the late 1990s prophecy also moved to the Internet, with sites like raptureready.com and prophecynewswatch.com.

Left Behind readers are likely to have been immersed in that cultural milieu. The publisher, Tyndale House, says that 85 percent of its readers describe themselves as "born again," and almost 65 percent first heard about the series through friends or relatives. The average reader is a white married woman from the South, between 25 and 54 years old, who attends church weekly. Latinos make up 9 percent of the readers; African-Americans are 7 percent. These latter numbers are striking. More than 15 percent of Left Behind readers are people of color--that's certainly a lot higher than the percentage of blacks or Latinos who watch Friends--and it indicates more racial diversity than talk about "white evangelicals" generally suggests. Then again, given that two-thirds of the African-American population identifies as evangelical or born-again Christian, the number of African-American readers is actually rather low.

Different authors and preachers have offered their own specific visions of the apocalypse prophecy scenario: Ardent prophecy watchers may be biblical literalists, but their interpretations are developed by piecing together passages that are scattered across the "prophetic" books of the Bible, in acts of constructive meaning-making that would make any English professor proud. Still, the basic outlines are not really up for grabs, and by now certain stock images--the clothes left on an empty airline seat when a believer is Raptured, or the smooth-talking Antichrist holding forth at UN headquarters--have become ritualistic markers of a highly politicized religious culture.

The links between global politics and the "prophetic calendar" are matters of doctrine among the large swath of evangelicals who are also ardent prophecy watchers. For these true believers, the Middle East, particularly Israel and Iraq, is deeply important, both religiously and politically, as the theater of God's actions in the final days. LaHaye has often argued that the founding of Israel--the return of the Jews to their land--is the "supersign" that the Second Coming is approaching. In Left Behind, as in virtually every other prophecy adventure, Israel is the only nation God favors. Despite the well-documented nationalism of many Christian conservatives, most interpreters argue that the United States as a nation hardly figures at all in the end times. After all, as several Internet commentators have pointed out, America is not mentioned in the Bible. Jerry Falwell suggested something similar back in 1985, when he announced that "if we fail to protect Israel, we will cease to be important to God."
If he's right, then the United States must matter to God a great deal these days. The remarkable influence of the Christian right and more specifically Christian Zionism on the current Bush Administration's Middle East policy has been hard to miss. Right-wing figures in Congress like Oklahoma Republican Jim Inhofe and House majority leader Tom DeLay have close working relationships with evangelicals like LaHaye, Falwell and Ralph Reed. These evangelists and politicians are in turn deeply connected to the Israeli right, including Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and his financeminister, Benjamin Netanyahu. The relationship has deepened in recent years--it seems as if some Jewish pro-Israeli organization is always giving Pat Robertson an award, and among grassroots Christian conservatives, there are multiple campaigns to raise money to settle immigrant Jews in the West Bank and Gaza--but the connections pay off particularly well in times of crisis. When the Israelis pushed into Jenin last year, for example, killing dozens of Palestinians and leaving thousands homeless, Falwell organized a massive e-mail campaign to call for the United States to "stand firm" behind Israel, while DeLay spearheaded Congressional opposition to any weakening of the Bush Administration's pro-Sharon stance. At about that time, DeLay discussed his recent trip to the Middle East before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. "I didn't see any occupied territory," he told the appreciative audience. "What I saw was Israel." More recently, DeLay declared himself "an Israeli of the heart" in a rabid speech before the Knesset.

Not surprisingly, some Israelis and American Jews have expressed profound unease with this kind of support. Gershom Gorenberg, author of The End of Days: Fundamentalism and the Struggle for the Temple Mount, has called this evangelical embrace a "strangely exploitative relationship," in which evangelicals love Israel primarily because they believe its existence proves that biblical prophecies are true. The history of conservative Christian anti-Semitism is no small issue here, and LaHaye himself is no small contributor to that history. LaHaye was active in the Moral Majority in the 1980s and was later forced to resign as co-chairman of Jack Kemp's 1988 presidential campaign for having called Catholicism a "false religion" and for blaming Jewish suffering on the Jewish rejection of Jesus. More recently, in an interview with Jeffrey Goldberg in Slate magazine, LaHaye announced that "some of the greatest evil in the history of the world was concocted in the Jewish mind." "The Jewish brain," he added kindly, also "has the capacity for great good." LaHaye's crude views are hardly the norm among evangelicals, but the suspicion remains that the pro-Israeli positions emerging from the Christian right are at best instrumental and at worst a dangerous enthusiasm for the impending destruction and/or mass conversion of Jews. The criticisms have led a few evangelical leaders, including Pat Robertson, to deny that biblical prophecy plays a primary role in their pro-Israel positions.

This general caveat undoubtedly holds some truth; many evangelical Christians, even those who don't hold a particular interest in prophecy, are deeply committed to a pro-Israel stance. But if we pay attention to the lively world of evangelical popular culture, it becomes clear that prophecy narratives mobilize a particular kind of energy and enthusiasm. A generic sense of support for God's Chosen People becomes something far more exciting and more emotionally powerful when placed in the context of what many evangelicals believe to be the most religiously significant events of all time. On the multiple web message boards on leftbehind.com, for example, enthusiastic posts situate Israel's history and current politics within an ongoing series of discussions about "Are We Living in the End Times," or "How Soon Will It Be?" Recently, one contributor wrote in to say that she is anxious and feels the world is spiraling out of control. The reply from another poster: "Relax! Enjoy seeing the Bible come to life! It's proof that it IS REAL!"

Quite a few moderate and liberal evangelicals have criticized the theological bent that turns every current event into an occasion to prove that the end is near. Randall Balmer, an evangelical who has written a series of influential studies of the movement, says that the focus on prophecy emerges out of a "theology of despair" based on a "slavishly literalistic" reading of Revelation. He describes Left Behind as "camp fiction," and calls it both triumphalist and self-righteous. Other commentators aren't nearly so generous: Christian Century magazine described Left Behind as simple-minded "beam me up theology."

But that "beam me up" theology is central to the books' appeal. At the level of fundamentalist doctrine, the Left Behind series is unreconstructed and proud of it: There is only Jesus Christ, and Christianity is the only truth. Winning converts is the primary moral duty of the characters (and, one presumes, of the novels themselves). The narrative inveighs repeatedly against abortion, sexual "immorality" and false religion. At the same time, the fast-paced chase scenes, direct visitations by angels and humorous banter among the tough-minded fly-boys lend excitement to the long didactic messages in which Tsion Ben-Judah details the meaning of particular biblical verses, or the endless repetition of scenes in which yet another character recounts how he or she found Jesus. What makes these novels work is that they seamlessly integrate an apocalyptic religious view with a strongly conservative political vision, and locate both in a universe of supernatural action adventure in which good and evil are fully and finally revealed.

The war between good and evil is the moral heart of the series, and the utter lack of ambiguity in the situations it evokes is the utopian lamp in the dark world of the end times. Religiously, the purity of believers is contrasted with the evil religion propounded by the Antichrist and his henchmen. Those on the wrong side of God suffer the kind of tortures that right-wing radio commentators like Rush Limbaugh have sometimes seemed to wish on "Feminazis": They are bitten by demon-locusts and suffer terribly for five months; they are struck down by flashes of fire and sulfur, trampled by ghostly, death-dealing horsemen who ride the skies and attack only nonbelievers. Believers, on the other hand, are immune from much of this suffering, though they do face death and danger, and occasionally become martyrs for their cause.

A more earthly right-wing political critique is fully integrated into this narrative, and all the traditional far-right bugbears make an appearance. The one-world government of the Antichrist, for example, has its origins in a shadowy conspiracy between a group of Trilateral Commission-like financiers and the fearful members of the UN, who are so desperate for "peace" that they allow themselves to be taken over by a dictator. And that totalitarian rule embodies every conceivable form of liberal tyranny. It is simultaneously economic (the Antichrist introduces a single currency), cultural (he has a monopoly on world media) and political (his police state employs "Morale Monitors" who patrol the streets, hunting down and executing any dissidents). Oh, and the Antichrist also tries to make his lover have an abortion. So it is that when one of the Antichrist's henchmen describes the Tribulation Force members as "right-wing, fanatic, fundamentalist faction," we as readers are invited to consider the source and take it as a compliment. We know whose side God is on, and who will be destroyed at the end.

Of course, the Left Behind series is fiction, and fiction is not a hypodermic needle, injecting beliefs into unwary victims. The fact that we watch a particular TV show or read a particular set of novels doesn't mean we buy their entire world-view. I am a big fan of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, but I'm not at all inclined to believe that there is a hell mouth in California. (I do, however, occasionally allow myself to imagine that Martin Sheen is President.) We cannot assume, then, that every Left Behind reader is, or becomes, a prophecy-talking, Bible-believing, UN-bashing conservative Christian. Nor can we assume that all evangelicals, even politically conservative ones, share the ideology of the prophecy set. Indeed, there is some evidence that fans of the series read the books as if they were Stephen King novels, and the series has received reviews on both science fiction and horror websites. Even on the official leftbehind.com chat-rooms, many younger readers announce that their other favorite books are the Star Trek and Star Wars series, or novels by Marion Zimmer Bradley and even Anne Rice.

But Left Behind is more than a collection of novels. It exists within an evangelical milieu both broad and deep. That universe is both highly interactive and intimately familiar to most of its readers, filled with stock apocalyptic imagery, detailed biblical exegesis and action-adventure realism that marries contemporary evangelical fascinations, conservative political values and popular-culture pleasures. This kind of thick context makes it much more likely that the Left Behind novels will be received as prophecy, not dismissed as fluff, by the evangelicals who form their core audience.

Left Behind also highlights something important about the way mass culture works. Rather than creating a homogenized McWorld, as so many critics have claimed, popular culture can and does reinforce ideological and cultural divisions, fostering sharp distinctions between communities. The evangelical population in the United States is becoming more numerous, more politicized--particularly around foreign policy--and more powerful than ever before. This transformation is as much cultural as political, or rather, it is inextricably both at once. Those of us who care deeply about the future of politics, domestic and international, cannot afford to ignore the fact that evangelicals are no longer merely a subculture. They are fast becoming a--perhaps the--dominant force in American life. As the Middle East smolders, many people have debated the role of George W. Bush's Christian beliefs in his foreign policy, and we are daily confronted with the lobbying muscle of the Christian right. But if we want to understand conservative Christians as a political force, we must pay attention to the galvanizing power of culture. The astonishing success of the Left Behind series suggests that the conservative obsession with biblical prophecy is increasingly shaping our secular reality. I wish we'd all been ready.
f

Search This Blog