[brraverishhh]

http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artm...ew.cgi/38/8664

There Is No Tomorrow
By Bill Moyers
The Star Tribune


Sunday 30 January 2005

One of the biggest changes in politics in my lifetime is that the delusional is no longer marginal. It has come in from the fringe, to sit in the seat of power in the Oval Office and in Congress.

For the first time in our history, ideology and theology hold a monopoly of power in Washington. Theology asserts propositions that cannot be proven true; ideologues hold stoutly to a worldview despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality. The offspring of ideology and theology are not always bad but they are always blind. And that is the danger: voters and politicians alike, oblivious to the facts.

One-third of the American electorate, if a recent Gallup Poll is accurate, believes the Bible is literally true. This past November, several million good and decent citizens went to the polls believing in what is known as the "rapture index."

These true believers subscribe to a fantastical theology concocted in the 19th century by a couple of immigrant preachers who took disparate passages from the Bible and wove them into a narrative that has captivated the imagination of millions of Americans. Its outline is rather simple, if bizarre: Once Israel has occupied the rest of its "bibli-cal lands," legions of the Antichrist will attack it, triggering a final showdown in the valley of Armageddon. As the Jews who have not been converted are burned, the messiah will return for the rapture. True believers will be lifted out of their clothes and transported to heaven, where, seated next to the right hand of God, they will watch their political and religious opponents suffer plagues of boils, sores, locusts and frogs during the several years of tribulation that follow.

I've reported on these people, following some of them from Texas to the West Bank. They are sincere, serious and polite as they tell you they feel called to help bring the rapture on as fulfillment of biblical prophecy. That is why they have declared solidarity with Israel and the Jewish settlements and backed up their support with money and volunteers. That is why the invasion of Iraq for them was a warm-up act, predicted in the Book of Revelations, where four angels "which are bound in the great river Euphrates will be released to slay the third part of man." For them a war with Islam in the Middle East is something to be welcomed - an essential conflagration on the road to redemption. The rapture index - "the prophetic speedometer of end-time activity" - now stands at 153.

So what does this mean for public policy and the environment? As Glenn Scherer reports in the online environmental journal Grist, millions of Christian fundamentalists believe that environmental destruction is not only to be disregarded but hastened as a sign of the coming apocalypse.

We're not talking about a handful of fringe lawmakers who hold or are beholden to these beliefs. Nearly half of the members of Congress are backed by the religious right. Forty-five senators and 186 members of the 108th Congress earned 80 to 100 percent approval ratings from the three most influential Christian-right advocacy groups. They include Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Assistant Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Conference Chair Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, Policy Chair Jon Kyl of Arizona, House Speaker Dennis Hastert and Majority Whip Roy Blunt. The only Democrat to score 100 percent with the Christian Coalition was Sen. Zell Miller of Georgia, who before his recent retirement quoted from the biblical Book of Amos on the Senate floor: "The days will come, sayeth the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land." He seemed to relish the thought.

Onward Christian Soldiers

And why not? There's a constituency for it. A 2002 Time/CNN poll found that 59 percent of Americans believe that the prophecies found in the Book of Revelations are going to come true. Tune in to any of the more than 1,600 Christian radio stations or flip on one of the 250 Christian TV stations across the country and you can hear some of this end-time gospel. And you will come to understand why people under the spell of such potent prophecies cannot be expected, as Grist puts it, "to worry about the environment. Why care about the earth when the droughts, floods, famine and pestilence brought by ecological collapse are signs of the apocalypse foretold in the Bible?"

These people believe that until Christ does return, the Lord will provide. One of their texts is a high school history book, America's Providential History, which contains the following: "The secular or socialist has a limited resource mentality and views the world as a pie ... that needs to be cut up so everyone can get a piece." However, "the Christian knows that the potential in God is unlimited and that there is no shortage of resources in God's earth … while many secularists view the world as overpopulated, Christians know that God has made the earth sufficiently large with plenty of resources to accommodate all of the people." No wonder Karl Rove goes around the White House whistling that militant hymn, "Onward Christian Soldiers." He turned out millions of the foot soldiers in this past election, including many who have made the apocalypse a powerful driving force in modern American politics.

Once upon a time I thought that people would protect the natural environment when they realized its importance to their health and to the health and lives of their children. Now I am not so sure. It's not that I don't want to believe that - it's just that I read the news and connect the dots.

Immoral Imagination

Mike Leavitt, the former administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, declared the election a mandate for President Bush on the environment - a mandate for an administration that wants to rewrite the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act, as well as the National Environmental Policy Act, which requires the government to judge beforehand if actions might damage natural resources.

The Environmental Protection Agency had even planned to spend $9 million - $2 million of it from the administration's friends at the American Chemistry Council - to pay poor families to continue to use pesticides in their homes. These pesticides have been linked to neurological damage in children, but instead of ordering an end to their use, the government and the industry were going to offer the families $970 each, as well as a camcorder and children's clothing, to serve as guinea pigs for the study.

I read all this and then look at the pictures on my desk, next to the computer - pictures of my grandchildren: Henry, age 12; Thomas, age 10; Nancy, 7; Jassie, 3; Sara Jane, nine months. I see the future looking back at me from those photographs and I say, "Father, forgive us, for we know not what we do." And then I am stopped short by the thought: "That's not right. We do know what we are doing. We are stealing their future. Betraying their trust. Despoiling their world."

And I ask myself: "Why? Is it because we don't care? Because we are greedy? Because we have lost our capacity for outrage, our ability to sustain indignation at injustice?"

What has happened to our moral imagination?

The news is not good these days. I can tell you that as a journalist I know the news is never the end of the story. The news can be the truth that sets us free - free to fight for the future we want. And the will to fight is the antidote to despair, the cure for cynicism, and the answer to those faces looking back at me from those photographs on my desk.

What we need is what the ancient Israelites called "hocma" - the science of the heart, the capacity to see, to feel and then to act as if the future depended on you. Believe me, it does

Bill Moyers was host until recently of the weekly public affairs series "NOW with Bill Moyers" on PBS. This article is adapted from AlterNet, where it first appeared. The text is taken from Moyers' remarks upon receiving the Global Environmental Citizen Award from the Center for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard Medical School.

[MannoFr]

I have changed my splat in order to avert the violent connotations that you seek to attach to it.

Personally, I rather like to think that the Palestinian crossed the road to save the chicken that had no chance whatsoever of making it by itself. In this case , at least chickens and Palestinians get to live together in peace.

Should we settle for this ?

[radikal]

Pondering something here . How many of you right wing Zionists on this forum actually live in Israel ?
Is this forum replacement therapy for most of you ?
The Israelis I have noticed all seem to be left wingers . Most amusing.

[softy54534]

No. I have family and friends who are of all opinions and political identities. We don't go to rallies, wear colors and curse the other side for the downfall of society. Sure you see heated discussions, sure there are talking heads who spew idiotism at the left or the right, you don't see Americans snarling at each other on this website about how righteous they are about evicting the other side from their homes.

Besides, there are so few Jews, why not get along for the common good of our people?

[Big A]

Here religion complicates everything , does it in America ?

Howso?

[Ifroham4]

my experience is that religion complicates this problem rather than alleviating it, because the nature of religion is to be absolutist, not to compromise.

If you mean abstractly, I suppose. If you point to something specific, maybe not.

A religious person is someone who lives by the ideals of the faith and incorporates the rituals and tenets into his/her life so that they inform his/her daily decisions. In part that's true. It's also about ethics and justice, compassion and mercy.

The failure of religion in peacemaking is because religion is most comfortable when it deals in absolutes, in good and evil, right and wrong.
Religion's failure in 'peacemaking' is about the disconnect between religion and statecraft, not the particular failures of religion to address moral issues. Absolutes, in least in Judaism don't really exist, though I'm not sure what you mean by that.

I read that "All men are created Equal" and yet that absolute statement really doesn't mean what it says it means. Similarly I hear very devout religious people tell me absolute statements about the sanctity of life while they are chanting outside the State Prison, for the expedited execution of someone. And yet at the same time that person is being executed, the law is clearly secular, legal, and entirely democratically applied. In other words religion may play a part in politics but it's only a supporting role.

The affairs of state of necessity require compromise and cannot function effectively in absolutes. Therefore religious leaders most often make poor statesmen. Not necessarily. People pour their faith into the vessel of their own choosing. Non religious leaders don't necessarily have a claim on 'faithless' leadership either. I think you would find a leader who abjectly denied the human spirit, the human desire for a spiritual life would be horribly intolerant and brutal, severe. For my money I'd rather have someone who understood Talmud, a rational Buddhist or a heavily armed Quaker running things than someone who merely knows every word ever written by Machiavelli, Tallyrand and Caesar.

[Drugmachine]

Jewish Roots of the American Constitution by Prof Paul Eidelberg, Nov 15,2005A. Historical Background
1. No nation has been more profoundly influenced by the "Old Testament" than America. Many of America's early statesmen and educators were schooled in Hebraic civilization. The second president of the United States, John Adams, a Harvard graduate, had this to say of the Jewish people:

The Jews have done more to civilize men than any other nation... They are the most glorious Nation that ever inhabited the earth. The Romans and their Empire were but a bauble in comparison to the Jews. They have given religion to three-quarters of the Globe and have influenced the affairs of Mankind more, and more happily than any other Nation, ancient or modern.

2. The curriculum at Harvard, like those of other early American colleges and universities, was designed by learned men of "Old Testament" persuasion. Harvard president Mather (1685-1701) was an ardent Hebraist (as were his predecessors). His writings contain numerous quotations from the Talmud as well as from the works of Saadia Gaon, Rashi, Maimonides and other classic Jewish commentators.

3. Yale University president Ezra Stiles discoursed with visiting rabbis on the Mishna and Talmud. At his first public commencement at Yale (1781), Stiles delivered an oration on Hebrew literature written in Hebrew. Hebrew and the study of Hebraic laws and institutions were an integral part of Yale's as well as of Harvard's curriculum.

4. Much the same may be said of King's College (later Columbia University), William and Mary, Rutgers, Princeton, Dartmouth, and Brown University. Hebrew learning was then deemed a basic element of liberal education. Samuel Johnson, first president of King's College (1754-1763), expressed the intellectual attitude of his age when he referred to Hebrew as "essential to a gentleman's education."

5. This attitude was not merely academic. A year before the American Revolution, Harvard president Samuel Langdon, declared: "The civil polity of Israel is doubtless an excellent general model[of government]."

6. The Higher Law doctrine of the Declaration of Independence is rooted in the Torah, which proclaims "The Laws of Nature and Nature’s God," and appeals to the "Supreme Judge" and "Providence"—terms lacking in Israel’s Declaration of Independence.

7. During the colonial and constitution-making period, the Americans, especially the Puritans, adopted and adapted various Hebraic laws for their own governance. The legislation of New Haven, for example, was based on the premise that "the judicial laws of God, as they were delivered by Moses, and as they are not ceremonial, shall generally bind all offenders …" Thirty-eight of the seventy-nine statutes in the New Haven Code of 1665 derived their authority from the Hebrew Bible. The laws of Massachusetts were based on the same foundation.

8. The fifteen Capital Laws of New England included the "Seven Noahide Laws" of the Torah, or what may be termed the seven universal laws of morality.

9. Now, without minimizing the influence of such philosophers as Locke and Montesquieu on the framers of the American Constitution, America may rightly be deemed the first and only nation that was explicitly founded on the Seven Noahide Laws of the Torah. It should also be noted that the constitutions of eleven of the original thirteen states made provision for religious education. Some even had religious qualifications for office.

B. The Institutions Prescribed by the American Constitution

1. The House of Representatives represents 435 districts of the United States, where the people of each district elect one person to represent their views and interests. The idea of district elections is implicit in the Torah. We read in Deut. 1:13: "Select for yourselves men who are wise, understanding, and known to your tribes and I will appoint them as your leaders."

a. Exodus 18:19 states: "seek out from among all the people men with leadership ability, God-fearing men--men of truth who hate injustice." Similar qualifications are prescribed in the original constitutions Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island.

b. Each tribe was to select the best men to be their representatives. Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch comments that "each tribe (shevet) is to choose out of its own midst men whose character can only be known by their lives [hence whose character] is known only to those who have associated with them." This is the biblical source of residential requirements for Representatives and Senators in the United States. Also, what is here called a tribe was called a district (pelech) after the Second Temple.

c. Finally, it is a principle of Jewish law that "No legislation should be imposed on the public unless the majority can conform to it" (Avoda Zara 36a). This requires legislators to consider or consult the opinions of their constituents. Hence representative democracy can be assimilated to Judaism by adding that representatives must be "men who are wise and haters of bribes." This would make for an aristocratic democracy, or a universal aristocracy—a kingdom of priests, of noblemen.

2. The Senate. The Senate represents the 50 states of the Federal Union; it therefore represents the Federal principle. But the idea of federalism goes back to the Torah and the twelve tribes. Each tribe had its own distinct identity, its own governor and its own judicial system.

3. The Presidency. Unlike Israel, which has a Plural Executive or Cabinet consisting of a prime minister and other ministers representing different political parties in the Knesset, the United States has a Unitary Executive, namely, the President. Of course the President has a Cabinet, but its members cannot hold any other office and they are wholly responsible to the President, not to any political party.

a. Now it so happens that a Unitary Executive is a Torah principle! Thus, when Moses told Joshua to consult the elders when he was about to lead the Jews across the Jordan, God countermanded Moses: there can only be one leader in a generation. And if you look at tractate Sanhedrin 8a, you will see that Jewish law opposes collective leadership. Nor is this all.

b. Just as a President of the United States must be a native-born American and not a naturalized citizen, so a king of Israel must be born of a Jewish mother and not a ger or convert.

4. The Supreme Court. Just as the American Supreme Court is the final interpreter of the American Constitution, so the Great Sanhedrin is the final interpreter of the Jewish Constitution, the Torah.

So we see that the original American Constitution was very much rooted in Torah Judaism.

C. Brief Comparison with Israel’s political and judicial institutions

1. The Knesset: MKs are not individually elected by the voters in constituency elections—hence there is no accountability. In fact, MKs can ignore public opinion with impunity, as 23 Likud MKs did when they voted for Disengagement, contrary to their pledge to the nation in the January 2003 election.

2. The Government: The cabinet is collection of rival party leaders competing for a larger slice of the national budget. This undermines national unity and national purpose. The average government last less than two years, which makes it impossible to pursue a consistent and long-range national strategy.

3. The Supreme Court: The Court is a self-appointed oligarchy. It refuses to enforce the Foundations of Law Act 1980 which would make Jewish law first among equals. Chief Justice Aaron Barak writes: "It should never be said that a particlar legal system has the primary claim to interpretive inspiration." Imagine a US Supreme Court justice teaching Americans: "It should never be said that the American legal system has the primary claim to interpertive inspiration."

Israel’s Supreme Court is the only court in the world that scorns the legal heritage of its own people. It has repeatedly handed down decisions that violate the basic beliefs and values of the Jewish people.

D. Conclusion: The political and judicial institutions of the so-called Jewish State are less Jewish than the political and judicial institutions now operating in the non-Jewish democratic world!