Is USA foreign policy very influenced by christian-zionists?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by BeBro
People with mohawks are teh working class.

I doubt that. It doesn't go over real well at a job interview.

[BeBMan]

Well, of course since teh interviewers are all capitalists who don't like teh working class.

[Dry]

Originally posted by Darius871
There certainly are a lot of evangelicals who support Israel in the belief that it'll "accelerate" the end times, but I don't know where you got the idea that they believe Jews are "still God's chosen people" as you say, let alone that Anglo-Saxons are traced to one of the Lost Tribes. There has been a small contingent of "British Israelism" in existence over the last century or so, but AFAIK it had no relationship with evangelicals. I think you're extrapolating quite a bit here.

No, Barnabas has it mostly right.
I know it, because although I am today an atheist, I come from an evangelical family and I was one for more than 30 years.

We believed that jews are God first choice. They are his natural children, while christian are only adopted children, chosen only because jews rejected God's son: Jesus. A second choice.
Despite the jews rejection, God's heart is still bleeding for them and he cannot 'unlove' them, they are still dear to him.

Even if christians do God's will, they remain children by adoption, spiritual children, not natural children. So they have to remain humble and respectfull for the love and sadness of God toward his true but unfaithfull children.

Verses like Zech 2:8 "For thus saith the LORD of hosts; After the glory hath he sent me unto the nations which spoiled you: for he that toucheth you toucheth the apple of his eye." are still applicable. And any move against a jew is a move against God himself.

For exemple, my great-grand father, before the ww2 already 'knew' (you know, that kind of christian faith based on the bible) that Hitler was doomed to failed because he had moved against the jews.

This desire to help, to side the jews is genuine and not based on hasting the apocalypse, but on doing good to someone who is dear to someone who is dear to us.

I remember indeed a great debate among us about should we help Israel or not. Should we help them, even when we think they are wrong, should we help them, even if it means accelerating the end of times?
There was no clear answer and some of us tried to make a difference between jews and Israel, the people and the government, while a few indeed 'blindly' helped Israel as a state.

But even among the most blind of us, I do not remember a single one who got the idea of deliberately accelerating the end.
The first reason is because it is a move against the jews themselves. To help precipitating the doom of the jews is the exact opposite of the original belief. It is dooming yourself, it is attracting God's wrath upon yourself. No sane christian would do that.

When I was still a christian, some 10-15 years ago, this was mainstream evangelical belief here in Belgium.

I have learned later, after I became an atheist, that indeed, mostly in the US (I don't know in Europe) some more radical evangelicals had gone that far to help Israel for devious reasons.
According to the evangelical, historical beliefs that was in my family for more than 100 years and that I had myself in my youth, this would be a move against the jews, thus a move against God.
And I think my great grand father would say that those people, those 'christians' are doomed, because they have moved against the apple of the eye of God.

[Traianvs]

Interesting post Dry.

That said I don't think there need to be christian-zionists in power for US backing of Israel. There are plenty of American Jews in high places that ensure a lasting sympathy between the two states.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Traianvs
Interesting post Dry.

That said I don't think there need to be christian-zionists in power for US backing of Israel. There are plenty of American Jews in high places that ensure a lasting sympathy between the two states.

And there's plenty of retired Jewish people who have retired to Florida (like Seinfeld's parents). They can tip the balance of power in this perpetual battleground state.

[Kidlicious]

Evangelicals in Europe are different from those in the US.

[Traianvs]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Evangelicals in Europe are different from those in the US.

Yeh, mainly that we have relatively few of them

[johncmcleod]

Well in response to the title post, duh.

Great post traianvs, but there is a huge difference between European and American evangelicals for lots of reasons, including that they are a small minority in Europe. American evangelicals are a lot less influenced by theology than their European counterparts. For Americans, it's much more of a cultural thing. American is much more of a dissident Protestant culture and continues to be (unlike other places in Europe which ended up becoming much more secular), and I would describe southern culture as highly evangelical. The difference is for American evangelicals, it's not just about theology and the bible, it's about who they are as a people. This is why they are so nationalistic, their faith is part of their identity as proud Americans, and they believe America to be a Christian country and that evil liberal seculars are trying to remove those values from the governmental sphere and replace it with an aethiest, liberal ideology that tries to make people gay and destroys family values. Even if they agree with their European counterparts on a lot of issues, it's a different perspective, and I just don't think European evangelicals identify as strongly with the culture of their respective nations. They're a minority and know it and wouldn't proud to be, say, Belgian, since Belgian culture is highly secular.

Thus, for American evangelicals, race is a huge issue. Since they so strongly identify with what they consider to be American, Christian culture, it follows that they will view other groups with suspicion. I think it's an inherent part of nationalism, xenophobia, whatever you want to label this process (you can't always call it nationalism since a lot of times they don't identify with the state, it's more of a strong belief in community and how great you are as a people, how great your values are, etc.). If you believe your group to be great and to have the best values, culture, etc., than it must follow that the other groups are inferior. This is manifested in different ways, ranging from perhaps suspicion and exclusion to outright violence (such as genocide against the Jews). Since such behavior isn't tolerated due to our history and the liberal (as in classical liberalism) safeguards of our government, the violence against other groups isn't as bad as it has been in some places (but worse than in others).

Due to geographics, the current "other" group that is receiving a lot of attention from the evangelicals are the Latino, mostly Mexican, immigrants that are coming from down south. They come from a different culture with a different language and religion (Catholicism), and the increased presence of this "other" group greatly troubles evangelicals/other proud, Republican Americans. It's not just about evangelicalism or the Bible, it's about Americanism. Evangelicals tend to make up most of the Americanists, because they identify with and believe that America as a concept has the same values, probable due to America's history as a dissident Protestant culture and an evangelical one in the south, so they tie the two together, but it's important to understand that there are many other Americanists that aren't Evangelicals. I realize distinctions between religion and culture are western, ethnocentric, and innacurate, but for the sake of simplicity, I'll say it's not a "religious" (in the sense of theological) phenomenon, it's a "cultural" one (as in stemming from the values and history of a people and what they consider to be their identity).

So the Americanists will go to the border and shoot the Latinos that come across and are deeply bothered by signs of what they consider to be "Latino culture" particularly the language. They claim immigration is about economics, but what kind of redneck gets riled up enough about economic policies to go out and shoot someone? And why do they get so unbelievably rattled up by hearing and seeing Spanish? It's because it comes from an "other" group, which they don't identify with, and they want to do everything they can from keeping this "other" group (whether it be Mexicans or gay-hippie-countercultural-pot smoking-tree huggin-hippies) from invading and eroding their values and power in government, or what they consider to be American values.

It was the same with the blacks. Even though the blacks were Christians, evangelicals were certainly willing to hang them whenever they went out to vote and made sure they drank from different water fountains. It's because even if they shared the same theology (most southern blacks were baptists), they still had a different history, culture, and color (making the distinction very obvious and easy), and were considered and "other" group. Thus interracial dating is still incredibly rare down there. In traditional, southern, evangelical culture, blacks were considered to be of a different culture and that they shouldn't mix with whites. The whites certainly didn't want them, being so nationalist/proud of their culture group, to which the blacks didn't belong. Things are changing a bit, however, as theology is advancing the belief that all saved souls are equal (centuries late this change is happening, but it's coming surely but slowly), and the new resurgance in evangelicalism since the 80s (due to the fear of the 'other' group of the 60s, the countercultuarlists, hippies, environmentalists, peaceniks, weed smokers, black marxists, etc.) has including lots of blacks and latinos.

And of course for foreign policy the "other" group were those evil aetheist communists. They were the enemies of our beloved government and military, and this culture was the worst kind--it was aetheist and didn't like religion and vastly ideologically different from American culture, strongly individualist and capitalist. Thus conservative Americanists, many of which were evangelical, would support anything to fight the communists at all levels, whether it was the ridding them of our own government or fighting them abroad. This dualistic, us vs. them, good vs. evil mindset, which fits in so well with nationalism and pride in your group/belief system/religion, became the template for the War on Terror.

So back to the Israel discussion, Americanists (due to the Christian influence) identify culturally much more with Jews than Muslims. Jews used to be deemed an "other" group in America, earning them persecution by these same Americanists, but since the creation of Israel and the entrance of American support for Israel in the political sphere as an important issue, mostly due to the strong financial influence of Zionists in America, the Jews became on "our side," since they were fighting against a group that Americans definitely considered an "other" group.

Then 911 happened, and for the first time in hundreds of years there was a serious and shocking attack on American soil (even worse than Pearl Harbor, since at the time Hawaii wasn't famous, wasn't a state, and seemed a long ways from home), and this attack was made by an "other" group, the Arabs/Muslims (you can't even draw the line of who comprises this "other" group, but Americanists are too dumb to care), who strongly identified with their religion, a religion different from Christianity, and have a very different history and political outlook than we do in the west. Thus the Arabs/Muslims are very different from us in a lot of ways, and due to the anti-American sentiment and the conflict with Israel, God's chosen people in the Christian religion, are the perfect "other" group and the perfect enemy. Israel is an ally against the enemy, and we have the hugely popular War on Terror/War on Islam. Coming from a conservative area, I hear the common views that don't make such distinctions as much as they do in the liberal media. I frequently hear people say things like "we should just nuke all those Arabs to glass." Listening to the average Joe discuss his Americanist political views is highly valuable, since you get to hear the heart of such sentiments undiluted and unmasked by more intelligent, educated reasoning.

If you don't believe me, study the KKK. It's the strongest, most violent manifestation of Americanism, with very evangelical roots.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Kidicious
BeBro,

I'm just going to stop even though I'm right, because I prefer to not have a diminished opinion of you.

"It's just a flesh wound!"

[BeBMan]

"Let's call it a draw"

[Zevico]

Barnabas:
Pretty much, no.
Most Americans sympathise with Israel. 59% according to a 2006 poll: http://www.themiddleeastnow.com/ref/gallupisrael.html

So it's more or less safe to suppose that pro-Israeli policies are supported by the majority of Americans.

The view of the Christian zionists is that Israel has to exist for the End Times to come about. But I think their support for Israeli s also rooted partly in the image of the conflict and Israel that they receive in the American media rather than biblical prophecy as such. So it is quite possible that Christian Zionists will change their views in the future.

Some Christian Zionists happen to strongly support the building of Israeli settlements within Gaza or the West Bank. There's really very little they can do to effect a change in American policy in this regard, which is rooted in concern for the eventual outcome of a now hypothetical peace agreement and, consequently, opposition to the building of settlements.

This Israeli policy regarding settlement building--which after all is dictated by Israeli domestic squabbling between the various Israeli parties, not American or any other influence-- is an ideological struggle going on within Israel itself. America can do little to affect it, but it can pressure the non-religious parties, such as Likud, Labor or Kadima, not to build them [not that Labor or Kadima actually want to build any; parts of Likud probably do].

Right now the Israeli government is waiting for Kadima's Tzipi Livni to form a coalition governemnt with left wing parties. These parties won't support a settlement building policy. So for the time being, as there is no settlement building policy in Israel, the Christian Zionists have no real role to play past supporting Israeli policies, much as a majority of Americans do. Even if Israel were to build settlements, the Christian Zionists could do little to sway American governments (of any party-Republican or Democrat) away from their long-standing opposition to such efforts.

That's my take, anyway.

[Impaler[WrG]]

original posted by: johncmcleod

I'll say it's not a "religious" (in the sense of theological) phenomenon, it's a "cultural" one (as in stemming from the values and history of a people and what they consider to be their identity).

Very insightful post but I just wanted to point out that I think your description of Souther Evangelical culture/religion is the same kind of situation that exists in the Arab world. What we call "Radical Islam" is really more a cultural identity of Arabs thats been grafted onto Islam. In other parts of the world ware Islam is practiced the underlying culture is more determinative of the populations social make up and outlook then the religion. Its really not surprising considering that Islam is so decentralized and open to interpretation.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by BeBro


1944, at the time of complete Allied air superiority, at the height of Allied bombing campaigns, Germany still managed to have the highest output in terms of weapons etc - read about that Speer guy. Allied bombing never stopped war production, Allied ground troops did when taking important industrial cores.

Have to side with Bebro on this one. German industrial production went up every year of the war, right up to the war's end, despite the bombing campaign. Of course without the bombing no doubt production would have gone up still higher but you get the point.

[Dry]

Originally posted by johncmcleod
I just don't think European evangelicals identify as strongly with the culture of their respective nations. They're a minority and know it and wouldn't proud to be, say, Belgian, since Belgian culture is highly secular.

This is not as you describe.
I think you got the principle right, but not how it translate into reality.

First of all, as a religious minority they support secularism (separation of church and state).
A religious minority opposing secularism would be suicidal as it would mean domination of the church of the majority. That is in Belgium either Catholicism, or maybe today Islam.

Second, Belgian culture is not perceived as secular. It is perceived as Catholic.
Do you know that in Belgium the word 'christian' and 'catholic' are for many people synonymous?
Our former 'christian' political parties were in fact 'catholic' parties.
I, myself, had once to explain to some idiot that I was 'christian', but not 'catholic'. How could that be possible? I am not sure the guy entirely got it.

Until recently, their was an official event: a special catholic mass, to celebrate the Belgian monarchy. During my military service, those who had declared themselves 'catholics' could well be recruited/forced to attend such event.

Now, to make a distinction between belgian culture (catholic, state religion) and belgian state (secular), let me say that freedom of religion came with the state and is not part of belgian's culture.
And this state secularism is coming from the values of the french revolution, not from belgian history.
After the creation of Belgium, both the Jewish and the protestant comunities, increased in number.
Their number was multiplied by 5 or 10, if not more.
Minorities as the jewish one and the protestant one, know what they ow to the state and what they ow to the culture. And believe me, they ow a lot more to the state.

This is a book telling the story of a guy in the resistance, who attended the same church as my grand parents.
He is an evangelical hero, because he fought for his country, for freedom, but without rejecting his evangelical principles. For example, he never carried a gun, because for him, as christian, he could not take a human life. For some missions, the Brits wanted him to be armed, to defend himself, but he refused. It was told in my family that he was the only british agent who never carried a weapon. He wanted to save life and freedom, but not at the cost of another human life.

This leads me to the biggests diferences between european and american evangelicals.
And that is guns and alcohol.
I know only 1, out of hundreds of them who would buy, even a toy gun, to their children. And that single one is highly influenced by american evangelicals, creationism and all that bs.
As a child, I never, I repeat NEVER got a toy gun for present, even when I asked. My parents were seen as quite liberals, because they allowed me to play with guns of friends. That was how far they tolerated it: when with friends, at their home, I could play with them, but I could not bring the guns back home.
Its only after some thoughts, that they allowed us to play with water guns.
Later, when I grew up a bit, they became even more liberal and they accepted that I received old toy guns from friends, or, if I payed with my own pocket money, I could buy myself a toy gun.
My brother and I finally bought an air gun, that had to be hidden from my grand mother, to not upset her, that she did not believe we had became bloodthirsty serial killers.
The idea of killing someone, even for play, even in fictions like movies, was intolerable for some.

OTOH, on alcohol, europeans are more liberals than american ones. I remember visits from american 'brothers' who were shocked that we allowed ourselves one beer...
For us, what was forbiden was being drunk, not drinking alcohol.

[Impaler[WrG]]

My understand is that the Germans were massively under-utilizing their industrial capacity through most of the war. For example they never sent women to the factories (Hitler wanted them to spend time birthing an raising those super men), and did not run the factories on modern 4 shift continuous production (again Hitler had told everyone the war would be a cake walk and no real sacrifices were needed from the population). So even after bombing half the factories they could maintain the same production by using the remember the way they should have been using them all along. They also benefited in the late stages of the war from a good system of decentralizing industry out of factories and into smaller workshops which were harder to find and bomb. The consensus is that if Germany had waited two more years and or gone to a fully mobilized war footing for its economy they would have defeated England and Russia and then it would have been a very interesting trans Atlantic war with the U.S.