Is USA foreign policy very influenced by christian-zionists?

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Impaler[WrG]
For example they never sent women to the factories (Hitler wanted them to spend time birthing an raising those super men),

Pre-war yes, since NS advocated a traditional role for them mostly as mothers, but I'm pretty sure they did work in factories on quite a big scale later, certainly from 1942 on they could be send to factories as "duty".

[Elok]

"Isn't it just WONDERFUL that we BOTH LOVE ISRAEL?"

[Heraclitus]

It doesn't really matter, I don't think that Israel has much living left. Once Muslim Eurabia is a reality (40 or so years) I can't see Israel surviving for more than a decade.

Africa will be fully Islamised by then.

After that China and India will be the great religious battle grounds, if either of them "looses" we could have a unified Islamic humanity by 2300.

[Sandman]

You still channeling the ghost of Ned, Heraclitus?

[Dr Strangelove]

I'm not sure about evangelism in continental Europe, but one of the main differences in American evangelicalsm and English evangelcalism is that English evangelicals became more involved in social issue in the 18th century and have remained so. One of the key issues in the early English evangelical movement was abolitionism, but in the southern US, where a very large portion of those belonging to evangelical denominations lived that sort of social involvement became taboo. In the northern US evangelicals supported abolition, and abolition became a divisive issue for evangelicals. In England when slavery was finally abolished the evangelicals moved on to become involved in other issues, like the plight of the urban poor. In the US after the Civil War evangelicals involved themselves in re-uniting their split denominations. Social involvement was less emphasized, partially because the urban poor were becoming increasingly Catholic.

The support of American evangelicals for Israel is largely and I think really began in the 1960s, as several Arab states embraced the support of the Warsaw pact and Israel began to be seen as a lonely pro-Western outpost in the region.

[Traianvs]

Originally posted by Heraclitus
It doesn't really matter, I don't think that Israel has much living left. Once Muslim Eurabia is a reality (40 or so years) I can't see Israel surviving for more than a decade.

Africa will be fully Islamised by then.

After that China and India will be the great religious battle grounds, if either of them "looses" we could have a unified Islamic humanity by 2300.

Most Chinese are atheist. My guess is they will continue to be so, relying on Confucianism and Taoism. The latter has some religious traits, but it's not a religion like we in the west would define it.

[Traianvs]

Originally posted by 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.

What you're describing makes a lot of sense. It's hard to explain why those rednecks go about their business shooting at latinos crossing the border, but your post is enlightening in that respect. Of course the "we vs them" concept is pretty old. It's human really, and one of the reasons I'm usually not too positive about human kind

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by Traianvs


Most Chinese are atheist. My guess is they will continue to be so, relying on Confucianism and Taoism. The latter has some religious traits, but it's not a religion like we in the west would define it.

I said either.

Hinduism has in the past like Christianity proved vulnerable to Muslim conversion, if they should convert, the lands of Islam would stretch across Europe, all of Asia except the far east and all of Africa.

In such an environment I can only imagine the Americas evangelizing and the poor Japs & Chinks being left the only pocket of reason in a world of fanatics.


Also the Muslim minority in China is about 100 mill, should it rise to say 400 or 700 over the course of the next century it would easily push China into a Islamic orbit (while not necessarily converting it outright).

If Japan at any point opens up to immigration (and it will have to), they will be overtaken by 2200 at the latest.

[Bosh]

Originally posted by Heraclitus


I said either.

Hinduism has in the past like Christianity proved vulnerable to Muslim conversion, if they should convert, the lands of Islam would stretch across Europe, all of Asia except the far east and all of Africa.

In such an environment I can only imagine the Americas evangelizing and the poor Japs & Chinks being left the only pocket of reason in a world of fanatics.


Also the Muslim minority in China is about 100 mill, should it rise to say 400 or 700 over the course of the next century it would easily push China into a Islamic orbit (while not necessarily converting it outright).

If Japan at any point opens up to immigration (and it will have to), they will be overtaken by 2200 at the latest.

Wha? Hindu conversion to Islam mostly took place around the fringes of India were Hinduism was never very strong to begin with. Islam only had much success converting Christians in a relatively small area of the Middle East and even that took a millenium (Egypt was still half Christian during the Crusades).

[Traianvs]

Originally posted by Heraclitus


I said either.

Hinduism has in the past like Christianity proved vulnerable to Muslim conversion, if they should convert, the lands of Islam would stretch across Europe, all of Asia except the far east and all of Africa.

In such an environment I can only imagine the Americas evangelizing and the poor Japs & Chinks being left the only pocket of reason in a world of fanatics.


Also the Muslim minority in China is about 100 mill, should it rise to say 400 or 700 over the course of the next century it would easily push China into a Islamic orbit (while not necessarily converting it outright).

If Japan at any point opens up to immigration (and it will have to), they will be overtaken by 2200 at the latest.

Most Chinese muslims you are referring to belong to ethnic minorities in the unhospitable western part of China. The province is called Xinjiang and they're from Turkish-Turkmenian stock. Most of them are Uyghurs, and official numbers describing the total amount of Chinese muslims are much lower, probably about 20-30 million. I don't think China will be a target for religious invasion. Especially seeing how Chinese government is so oppressive towards it. The muslims in Xinjiang are victim of sever repression and assimilation, very similar to the situation in Tibet.