Posted April 18, 2002

Biblical Facts

Mr. Raimondo has correctly labeled elements of the Christian Fundamentalist right as "nutballs," sharing an interpretation of biblical tradition with present-day Zionists. "Dispensationalism," as a method of biblical interpretation emphasizes a supposedly "literal" interpretation of biblical facts which gives ethnic Israel a particular place in their eschatology ("end times" hypotheses). Therefore, we have the most embarrassing situation in which well-intending American Christians have been led to condone, justify and excuse horrific acts done at the command of the utterly vicious Ariel Sharon.

"Dispensationalism" spread through American Christendom through the long-popular Schofield Reference Bible and trained scores of Christian leaders at Dallas Theological Seminary. As a Christian of a differing persuasion, the problem with the dispensational hermeneutic is that the "Israel" mentioned in Scripture symbolizes a group not synonymous with ethnic Jews. The popular entertainment-oriented group churches seem to be dispensationalist to the core. The ailing Pope's characterization of Sharon's malicious assault on Palestinians as "brutal and barbaric" is the more correct call from the true Christian conservative camp.

~ Michael J. Hamrin, California

Bringing on Ezekiel 38-39

Where do you think Bush gets the word 'evildoer' from? It is used extensively in the Bible. He is playing his part in bringing on Ezekiel 38-39.

~ RB

US Will Never Bring Peace

This is in response to Mike P.'s view of Middle East War [Backtalk, April 15].

Mike needs accurate information of Middle East. Israel is not killing Palestinians because of suicide bombers but: Israel gave birth to suicide bombers. Israel's 35 years of ongoing assault and illegal occupation is responsible for desperate acts by Palestinians. The US mainstream media will never report facts about the Middle East. However, you can get accurate facts by listening to world news and independent news on the internet.

The recent barbaric acts of Israel, and the reaction of US to the crisis is a proof of the US' failure as a peace negotiator. It's time Europe took initiative and end this bloody war in the Middle East. Powell's blind support of Israel (his inspection of the site of a suicide bomber in Jerusalem, and his lack of presence in Jenin) only emphasizes America's biased attitude in the Middle East. United States of America will never bring peace to the region. Now it is left up to the rest of the world to act righteously.

~ Moushumi Kabir

Something Amiss

Over the last year and a half I have been following the conflict in Israel. There is a point here that I have yet to see expressed by anyone except myself. If we put this into the perspective of American foreign policy, and of Britain, the rest of Europe, and NATO of the past decade. Specifically I am referring to the mess in the Kosovo. If one compares the battles between the Yugoslav forces and the KLA with the battles between The Israeli Defense Forces and the Palestinians, the reaction of the American government seems hypocritical at best. The oppression, death and destruction the Yugoslavs caused in Kosovo was minuscule compared with the oppression, death and destruction that the Israelis have rained down upon the Palestinians. In the Kosovo case our leaders found it so urgent "to prevent a catastrophe" that the US (and NATO) had to bomb the crap out of Serbia. Then to make matters worse, to charge Serb leaders with crimes against humanity. Yet, in the case of Israel, the US government has all but encouraged the Israelis. (Just watch and wait, the current 'peace effort' will prove to be little more than a PR show.) Is it just me or is something amiss here?

~ Edward Harvey

Hope in Venezuela

What the hell happened in Venezuela? A couple days ago the military ousted the popularly elected president, Chavez; apparently with no protest from the United States. The press in the U.S. portrayed Chavez as a 'burr under the saddle' of the US The press ignored the fact that regime changes don't just happen in countries the US has a vested interest in. Venezuela is one of these countries; they supply us with a good portion of our oil. So then, if the military overthrew the president, you can be sure the US was at least covertly involved. But so much for the U.S.'s supreme power; Venezuela's citizens rose up in no time and demanded the return of their president, which they got....

What gives? The protests for Chavez's return were relatively peaceful, and not many had to die in order for the military, of all organizations, to acquiesce to the people's demands. It has been guessed that the US, along with Venezuela's 'upper crust' helped the military take power. Was the US ill-prepared to have this conflict blow up in their faces? "Okay we're going to go ahead and try this, but if it doesn't work, we'll just go back to the way it was before there is really any 'damage' to control." The Venezuelan people need to recognize this and realize their president is still not safe. They need to investigate the US roll in the coup attempt; they need to realize what the US is capable of.

Washington made no secret of its displeasure with Chavez, even though he was a representative of the form of government that the US supposedly supports. It should warm the blood of American leaders that a people are getting the leader that they want; but it won't. The USwill continue to work behind the scenes ... to help bring about what the Venezuelan military was not successful at this weekend.

I am going to need to find out more about the specifics that led up to Chavez's overthrow. The US press claims he shot protesters ... , but the shooting of the protesters could've been done by assassins keen to the imminent coup attempt. I believe, without any facts, that this will eventually come to light. Why would the citizens so forcefully come out into the streets for their deposed leader if he had just acted so violently against them? Also, what were the exact terms of the nationwide protests (how many people, how much violence, how many dead, what key players contributed to the presidents return and why?) that apparently forced the military's hand?

There is a hope in Venezuela that the whole world must latch onto, guardedly, because once a target is chosen, it will continue to be attacked until the attackers are thrust out into the open. Obviously, though, the US is not as omnipotent as she would have the world believe. Venezuela, please stay prepared to stay the fight, your president is not yet safe. Your fight has brought a hope to this heart that has not existed for a while. Total US hegemony is not inevitable after all. Yeah!

Apocalypse

On November 22, 1999, PBS aired an incredible two-part Frontline documentary, Apocalypse!. The films dramatically traced the pivotal impact of apocalyptic thought in influencing world history, from ancient Hebrew prophesy to contemporary efforts by Nebraska Pentecostals to breed the red heifer believed necessary for the building of the third Temple in Jerusalem, discussed by Justin Raimondo in "Beware the Red Heifer." I have found Apocalypse! absolutely crucial in introducing my 20th Century World History students to the background of utopian nightmares and gnostic political religions responsible for the deaths of over 200,000,000 persons in that bloody century. The videos also serve as a vehicle to the brilliant, uncompromising scholarship of Murray N. Rothbard and Eric Voegelin in this area. I urge all Antiwar.com readers to view this remarkable documentary.

~ Charles A. Burris

Samson

I am a daily visitor of Antiwar.com and thus I became an admirer of [Ran HaCohen's] Letter from Israel column. I sincerely admire your intelligence, your intellectual honesty and your courage, and I wish I had written you before to praise your work. Unfortunately, a mysterious force seems to make us more enthusiastic about expressing our disagreements than offering compliments. Please take this message as both.

In your article "Suicidal Truths", you present a moral comment on suicide that ends up with the conclusion that "suicide in itself is irreproachable". I respect this opinion (if that is actually your true opinion on the subject), even though I strongly disagree with it. Anyway, it's not my intention to convince you that suicide is morally wrong, nor to point out that none of the authors mentioned in your article (Hume, Epictetus et al) really provide any definite "proof" or "demonstration" that suicide is not an evil act; actually, such a "proof" is impossible unless we agree on the basic principles upon which the argument must lay -- and this is precisely where the whole problem cannot be rationally solved (see, for example, Hume's ambiguous statement that God made us free to change nature for our own happiness -- as if there were no limits to this freedom and as if dying in violation of God's will could be qualified as seeking one's happiness).

What I'd really like to point out is that your analogy between suicide and martyrdom is highly inaccurate, at least regarding the Christian religion. "Recalling" Samson as the first "suicidal" hero that "opened a long tradition of martyrs" is a misleading statement; it might lead a misinformed reader to believe that Christian religion sees little difference between them; that it actually encourages suicide, if the "motive" is proper. That is just not true. According to Christian religion (specially Catholic religion ), the difference between the suicide and the martyr relies not on only motive, but on behavior (action): the former seeks death, wants death, causes his own death; the latter does not pursue death; he simply refuses to compromise and forsake his faith in order to avoid it, when he is forced to do so. Saint Paul's teachings on the relationship between the faith and the civil duties are specially clear on this regard. He does not encourage challenging the State's authority; he does not urge the faithful to defy worldly authority and thus seek martyrdom. Actually, having been himself a former persecutor of Christians and taken part on the martyrdom of Stephen, he was pretty aware that such pursuit would not even be necessary; that, unfortunately, Christians' martyrdom would be more common that one might believe and hope for.

This is a very important point: the martyr does not seek, provoke or cause his death, nor the death of others. Therefore, the suicidal bomber does not fit, by any means, the Christian profile of the martyr. The Christian model for martyrdom is not Samson, but Jesus Christ, who, in the Christian religion, is believed to be not just a holy man, but God Himself; He, who could destroy all mankind, but decided to became a Man and, by dying and resurrecting, make salvation possible for all men. The difference between these two role models is too manifest to ignore.

~ Flávio C., Brazil

Ran HaCohen replies:

Thank you for this interesting letter. As for the Christian "martyr," I stand corrected.