Trending Topics:

George Bush set to speak to Christian End-Times group that calls for conversion of Jews

Israel/Palestine
on 47 Comments

George-W-Bush.jpegFormer President George W. Bush is scheduled to be the keynote speaker tomorrow at a fundraiser for the Messianic Jewish Bible Institute. This appearance confirms what many have long suspected – that George W. Bush was and is an adherent to Christian Zionist End Times theology.

The goal of MJBI is to convert Jews to Christianity because they believe this will hasten the anticipated Second Coming of Jesus Christ.

In its Mission Statement MJBI says:

The MJBI equips leaders who will establish Messianic Jewish congregations and ministries in Jewish communities worldwide. Additionally, the MJBI seeks to equip the Church in its responsibility to take the Good News to the Jew first (Romans 1:16). Like Paul, the MJBI helps educate Christians in their role to provoke the Jewish people to jealousy and thus save some of them (Romans 11:11-14).

Mother Jones, in a recent article about the appearance, gave this explanation of the group’s mission from a Jewish convert to Christian Messianism.

Another MJBI board member, Rabbi Marty Waldman of Baruch HaShem, a Messianic congregation in Dallas, described his own conversion experience before making a pitch to the audience to donate money to MJBI. Money, he explained, is needed to hasten the return of Jesus. With the funds it collects, Waldman said, MJBI trains “people to preach the good news of the Messiah to the Jewish people.” That’s important, Waldman noted, because when there are “enough” Jewish people who call Jesus their savior, “some sort of a trigger will go off in heaven, and our father in heaven will say, ‘Okay, son, it’s time to get your bride.'”

On Friday, MJBI took the announcement of Bush’s appearance off of their website, though a Bush aide said he would still attend.

During his presidency Bush played down his connections to Christian Zionism in his rhetoric, but his policies from “compassionate conservatism”, to his benign attitude to Israeli settlements on the West Bank, to the war on Iraq must be seen in a different light based on his clear support of Christian Zionism.

For anyone who knows Bush’s family history, this should come as no surprise. One of Bush’s ancestors, George Bush, a biblical scholar and professor of Hebrew at New York University, in 1844 published The Valley of Vision; or, The Dry Bones of Israel Renewed, which called for the return of Jews to Israel to form “a link of communication between humanity and God”. (Power, Faith, and Fantasy: America in the Middle East from 1776 to the Present by Michael Oren, p. 141)

Since the founding of the state of Israel, the leadership of Israel and American Christian Zionists has had a symbiotic relationship to advance the Zionist agenda. The contradictory objectives of both were ignored in the interests of keeping the U.S. government tied to supporting a Jewish state based on an apartheid system against the indigenous population of the area to form the state of Israel. The infamous speech by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on May 24, 2011, where he openly criticized President Obama’s Middle East policies before the U.S. Congress and received 29 standing ovations, is the most blatant example of this symbiotic relationship in the U.S. government.  American Christian Zionists are deeply involved in the ethnic cleansing of the West Bank as part of establishing greater Israel to what they consider Biblically mandated borders.

This open endorsement of the conversion of Jews to Christianity as the goal of many Christian Zionists brings to the forefront the major contradiction in the symbiotic relationship between Jewish Zionists and Christian Zionists. The Christian Zionist enterprise depends on this conversion. At the same time the increasing xenophobia of Jewish nationalists in Israel clashes with this Christian Zionist objective. As documented by Max Blumenthal in Goliath – Life and Loathing in Greater Israel, in the chapter “How to Kill Goyim and Influence People” there are extreme Jewish nationalists who are hostile to any non-Jewish participation in the Jewish state. A 2009 book, Torat Ha’Melech spells out the Jewish nationalist view of gentiles. Blumenthal quotes the authors in his book (p. 303):

According to the authors, Rabbi Yitzhak Shapira and Rabbi Yosef Elitzur, non-Jews are “uncompassionate by nature” and may have been killed in order to “curb their evil inclinations.” “If we kill a gentile who has violated one of the seven commandments [of Noah]…there is nothing wrong with the murder.”

While this comment is given in the context of a rationalization of genocide against Palestinians, it is not a stretch that such irrational beliefs include all non-Jews. This is particularly the case since, as can be seen from organizations such as the Messianic Jewish Bible Institute, Christian Zionism is just another version of the anti-Semitism that has plagued Western culture since a Jewish rebel against the Roman Empire almost 2100 years ago was turned into a religious icon of the Roman Empire. Christian Zionism treats Jewish people as objects in a great cosmological war at the End of Time. What happens if the Jewish people do not sign on to this fundamentalist mythology? Won’t a rejection of the message of Christian Zionism by Israelis be seen as yet another betrayal of Jesus as the Messiah that will bring the true anti-Semitic core of Christian Zionism to the fore?

The participation of George W. Bush, who was President of the United States for eight years, in the Messianic Jewish Bible Institute conference, can only deepen the crisis of Zionism in all its forms.

Editor: Bush’s appearance is being widely criticized, including by Zionist outfits, Commentary magazine and the Anti-Defamation League, and in the Forward, by a Los Angeles rabbi.

Kenneth Derstine
About Kenneth Derstine

Kenneth Derstine is a retired Philadelphia public school teacher

Other posts by .


Posted In:

47 Responses

  1. ThorsteinVeblen2012
    ThorsteinVeblen2012
    November 13, 2013, 1:59 pm

    I wouldn’t think George Bush could sell anything but with Bibi continually giving him “sales support” it might work.

    • November 14, 2013, 1:32 am

      can you imagine this pychotic idiot actually ran the US?
      saw and heard him on some talk interview about what he thought about the boston massacre. i don’t think i’ve ever seen a more befuddled person in my life in such a situation wherre their asked their opinion about anything.
      he was almost clueless and i noticed how he seemed to be desperately struggling for someone to help him amswer the question.
      someone like the REAL president, CHENEY!

  2. LanceThruster
    LanceThruster
    November 13, 2013, 2:01 pm

    “There’s an old saying in Tennessee — I know it’s in Texas, probably in Tennessee –Kill them all. God will know his own.”

  3. W.Jones
    W.Jones
    November 13, 2013, 2:07 pm

    I really don’t think Bush follows CZ end times theology. But I do think he knows a constituency when he sees one.

    Norm Finkelstein spoke derisively of the idea that NeoCons were “Straussian”. He is right I think that the NeoCons have not really worked out their philosophy based on Strauss. Finkelstein even pointed out that his mother was a Holocaust survivor in the 1950’s or 1960’s and yet politicians who play to that really did not care about it when he was little and went to school with them.

    One of Bush’s ancestors, George Bush, a biblical scholar and professor of Hebrew at New York University, in 1844 published The Valley of Vision; or, The Dry Bones of Israel Renewed, which called for the return of Jews to Israel to form “a link of communication between humanity and God”.

    Key words= “one of his ancestors”
    Maybe that is what Jr. thinks. Maybe not.

    The fact that he is participating in the conference does not mean he is a CZ. To give an analogy, Marc Ellis, who is a rabbinical scholar, went to the World Council of Churches to speak not long ago.

    Sad to say, but CZism might be one of the more moral motivations for Mideast wars.

  4. pabelmont
    pabelmont
    November 13, 2013, 2:17 pm

    When there are no more Jews (or no more Jews in Israel), will there remain an argument for a Jewish-and-democratic Israel? Well, YES: the Endt-Timers will see that as a wonderful outcome, and continue to ignore the forced removal of most of the native Christians of the Holy Land at the hands of these newly-converted-from-Judaism Christians.

    • W.Jones
      W.Jones
      November 13, 2013, 2:53 pm

      Pabel,

      If you think that this conversion is not just a π in the ☀☁ outcome, then you may also take into consideration how that conversion would affect relations with those native Christians. For example, do Messianics have the same relations to other Christians that the State has with the natives, or are they more tolerant?

  5. HRK
    HRK
    November 13, 2013, 2:23 pm

    To assume that Christian Zionists have a core that is anti-Semitic. . . . Very questionable.

    When people of one religion seek converts from another religion–I don’t see that as necessarily a hateful thing. (How one attempts to convert another–that’s another question, and certainly those seeking converts sometimes can be rude and even hateful.)

    Just a guess: Are you thinking about religion in the same way that most people think about family. Yes, it is hateful (typically–barring circumstances such as abuse, etc.) if I tell you that I want your wife to leave you or if I tell you I want your brothers and sisters to turn their back on you.

    Could you be viewing Judaism as serving the function of creating a surrogate family? Hence, those seeking to convert Jews to Christianity are ripping apart family-like bonds?

    • Kenneth Derstine
      Kenneth Derstine
      November 13, 2013, 11:21 pm

      No, I am speaking about conversion for the purpose of carrying out a political agenda. All religions should be respected and that includes a sincere dialogue about what people believe the truth is which might include an attempt to “convert” the other person to accept your religious beliefs.

      When I say Christian Zionism is anti-Semitic I mean it is engaged in an attempt to use Jews to advance its own agenda, the Second Coming of Christ. In the past such attitudes have let to violence against Jews for not accepting Christ as the Messiah.

      • W.Jones
        W.Jones
        November 14, 2013, 1:40 am

        I think the CZs are not doing conversion for the sake of a political agenda, like to support a political party, but are doing it for a religious agenda. You are right about respecting religions and a sincere dialogue.

        I don’t agree with CZ end times ideas, and I see what you mean about using people to advance an agenda, and that can ignore the group’s own feelings. But I do not think that this agenda is the only aspect involved. ie. HRK’s idea is that this conversion is not really meant to be harmful for the group. After all, if you believe that your own religion is correct and salvific, and you care about another group then it makes sense you would not be trying to harm the other group but could even see it as beneficial.

        To give another example, if religion X wanted to voluntarily convert Americans because it would save them and advance some heavenly agenda one need not consider their desire to be anti-American.

        You commented: “In the past such attitudes have let to violence against Jews for not accepting Christ as the Messiah.” So one can ask if this was something under set historical conditions or if violence is inherent in a belief in evangelizing people. If the CZs did decide they were going to persecute nonbelievers, certainly that would be a major example of religious intolerance and discrimination.

        Interesting discussion, BTW.

      • FreddyV
        FreddyV
        November 14, 2013, 6:26 am

        @HRK:

        Whilst Christian Zionism claims not to be antisemitic, one can only conclude that the playing out of the eschatology (end times prophesy) is precisely that.

        CZ’s believe that they will be whisked to heaven leaving a period of time when the earth will continue to turn and The Time Of Jacob’s Trouble will occur when most Jews will perish with only a few ‘chosen’ Jews converting to Christianity.

        In essence Christian Zionism demands the complete elimination of all Jews with the majority of them being required to perish and only a few being ‘saved’. in the Christian sense.

        When you wrap your head around this, you realise how CZ’s can happily wring their hands over the Palestinian plight and over the endless wars in the Middle East. As they view it all as part of God’s Great Plan, their Christ orientated moral compass (help the needy and the poor and sick, love thy neighbour etc) gets so screwed they wouldn’t even be able to find the bathroom with it. They don’t even see the millon deaths in Iraq or the crippling sanctions killing Iranian children, or the millions of people who are subjugated by regimes in Egypt etc to accommodate Israel and America’s behaviour. To these people, its all part of God’s Plan, no matter how fcuked up it all gets. Geddit?

        I don’t mind anyone holding to any religion or worldview, but when it is such a very dangerous and evil one as this, I have to speak out against it.

  6. W.Jones
    W.Jones
    November 13, 2013, 2:27 pm

    Just as Norm is skeptical about the NeoCons’ “Straussianism”, I am doubftul about this statement:

    During his presidency Bush played down his connections to Christian Zionism in his rhetoric, but his policies from “compassionate conservatism”, to his benign attitude to Israeli settlements on the West Bank, to the war on Iraq must be seen in a different light based on his clear support of Christian Zionism.

    Perhaps this is putting the cart before the horse. Namely, Derstine writes that Bush’s support for CZism is “clear”, but the evidence for this seems to be various indirect things like “compassionate conservatism”.

    You may doubt perhaps how compassionate Bush is if he starts wars, and so you may also doubt how much of a CZ he is. I don’t know that he has promoted Aliyah, or that his policy of support for the State is so drastically different than what we have seen under other presidents. In fact, I heard that the belief in 2 States and plan for it was promoted under his presidency. He is hardly a Palestinian Nationalist, but he should get at least some credit for not being an ideological CZ-ist.

    I can be wrong, but I am just not seeing the direct evidence that Bush’s main motivation in his foreign policy is religious CZ-ism. Obama is also benign on settlements and supported the invasion of Libya- was any of that out of CZism?

    Likewise, it is a big overgeneralization when you write about the CZ’s symbiotic relationship to the state:

    The infamous speech by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on May 24, 2011, where he openly criticized President Obama’s Middle East policies before the U.S. Congress and received 29 standing ovations, is the most blatant example of this symbiotic relationship in the U.S. government.

    The CZs make up a big percent of Evangelicals, but how many Protestants and Catholics as a whole are CZs? Half of the legislators are Democrats who made the ovation. How many of those Demcorats are CZs? Do they think in terms of CZism themselves? Would they all stand up in 29 ovations for end times theology? Probably not. The unanimous standing ovation cannot be simply explained as an example of CZ-ism.

    Likewise, this statement is true but misleading:

    American Christian Zionists are deeply involved in the ethnic cleansing of the West Bank as part of establishing greater Israel to what they consider Biblically mandated borders.

    What percent of donations to the cleansing comes from CZs? I don’t know, but I think it is not most funding. How many of the soldiers are CZs? What about EU investments in the State? Many CZs probably know next to nothing about Palestinians and the situation in the West Bank outside of some cliches.

  7. W.Jones
    W.Jones
    November 13, 2013, 2:45 pm

    Granted, you are making a good point about the inherent contradiction between the religious side of the State’s ideology and the CZs because their religious beliefs about the Messiah differ. The practical result that you can see in many CZ organizations like CUFI is a whittling down of those contradictions, whereby for example CUFI declares that it does not evangelize, despite the fact that it is a tenet of their underlying religion. This is best the working goal for those groups is political first of all, and that can have an effect on their actual beliefs, for better or worse. The ICEJ has also authored a statement along with other groups laying out CZism in a way that does not have exclusionary end times thinking.

    What you may learn from political history is that political accommodationism can eventually lead to compromising ideology as well. You may also note that while the CZs go in the direction of making accommodations, you mentioned the ideas of the religious settlers becoming less tolerant.

    On the other hand, the pervasive influence of Christian Zionists that you expose is further confirmation of why the U.Michigan’s women’s center pulled the invitation from Alice Walker.

    I keep telling Annie Robbins about their corrupting influence everywhere, but she refuses to believe me. It is no wonder when CZs are such a big factor getting legislators of both parties to stand in unanimous ovation that women’s centers like U.Michigan are just going to fall in line.

    • annie
      annie
      November 13, 2013, 3:50 pm

      confirmation of why the U.Michigan’s women’s center pulled the invitation from Alice Walker.

      I keep telling Annie Robbins about their corrupting influence everywhere, but she refuses to believe me.

      w.jones, i wish you would quite spreading this stupid rumor. i have never been one to dismiss the power of christian zionists in this country in fact i’ve gotten in long arguments with people about the depths of their power (a huge one with jerry slater, it was a big showdown over who had more power) . i simply disagree with you it was the christian zionists who pulled the invitation from Alice Walker at UCM and as far as i know you’ve never offered any evidence to the contrary tho you continue go report your allegation as if it was fact.

      and because i disagree with you about walker, you’ve gone on to make these claims repeatedly that i someone dismiss the power of christian zionism. i’ve just never taken the time to refute you but now you’ve said it one too many times and it’s pissing me off. it may also surprise you toknow i’ve even authored main articles here on hagee and CUFI . (you can google that yourself, i only have so much time today)

      not only that,i have had this exact same argument before, more than once btw. http://mondoweiss.net/2012/03/responding-to-commenters-on-recent-bannings.html#comment-429696

      hi thomson, i think you misunderstood me.

      because ultimately it is not ethnic (zionist support). the power of the christian zionists here is much stronger politically. they are driving this ethnic cleansing too.

      i meant the support for the zionists lobby (zionist support) is not primarily ethnic (jews). iow, if you stripped away all the romneys and gingrichs and christian zionists and sarah palins and nancy pelosis for that matter..they (all their supporters, including the people who take their money and do their bidding) they couldn’t do what they do. i believe that. it is thru the christian zionists they dominate the gop which drives the whole dem party to the right. and it is thru the black churches and thru multiple groups and reach outs. if that didn’t matter, that support….why would they bother interacting? why would adelson give gingrich 5 million dollars if he didn’t think it bought support? if no one supported them, do you think they could control the discourse? all on their own? do you? the other 98% of us? because that is what jerry slater thinks too.

      he thinks it’s all up to the jews and the rest of us don’t matter. (those were not his exact words) i think we do. i think we need to do more than just influence the jewish community. that’s why i think our target audience for changing the discourse on israel should be the other 98%.

      do you think if all the christian zionists became anti zionists tomorrow it wouldn’t make a huge difference in our foreign policy? of course it would.

      you can find this and other comments of this nature about my beliefs regarding the power of christian zionists in my comment archives here : http://mondoweiss.net/profile/annie?keyword=christian+zionists

      now, if you have any confirmation what so ever CZ’s pulled walker’s invitation other than your hunch, please produce it. thanks.

      • W.Jones
        W.Jones
        November 13, 2013, 5:15 pm

        Dear Annie,

        w.jones, i wish you would quite spreading this stupid rumor…. you continue go report your allegation as if it was fact.it’s pissing me off.

        OK, I was not meaning to hurt you. I will be straight with you here. But you need not be so serious about such stupid comments I make.

        I believe you when you say:

        i have never been one to dismiss the power of christian zionists in this country in fact i’ve gotten in long arguments with people about the depths of their power (a huge one with jerry slater, it was a big showdown over who had more power) .

        I think you are pretty straightforward in your ideas, which I like. Your showdown with Jerry sounds interesting. Unfortunately I am not aware of what percent of US wealth various religious and political factions are, so I do not really know who is more powerful.

        Probably CZs are actually more powerful because they have far more numbers. But I think they are not really so engaged. When it comes to writing articles in major papers or staging demonstrations, etc. etc., I doubt the CZs produce up to their full potential.

        Let me give two examples: I have a friend who went to Hagee’s Liberty University a few years ago and they had a public announcement about an Israeli speaker he remembers. But the CZ ideology was not really a big thing that was repeatedly emphasized taught directly to him by his college. I also went to an Evangelical school about 15 years ago and it was not a big focus in the teaching then either.

        I disagree with your two statements that:

        i simply disagree with you it was the christian zionists who pulled the invitation from Alice Walker at UCM…

        because i disagree with you about walker, you’ve gone on to make these claims repeatedly that i someone dismiss the power of christian zionism.

        However, had you said that CZs pulled the invitation I would have questioned why you think that. Alternately, had you conclusively disproved that CZism was the reason, I would would not have repeated my alleged claim.

        Also, you are incorrect when you write:

        you’ve never offered any evidence to the contrary

        I did not give direct evidence, but I gave very circumstantial and tenuous evidence.
        Derstine wrote that the ovation was “the most blatant example” of the “symbiotic relationship” with the CZs. I then used this evidence to jump to the conclusion: “It is no wonder when CZs are such a big factor getting legislators of both parties to stand in unanimous ovation that women’s centers like U.Michigan are just going to fall in line.”

        It appears you are correct when you say:
        you continue go report your allegation as if it was fact. i’ve just never taken the time to refute you

        However I disagree that I said it one too many times. I think I said it enough times for you to reply, but I did not make my intent clear, my friend.

        It does not “surprise [me] to know [you]’ve even authored main articles here on hagee and CUFI . (you can google that yourself, i only have so much time today)”
        They are interesting and relevant subjects, and you have written a number of articles, so it makes sense you would. And I trust you when you conclude:“you can find this and other comments of this nature about my beliefs regarding the power of christian zionists in my comment archives here”.

        You are right that you “have had this exact same argument before, more than once btw.” After all, we discussed this more than once as you said. However, the example you gave of your conversation with Thomson was not the “exact same argument,” because there you emphasized the CZs’ power and did not mention Alice Walker.

        You wrote:

        now, if you have any confirmation what so ever CZ’s pulled walker’s invitation other than your hunch, please produce it. Thanks.

        Certainly the CZs did not pull the invitation directly, it was the Women’s Center that did. But what you are really asking is what role did the CZs play and how can that be confirmed. However, their influence in the process must be at least what you stated: “the christian zionists they dominate the gop which drives the whole dem party to the right. and it is thru the black churches and thru multiple groups and reach outs. if that didn’t matter, that support…. if no one supported them, do you think they could control the discourse?”

        In other words, their influence over the process was at least indirect and to the extent you mentioned.

        Regards.

      • annie
        annie
        November 13, 2013, 7:30 pm

        In other words, their influence over the process was at least indirect and to the extent you mentioned.

        w.jones, unlike aipac and the big 4, (see http://mondoweiss.net/2013/11/grants-grace-period.html ) CZ’s do not generally act covertly. i did not mention CZ’s being indirect, so i did not mention them wrt walker to any extent, ever. i believe if CZ’s were involved they would have thrown a public protest. they are very upfront about their intentions. whomever pulled the strings on the UCM to pull walker did it covertly and anonymously. anyway, good to know it’s just your hunch as i suspected.

        what circumstantial evidence do you have?

        If a witness arrives at a crime scene seconds after hearing a gunshot to find someone standing over a corpse and holding a smoking pistol, the evidence is circumstantial, since the person may merely be a bystander who picked up the weapon after the killer dropped it.

        a hunch is not circumstantial evidence. do you have a fingerprint?

        and you do know the meaning of tenuous don’t you? “lacking substance or significance”. lol, i am not so sure i would admit that was the kind of evidence i had if i was trying to prove a point.

        However, the example you gave of your conversation with Thomson was not the “exact same argument,” because there you emphasized the CZs’ power and did not mention Alice Walker.

        i wasn’t talking about walker. i was talking about the part of your allegation where you cited my name:

        I keep telling Annie Robbins about their corrupting influence everywhere, but she refuses to believe me.

        i am well aware of people like hagee and groups like CUFI and their corrupting influence.

        you need not be so serious about such stupid comments I make.

        fine! just please don’t drag my name into your unfounded allegations in the future. thanks. ;)

      • W.Jones
        W.Jones
        November 14, 2013, 1:19 am

        Dear Annie:

        Time for another shot of truth serum.

        I think you are right when you said: “w.jones, unlike aipac and the big 4, (see link to mondoweiss.net ) CZ’s do not generally act covertly.” On one hand you are talking about lobbies, which are more “covert”, and on the other you are contrasting them with the CZs which have a large base, radio stations and media, etc. and thus are not particularly “covert.”

        You commented: ” i did not mention CZ’s being indirect, so i did not mention them wrt walker to any extent, ever.” However, earlier you had written: “it is thru the christian zionists they dominate the gop which drives the whole dem party to the right.”
        So actually you did mention the CZs having the effect of driving the dem party to the right, and by implication this could have an affect on women’s centers too. Granted, you did not explicitly “mention them wrt walker”.

        You commented: “i believe if CZ’s were involved they would have thrown a public protest.”
        I am not sure they would have unless their initial attempts at obstruction were rejected. If for some reason Michele Bachman was a major donor to the Women’s Center I think she could have first informed the Women’s Center of her objection.

        You are right when you say: “they are very upfront about their intentions. whomever pulled the strings on the UCM to pull walker did it covertly and anonymously. anyway, good to know it’s just your hunch as i suspected… a hunch is not circumstantial evidence.”

        My guess is that a hunch is an example of very weak, prejudicial direct evidence. Isn’t it? That is, the hunch is a direct feeling or assertion that person X did Y. The hunch is also “evidence” because it is something to go on. A policeman can say he had a “hunch” there was a gun in the closet so he opened the closet while inspecting the premises. He can testify that he had the hunch. But the “hunch” is extremely weak proof.

        You asked: “what circumstantial evidence do you have?”
        One piece of circumstantial evidence is that sometimes there are conservative organizations that focus on women or issues related to them like the National Organization for Marriage and VOICES of Conservative Women. Naturally then there are donors to women’s issues and that can mean donations to women’s centers. A second piece of circumstantial evidence is that as you said “it is thru the christian zionists they dominate the gop which drives the whole dem party to the right”. A possible implication of this circumstantial evidence is that if the CZs can influence the politics of the dems and GOP, they can influence women’s centers too.

        Your example of the smoking pistol was a good example of circumstantial evidence. I probably have fingerprints all over my room, but I do not have any that show conservative donors to the women’s center.

        Yes, I know “the meaning of tenuous” and “lacking substance or significance” is one of its meanings. I am glad to finally provide some humor with your “lol”. And you are right that “i am not so sure i would admit that [tenuous] was the kind of evidence i had if i was trying to prove a point.”

        You must be right when you say: “i wasn’t talking about walker. i was talking about the part of your allegation where you cited my name”. Naturally, you know what you were talking about.

        I believe you when you say: “i am well aware of people like hagee and groups like CUFI and their corrupting influence.”
        After all, you pointed to previous articles you wrote on the topic.

        You wrote: “‘you need not be so serious about such stupid comments I make.‘ fine!”
        Excellent. ღ

        You asked: “just please don’t drag my name into your unfounded allegations in the future. thanks. ;)”

        Basically I wanted to create a discussion about the topic and the unfounded allegation was the way to bring you in. You have a very good mind and it is fun talking and joking with you. But then you said you were upset, which was not my intention. So a main concern is for you to be cool with everything. Another goal is to use humor to deal with oppressive topics.

      • annie
        annie
        November 14, 2013, 3:10 am

        w.jones, do me a favor and do not tell me what, according to you, i say by implication. if i say i have not, to any extent, connect walker to CZ’s, telling me i did by implication because i mentioned christian zionists dominate the gop which drives the whole dem party to the right…seriously,you are taking great leaps in logic. i know what i am saying. by following these leaps in logic one could claim everything in the world is connected.

        i mean for heaven’s sakes, ken says something about CZ’s and you address him as if he said something about palestinian christians who are as far away from zionism as one could be. but then you say We are however dealing with two different religious communities well …you are, but ken wasn’t. he didn’t say anything about palestinian christians in his comment.

        this is called ‘jumping the shark’ w.jones. the shark in this case being logic.

        and when you tell ken, This is why it is valuable to take a balanced view of those religions and their attitudes to eachother.

        gee ya think! given that palestinian christians and christian zionists are at completely the opposite sides of the universe politically.

        anyway, my point, is while it may be ok for other people if you claim they are saying things by implication, please do me a favor and please nevar [sic] try translating what i am ‘implying’ according to you. i have no doubt your intentions are good, but your radar is completely bizarre wrt what people are ‘implying’. and fyi, i rarely imply. i generally go right to my point.

        If for some reason Michele Bachman was a major donor to the Women’s Center I think she could have first informed the Women’s Center of her objection.

        yeah, and then she would have made a commercial about it and blasted it all over the TV. like i said, CZ’s are not, for the most part covert or anonymous, therefore i would immediately eliminate them as the culprits wrt walker. no amount of ‘dems like women’s centers’ implies otherwise. so don’t use me as part of your ‘smoking pistol’, because it’s not. build your case otherwise. thanks!

        Basically I wanted to create a discussion about the topic and the unfounded allegation was the way to bring you in. You have a very good mind and it is fun talking and joking with you. But then you said you were upset, which was not my intention. So a main concern is for you to be cool with everything. Another goal is to use humor to deal with oppressive topics.

        w.jones, if you’re sincere about wanting to engage people. taking their words completely out of context and suggesting they are implying something they clearly are not, is not the way to do it. try commenting on what they ‘did say’ iow, actually deal with the words they used. it’s really helpful!

        I may as well put on record here what seems to me to be a fairly appropriate answer: “Because it can produce a few notes, though they are very flat; and it is nevar put with the wrong end in front!” This, however, is merely an afterthought; the riddle as originally invented had no answer at all.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hatter#The_Hatter.27s_riddle

      • W.Jones
        W.Jones
        November 14, 2013, 1:13 pm

        I liked your “nevar”, Annie. I was using humor all along, although in the last two comments I did reply in an extra straight way. It is extremely difficult as you can see to propose that Christian Zionist donors effectively pulled Alice Walker’s invitation. Basically academic women’s centers usually run from liberal to particularly leftist on cultural issues, and Christian Zionists are particularly conservative on those issues. It would be counter-intuitive for CZs to be the main donors for those centers. The conclusion you can draw is that CZs are not really corrupting everything everywhere. As Trains to Siberia pointed out, the Christian Right even failed at campaigns on simple cultural issues.

        Regarding the discussion with Ken,
        He wrote:

        Christian Zionism is just another version of the anti-Semitism that has plagued Western culture since a Jewish rebel against the Roman Empire almost 2100 years ago was turned into a religious icon of the Roman Empire.

        In other words, since the Roman Empire accepted the rebel Jesus of Nazareth, its culture has been plagued by anti-semitism. Does this mean accepting Jesus made its culture anti-semitic, and how so?

        The Roman empire covered Palestine for almost another 400 years and today Palestinians are generally divided between Roman and Eastern Catholics and “Rum [Roman] Orthodox”, who believe in continuing those traditions. Does this suggest their religious or cultural traditions are anti-Semitic and how so? How would they respond?

        I tried to suggest a way to answer this question about the relations between Judaism and Christianity, noting:

        We are however dealing with two different religious communities and it is natural that there would be aspects of antagonism, cooperation, and accommodation between them, just like there are between religious communities around the world. This is why it is valuable to take a balanced view of those religions and their attitudes to eachother.

        Peace.

    • traintosiberia
      traintosiberia
      November 13, 2013, 7:08 pm

      The Evangelics are useful idiots. They could not defeat same sex mairrage, lGBT rights, School Prayer, abortion,and even could not stand up for simple and correct demand that Happy Holidays was not the normal culturally and politically correct term to label the Christmas greetings between two individuals in US, that Christmas greetings is not a violation of any personal sensitivity and that the traditional expression should not be begrudged by an atheist or non Christian.

      They are given 5 minutes exposure on TV or radios to utter stupidities that have undermined their collective strenght over the years. They are invited to say some stupid things about Arabs and Palestine or muslim , (gayas, and inetraracial isssues) that infuriate the silent majority but is always portrayed as the bedrock support for the Israel for propaganda values to show one- that US Christians support Israel and two-the muslims dont understand the freedom of expression.

      In India, the political parties from the left,the right,and from the centrist always mobilize some veil covered women and bearded middle aged men to convey that they have the support of the muslims and to show their feelings for the muslim.

      These are astroturf agitation manufactured and sold by the puppeteers .

      • W.Jones
        W.Jones
        November 13, 2013, 10:17 pm

        Trains to Nowhere:

        You have a good sense of humor. You made hilarious, good points too like this one:
        [The C. Right] even could not stand up for simple and correct demand that Happy Holidays was not the normal culturally and politically correct term to label the Christmas greetings between two individuals in US, that Christmas greetings is not a violation of any personal sensitivity and that the traditional expression should not be begrudged by an atheist or non Christian.

        You really debunked how much power the CZ.s have, showing them to be incapable of defending even simple things. Now I am beginning to think they might not even have been the powerful donors to the U. Michigan Women’s Center. Next thing you know some readers are going to doubt that CZism was the reason for the 29 unanimous ovations.

  8. Empiricon
    Empiricon
    November 13, 2013, 3:06 pm

    What this highlights to me is the “useful idiot” status of Bush and the Christian Zionistas to Israel and her Jewish supporters. Let the nutjobs think all that end-times BS — even if it could be seen as somehow threatening to Jews — because 1) it will never come to pass and 2) their support buttresses Israel’s impunitous behavior.

  9. W.Jones
    W.Jones
    November 13, 2013, 3:47 pm

    You wrote:

    Christian Zionism is just another version of the anti-Semitism that has plagued Western culture since a Jewish rebel against the Roman Empire almost 2100 years ago was turned into a religious icon of the Roman Empire.

    The Palestinian Christians would object that their faith is not anti-Semitic. They would point out that they do not have some kind of racial hatred for Jews. After all, so many of them are actually Jews by descent and their early Christian heroes (ie. the saints) were Jewish.

    We are however dealing with two different religious communities and it is natural that there would be aspects of antagonism, cooperation, and accommodation between them, just like there are between religious communities around the world. This is why it is valuable to take a balanced view of those religions and their attitudes to eachother.

    The alternative would be to portray the religion of the Jewish rebel you mentioned as essentially “anti-semitic”. Doing so would lead to two political “solutions”: either actually supporting the religious nationalism as a kind of “escape” or making a fight against Christianity itself as a religion. Neither option is really attractive for a neutral person who believes in tolerance and equality. This is because in fact, Christianity and its Palestinian adherents do believe in tolerating people of other races and religions.

    Also, without supporting CZism, one can recognize that it is not the full picture when you write: Christian Zionism treats Jewish people as objects in a great cosmological war at the End of Time.
    This is only partly true, because the other part of CZ ideology incorporates apocalyptic ideas praising the religious community and ethnicity from the Old Testament in a way similar to the way regular religious Zs might.

    You ask a worthwhile theoretical question:

    What happens if the Jewish people do not sign on to this fundamentalist mythology? Won’t a rejection of the message of Christian Zionism by Israelis be seen as yet another betrayal of Jesus as the Messiah that will bring the true anti-Semitic core of Christian Zionism to the fore?

    What you are really asking, I think, is what happens if C.Z. accomplishes all of its goals? What is the next step? In theory, actually the C.Z.s would not do anything intolerant to the people at all even if they took total power over the world. They would merely wait until the apocalypse occurs by itself.

    In more practical terms however, you point to a contradiction between the two religions themselves. It is like asking whether religion will bring out a contradiction between: those of the Reform movement in the US who support having women clergy, the Haredim who do not fight in the army and have strict rules including the hard statements you quoted, and the secular population.

    Probably if the State clearly banned Christianity or the Reform movement as a whole it would bring those contradictions out.

    Regards.

    • Kenneth Derstine
      Kenneth Derstine
      November 13, 2013, 10:18 pm

      “The Palestinian Christians would object that their faith is not anti-Semitic. They would point out that they do not have some kind of racial hatred for Jews. After all, so many of them are actually Jews by descent and their early Christian heroes (ie. the saints) were Jewish.”

      How on earth do you conclude that I am saying Palestinian Christians are anti-Semitic? What I said was that, at its core, Christian Zionism is anti-Semitic because it depends on the conversion of some Jews to Christianity (enough for “a trigger to go off in heaven” as the MJBI rabbi put it) for the Second Coming. Not all Christians believe this.

      Are you saying that Palestinian Christians are Christian Zionists? In other words, are you saying that Palestinian Christians believe their repression, repatriation, and genocide are Biblically correct?

      For Palestinian Christians to be opposed to Christian Zionism does not make them anti-Christian anymore than for Jews to be opposed to Jewish Zionism makes them anti-Jewish.

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        November 13, 2013, 10:42 pm

        “What I said was that, at its core, Christian Zionism is anti-Semitic because it depends on the conversion of some Jews to Christianity (enough for “a trigger to go off in heaven” as the MJBI rabbi put it) for the Second Coming.”

        I’m not really sure why you think this is anti-Semitic. It looks as though the CZs are saying “(a) Jews should convert to Christianity because Judaism is not the true religion, and (b) when they do we’ll get the Second Coming.”

        Anyone who believes “only X is the true religion” is going to believe “Judaism is not the true religion” . (Where X is not J, and X can be an empty set.) Is it anti-Semitism to say that Judaism is not the true religion? If so, freedom of religion seems to imply anti-Semitism.

        Anyone who believes “only X is the true religion” and “everyone should follow the true religion” is going to believe “Jews should convert to X”. Is it anti-Semitic to suggest that? If so, freedom of religion seems to imply anti-Semitism.

        And the same can be said for the belief that, if a sufficient number of Jews convert, we will get the second Coming.

        Indeed, since the idea behind converting the Jews is to save their immortal souls, it seem philo-Semitic.

      • Kenneth Derstine
        Kenneth Derstine
        November 13, 2013, 11:36 pm

        All religions should be respected. Honest dialogue to find the truth including to persuade others to “convert” to your beliefs is fine as long as there is no coercion involved.

        What we are talking about is conversion for a political agenda. With Christian Zionism, what may have started off as sincere faith as been co-opted for the advancement of colonial political and economic objectives against the indigenous population of the Middle East.

      • W.Jones
        W.Jones
        November 14, 2013, 2:18 am

        RoHa,

        What you are saying seems logical enough. I think what Ken means is that C.Z.s see them as mere pawns in an apocalyptic chessgame.

        However in fact you mentioned the other side of that coin, whereby many C.Z.s could also imagine that their goal of conversion is beneficial too.

        Granted, the C.Z.s may be misguided and their apocalyptic expectation is not a particularly tolerant one, but in any case the conversion itself is not intolerant and a practical contradiction exists.

      • W.Jones
        W.Jones
        November 14, 2013, 2:21 am

        Perhaps CZ had always been coopted for colonialism in reality. I think S. Sizer has mentioned that possibility.

      • eljay
        eljay
        November 14, 2013, 7:36 am

        >> All religions should be respected.

        The right of a person to hold a religious belief, as long as it affects no one but him/herself, sure. Religions – as institutions or ideologies – not so much. Not more than any other institution or ideology, anyway.

      • W.Jones
        W.Jones
        November 14, 2013, 2:13 am

        Hello Ken,

        You have a knack for seeing an interesting point of tension- eg. the C.Z. ideology and its ultimate goals with regard to the political alliance it makes.

        I wrote that “Palestinian Christians would object that their faith is not anti-Semitic.” You asked: “How on earth do you conclude that I am saying Palestinian Christians are anti-Semitic?”

        This was in response to your comment: “Christian Zionism is just another version of the anti-Semitism that has plagued Western culture since a Jewish rebel against the Roman Empire almost 2100 years ago was turned into a religious icon of the Roman Empire.”

        Perhaps I am being oversensitive, but my reading was that you saw a kind of anti-Semitism as part of the CZ ideology and then drew a parallel to the religious traditions held by Europe since that rebel’s time. The Pal.s themselves are particularly traditional in their beliefs and would hold to that religion, but they would not make racial distinctions about people. Also, the last two paragraphs you wrote in your first reply above (“Are you saying that Palestinian Christians…”) are correct.

  10. Ellen
    Ellen
    November 13, 2013, 4:03 pm

    How much is he getting paid?

  11. craig higgins
    craig higgins
    November 13, 2013, 5:17 pm

    Well, as someone who lives in Texas I think I understand what’s going on here with George W. Bush speaking at this event. I mean, Bush himself has always been a shallow man who smirked his way through eight years of being president, and I doubt he believes in anything, much less Christian Zionism. That said, having a lot of hands-on experience dealing with the sorts of people who actually do subscribe to this and other Dispensationalist types of thinking I think it speaks volumes about the power of right-wing Evangelicals like John Hagee and people of that ilk here in Texas that a group whose mission is to convert Jews to Christianity can get a former head of state to speak at one of their fundraisers. The timing of this event is also interesting in that Texas A&M, which of course is one of the most powerful and well-financed academic entities here, recently announced it is getting ready to open a branch in Israel. Now, there’s probably a business/entrepreneurial angle here somewhere, but one of the reasons why A&M is so intent on doing this surely has to do with the fact that Christian Zionism will now have a de facto branch campus in the region. We don’t know of course whether this proselytizing outfit Bush is shilling for has any direct ties to the university but it’s a safe bet that if they want to send some people over to Israel to try to win converts they have at least one place there they can call home. As a long-time citizen of Texas I’m appalled but not that surprised.

    • just
      just
      November 14, 2013, 3:28 am

      Thanks Craig. That makes good sense to me.

      I’m surprised that GW had ANYONE invite him to speak. There’s simply no accounting for taste…

  12. DICKERSON3870
    DICKERSON3870
    November 13, 2013, 5:36 pm

    RE: “Former President George W. Bush is scheduled to be the keynote speaker tomorrow at a fundraiser for the Messianic Jewish Bible Institute. This appearance confirms what many have long suspected – that George W. Bush was and is an adherent to Christian Zionist End Times theology.” ~ Kenneth Derstine

    SEE: “Bush Had Gog and Magog, Bibi Has Amalek”, by Richard Silverstein, Tikun Olam, 5/25/09

    [EXCERPTS]

    “Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu considers the lifting of the Iranian nuclear threat his life’s mission. Before coming to power, he had mentioned that such an operation might cost thousands of lives, but the price was justified in view of the threat’s severity.” – Aluf Benn, Haaretz
    ~
    “My job is first and foremost to ensure the future of the state of Israel … the leadership’s job is to eliminate the danger. Who will eliminate it? It is us or no one.” – Bibi Netanyahu quoted in Haaretz

    Recently, Jacques Chirac confirmed that George Bush, in telephone calls leading up the Iraq war, attempted to persuade France to join the coalition of the willing by invoking the Biblical war of Gog and Magog. . .
    . . . The closest political leader to Bush on today’s political stage is Bibi Netanyahu, as the above Haaretz passages make clear. In addition, there are Bibi’s references to Iran being Amalek, implying Israel’s duty to smite the mullahs a terrible blow lest they first strike Israel in an nuclear attack. . .
    . . . Aluf Benn credits Bibi with firmly held beliefs as does Jeffrey Goldberg (not that Goldberg is my arbiter of truth by any means). So we must at least credit some conviction to Bibi. In doing so, we have to concede that the fervor with which he leads Israel to war against Iran is frightening in the extreme.
    We have the example of George Bush to guide us. He too believed he was on a mission from the Lord to tidy up the Middle East. . .

    ENTIRE COMMENTARY – http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2009/05/25/bush-had-gog-and-magog-bibi-has-amalek/

    • DICKERSON3870
      DICKERSON3870
      November 13, 2013, 5:48 pm

      P.S. ALSO SEE – “Bush’s Shocking Biblical Prophecy Emerges: God Wants to ‘Erase’ Mid-East Enemies ‘Before a New Age Begins'”, by Clive Hamilton, CounterPunch.org, 5/24/09
      Bush explained to French Pres. Chirac that the Biblical creatures Gog and Magog were at work in the Mid-East and must be defeated.

      The revelation this month in GQ Magazine that Donald Rumsfeld as Defense Secretary embellished top-secret wartime memos with quotations from the Bible prompts a question. Why did he believe he could influence President Bush by that means?
      The answer may lie in an alarming story about George Bush’s Christian millenarian beliefs that has yet to come to light.
      In 2003 while lobbying leaders to put together the Coalition of the Willing, President Bush spoke to France’s President Jacques Chirac. Bush wove a story about how the Biblical creatures Gog and Magog were at work in the Middle East and how they must be defeated.
      In Genesis and Ezekiel Gog and Magog are forces of the Apocalypse who are prophesied to come out of the north and destroy Israel unless stopped.
      The Book of Revelation took up the Old Testament prophesy:

      “And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.”

      Bush believed the time had now come for that battle, telling Chirac:

      “This confrontation is willed by God, who wants to use this conflict to erase his people’s enemies before a New Age begins”.

      The story of the conversation emerged only because the Elyse Palace, baffled by Bush’s words, sought advice from Thomas Romer, a professor of theology at the University of Lausanne. Four years later, Romer gave an account in the September 2007 issue of the university’s review, Allez savoir. The article apparently went unnoticed, although it was referred to in a French newspaper.
      The story has now been confirmed by Chirac himself in a new book, published in France in March, by journalist Jean Claude Maurice. Chirac is said to have been stupefied and disturbed by Bush’s invocation of Biblical prophesy to justify the war in Iraq and “wondered how someone could be so superficial and fanatical in their beliefs”. . .

      ENTIRE ARTICLE – http://www.alternet.org/story/140221/bush%27s_shocking_biblical_prophecy_emerges%3A_god_wants_to_%22erase%22_mid-east_enemies_%22before_a_new_age_begins%22

      • ToivoS
        ToivoS
        November 13, 2013, 9:01 pm

        Regan also believed in Gog and Magog stuff. One of these fools is going to get us all blown up if we keep electing them to high office.

      • W.Jones
        W.Jones
        November 13, 2013, 9:27 pm

        Who knows what Reagan really believed. The Washington Post reported:

        There was more to the story than the White House let on. In a speech and essay produced decades apart, Reagan revealed the unmistakable mark of a little-known but widely influential scholar of occult philosophy, Manly P. Hall. Judging from a tale that Reagan borrowed from Hall, the president’s reading tastes ran to some of the outer reaches of esoteric spiritual lore…

        Hall was the author books like “Rosicrucian and Masonic Origins”, “The Lost Keys of Freemasonry”, and “Secret Teachings of All Ages”.

        Perhaps many of the ideas supposedly held by them are like the platitudes politicians say, like “war on want” to appeal to constituents. Did Reagan really believe in Gog and Magog like Evangelicals do, or was it something he merely entertained in his thoughts?

      • W.Jones
        W.Jones
        November 13, 2013, 10:05 pm

        Dickerson,

        Do you really believe Bush was convinced of the official reasons he told people like Chirac to invade Iraq? WMDs? Regime Change? “War on Turur”? “Gog and Magog”? You think Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield, and Wolfowitz were really evangelical Bible Thumpers? Come on, bro.

      • DICKERSON3870
        DICKERSON3870
        November 14, 2013, 2:11 am

        Yes, I do believe George W. Bush is a religious nutjob.
        Cheney is not; he is just a sociopath (and perhaps a psychopath).
        I have no idea about the others.

      • W.Jones
        W.Jones
        November 14, 2013, 2:42 am

        I do not think he is really a C.Z. Evangelical and a number of Evangelicals are doubtful about that.

        With his time in office running out, Bush has been discussing what religion means to him. Here’s the précis: he does not believe in the literal truth of the Bible, did not invade Iraq because of his Christianity and does not believe his faith is incompatible with evolution. Bush will not even assert that the Almighty – who, he believes, is much the same one as is worshipped by other religions – chose him to become president.

        http://www.theguardian.com/world/deadlineusa/2008/dec/09/george-bush-religion

        One of the key things is that Bush has said repeatedly that other religious beliefs are also acceptable ways to get to heaven, which is not something strong Evangelicals believe. Anyway, he is actually a Methodist.

  13. lysias
    lysias
    November 13, 2013, 5:43 pm

    I doubt if W.’s Christian Zionism comes from his family. Remember his father’s eventually frosty relations with Israel, and the support of both his father (“Rubbers”) and mother for Planned Parenthood and contraception.

  14. American
    American
    November 13, 2013, 6:48 pm

    Wasnt it Ann Coulter who said Jews had to be converted to Jesus to be ‘perfected”.

  15. joecatron
    joecatron
    November 13, 2013, 7:56 pm

    “For anyone who knows Bush’s family history, this should come as no surprise. One of Bush’s ancestors, George Bush ..”

    Well, sort of, but not really. He was a cousin of Bush’s great-great-great grandfather.

    https://web.archive.org/web/20081112171741/http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive_Index/Life_of_Mohammed_Book_NOT_Authored_by_Grandfather_or_Ancestor_of_President_Bush.html

    Unless he’s a voracious genealogist, I would guess Derstine doesn’t wish to answer for 16 great-great-great grandfathers, much less all their cousins.

    • Kenneth Derstine
      Kenneth Derstine
      November 13, 2013, 10:52 pm

      The document you linked is a December 20, 2005 State Department document meant to dispel concerns circulating in the Middle East, particularly in Egypt, about Christian Zionism playing a major role in George W. Bush’s foreign policy. His distant ancestor, George Bush, was part of this concern. For details on this event see http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/22/magazine/22wwln-essay-t.html?_r=0

      About his ancestor playing a prominent role in George W.’s worldview, I am not claiming a direct connection. You would have to ask him. However, we all have ancestry which has a great influence on our worldview even if we reject the beliefs of our ancestors. When George W. underwent his fabled conversion http://www.talk2action.org/story/2009/1/5/175438/5293 he returned to his roots.

      The issue you raise about a direct connection between George W. and his distant ancestor of more than 150 years ago is not my point. I am speaking about what this represents in American culture and why Zionism became such a force in American society. There is a review of the book I cited, “Power, Faith, and Fantasy: America in the Middle East from 1776 to the Present” by Michael Oren which goes into this question. http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article/power-faith-and-fantasy-by-michael-b-oren/ (You must read the review to get the context of my quote). It says:
      quote:
      “In the case of the Middle East, as Michael Oren quite rightly observes, this tendency in American life has traditionally been reinforced by Christian sentiments that are specific to a region in which all the major events of the Hebrew and Christian Bibles took place. Oren is also right to point out, though he does not perhaps dwell on it quite enough, that the sympathy for Judaism felt by many American Christians is historically unique and goes back to the philo-Semitism of the Puritans, who were themselves influenced by the low-church Protestantism of 17th-century England and its strong identification with the Israelites of the “Old Testament.” If one is looking for historical parallels, it is probably not too much to assert that the differences in attitudes toward the state of Israel that one finds in America today between socially upscale Christian churches like the Presbyterians or Unitarians and more religiously populist groups like Baptists and other evangelicals descend directly from the different ways in which Jews were thought about by the Anglican establishment and Protestant dissenters in Cromwell’s England.

      Apart from Jews, evangelical Christians provide the strongest source of popular support that Israel has in America, or for that matter anywhere in the world. When Jews debate about how to relate to such support and express the fear that it is untrustworthy, they might reflect that a point of view with strong roots that are hundreds of years old is not likely to prove a straw in the wind.”
      end quote

      The review then goes on to conclude with Oren’s description of George Bush in 1844 calling for Jews to return to Palestine.

      The point is that George W. Bush appearing at a conference calling for the conversion of Jews to Christianity is not a clueless quirk but has deep roots in Western culture. That he now openly participates in such a conference raises many questions about his Middle East policy while President in regards to the Palestinians, the disaster brought to Iraq, and now a threatened war on Iran which many Christian Zionist ministers have been calling for since his Presidency.

      • W.Jones
        W.Jones
        November 14, 2013, 2:01 am

        I think this is a kind of mish-mash, albeit one that might be explained better in the book:

        the sympathy for Judaism felt by many American Christians is historically unique and goes back to the philo-Semitism of the Puritans, who were themselves influenced by the low-church Protestantism of 17th-century England and its strong identification with the Israelites of the “Old Testament.” If one is looking for historical parallels, it is probably not too much to assert that the differences in attitudes toward the state of Israel that one finds in America today between socially upscale Christian churches like the Presbyterians or Unitarians and more religiously populist groups like Baptists and other evangelicals descend directly from the different ways in which Jews were thought about by the Anglican establishment and Protestant dissenters in Cromwell’s England.

        This quote traces the Puritans’ identification with Israelites to Christian Zionists. This is a kind of mismatch, because traditional Middle East Christians dogmatically and spiritually self-identify with the Israelites themselves. The C.Z.s strongly and openly reject this kind of self-identification as Supersessionism and say that the only spiritual identification must be between ancient Israel and the modern one.

        Likewise, this passage associates “upscale” Presbyterians with the high church Anglicans and concludes that Presbyterian thinking about Jews comes from historical ideas held by them. In fact Presbyterians came out of the low church tradition, which the quote identified as “philo-semitic”. Actually, if spiritual self-identification with Israelites is considered philo-semitism, you might as well say that Middle East Christians’ ideology has actually been philo-semitic since its inception.

        Also, it seems like a leap when you say: That he now openly participates in such a conference raises many questions about his Middle East policy while President in regards to the Palestinians, the disaster brought to Iraq, and now a threatened war on Iran which many Christian Zionist ministers have been calling for since his Presidency.
        Merely appearing at a conference does not hardly mean he strongly accepts its views as a dogma for himself. After all, look at all the appearances made at many PAC groups by many politicians, which they do to please constituents. Then when they get in office they do not necessarily do what their constituents want.

        Granted, appearance at a conference can be a sign of his thinking, but I would say there would need to be way more to reach the kinds of implications you do about his foreign policy. You would need to have him appointing religious leaders to key policy positions, making regular religious conference appearances, etc.

        I am not trying to over-criticize your article, by the way. You do make good points about the contradictions regarding the CZs, and it is worth considering the important impact they have on national politics.

  16. W.Jones
    W.Jones
    November 14, 2013, 2:31 am

    Granted, culturally Bush is closer to the Christian Right than to Catholics. But in 2004 he spoke at a Knights of Columbus meeting. That does not mean he has a Catholic agenda, so his appearance at a CZ event does not mean he really has a CZ agenda either.

    The Washington Post reported:

    White House aides said they do not know whether the president believes that… support for Israel is a biblical imperative; or the war in Iraq is part of God’s plan. Some political analysts think there is a shrewd calculation behind these ambiguities. By using such phrases as the “culture of life,” Bush signals to evangelical Protestants and conservative Catholics that he is with them… Current and former White House aides, as well as religious leaders close to the president, maintain that underneath Bush’s religious references is a no-frills set of classical Christian beliefs that he holds firmly but voices softly.

  17. Kenneth Derstine
    Kenneth Derstine
    November 16, 2013, 11:34 am

    George Bush’s New ‘Crusade’: Converting Jews to Christianity
    http://www.businessinsider.com/george-bush-speaks-at-messianic-jewish-bible-institute-2013-11

Leave a Reply