As I commented yesterday on my News and Views, many of you are now sending me articles and things that you think may interest me, or that interest you, and for this, I am truly grateful. Please keep doing so because no one person can possibly find everything. Anyway, this one was sent to me by a website member, and I think it is an important story, one that bears some scrutiny. The story, in this instance, is a video, on YouTube, and consider it's implications carefully:
I hope you'll note the implications here, for they are both subtle and yet, obvious. Clearly, the US military has chaplains - Protestant chaplains, Catholic chaplains, Orthodox chaplains, rabbis, imams, so clearly, there is no danger of our military becoming "denominational", right? Clearly the non-denominational official stance precludes it, right?
Wrong. Researcher Jeff Sharlett (The Family and C Street), outlines a case that the military is one branch of government specifically targeted by what can only be described as "the usual American non-denominational denomination," you know, the "independent" bible church that - paradoxically- seems to teach the same doctrine as every other "independent" bible church: pre-tribulational rapture, necessity of supporting Israel no matter what, Islam is a wicked demonically inspired religion and its adherents are all under the influence of demons, etc.
This religion, as co-author Scott DeHart and I outlined in Yahweh the Two-Faced God, is tailor made for the geopolitical agendas both of Zionism and of the financial oligarchy of the Anglo-American dominated West. And indeed, as we suggested in that book, there is a case to be argued that this whole cluster of doctrinal concepts was deliberately promoted if not created, in order to ensure those geopolitical agendas.
It becomes a powerful propaganda tool in the arsenal of those oligarchies, so, notwithstanding the military's protestations of innocence, that "of course atheists have rights", that is only the de jure truth, but the de facto truth, as this veteran, and as Sharlett in his research point out, the reality is otherwise.
There is a very real danger of "circularity here," that is, of the elites coming to genuinely believe the doctrine they themselves helped, if not to create, then at least to promote. The apocalypse culture that we see currently is, in my opinion, the result of this promotion; it is a deliberate creation, designed to get people to ignore the historical questions (such as, is the whole dispensationalist scheme of theology and biblical interpretation even historical?), while at the same time, their fat, bloated televangelists and megachurch ministers continue to promote it as "historical biblical christianity."
All this has led to that most dangerous of cultural and geopolitical situations, namely, that the post-christian West is led by a nation whose predominant expression of spirituality lies in a theological system that is not historically grounded and in which foreign policy - "support Israel, fight terrorism" - is made on the basis of an implicit system of belief. The post-Christian West is led by a nation possessed by an a-historical Christianity with an apocalyptic orientation. This introduces an aura of unreality into the geopolitical and cultural stew, which one may appreciate by a glance at Orthodox Christian Russia. Like it or not, even during the most Stalinesque days, the cultural effects of Orthodoxy on Russian thinking simply could not be eliminated. One of those effects lies in a central Christian doctrine: namely, that Christ abolished the need for the sacrifices of the Old Testament, that his life and work were kath holou, "for the whole", catholic, for everyone everywhere in all times and places, without any distinction. In short, the old "special relationship" or "chosen people" was gone. The geopolitical effect of such a doctrine is enormous, for it means (and meant) that Russia could weigh the geopolitical realities in the Middle East, and support whom it will, free of the kind of theological nuttery that obtains in the USA's home-grown "evangelical revivalist" religion, for which any historical expression of Christianity, be it Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, or what have you, is inherently suspect. The suspicion arises, of course, from the essentially Baptist character of American evangelicalism: conversion is the defining moment, attested to in "believer's baptism", and hence, there ultimately is no place in this Christianity for a form of knowledge of God not based or centered upon human reason and emotion. As a result, other forms of Christianity - Roman Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Episcopalianism, etc - are really not "biblical", and nominally Christian at best, and one must try to gettheir adherents "saved" too. The point here is that American evangelicalism will not, cannot, at root, tolerate a civilization such as Russia, whose Christian traditions are entirely different.
It always was, and remains, a dangerous wedding of religion and geopolitics.
See you on the flip side.