It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
You think "Obama administration" is the relevant detail in that statement? They were the same even when Bush was in power.
The reality is that the actions of the US government that Skorpion is complaining about have nothing to do with religion, whereas the crazy Muslim who kills innocents in suicide bombings, on pretty much a daily basis, is motivated because the people he's blowing up are either non-Muslims or the "wrong kind of Muslim."
Do you seriously believe that it is NOT Christian Fundamentalists that motivate US military actions in the Middle East (end of times, supposed colossal end-times battle against muslims, temple mount, preserve Israel, no matter what their behaviour, and no matter the consequences to others, etc.)?
adjensen
The activities of the United States (indeed, of the west in general) in the Middle East are in favour of economics and regional stability, they have nothing to do with Christian Fundamentalists. Are there those who cheer on conflict in the Middle East because they think it has something to do with prophecy? Sure. Are those people and their claims the reason for conflict in the Middle East? Of course not.
Christian fundamentalists are known to support/elect governments brutalizing Muslims.
Christian fundamentalists are known to support/elect governments brutalizing Muslims.
So you're saying that the Christian Fundamentalists that these politicians cater to to achieve their ends are NOT enabling them? How is sk0rp wrong in that statement you quoted?
believe that the US government is subject to the whims and desires of Christian Fundamentalists,
and thus military drone strikes on innocents are religiously driven attacks, which is obviously ludicrous.
I've always suspected that George W Bush wasn't really a big fan of Christian fundamentalists: he's an evangelical with Catholic leanings, not a Bible-basher. Now my suspicions have been confirmed by a new book about the worldwide religious revival called God is Back by the Economist's John Mickelthwait and Adrian Wooldridge.
In the 2000 campaign, they report, Bush was visiting the Boeing Plant in Washington State when he was asked whether his enthusiasm for free trade with China might cost him the Christian vote. The reporter who asked him the question was from a hotbed of fundamentalism in Texas.
Bush: "You only think that because you live around those whackos." (Source)
adjensen
Okay, perhaps you don't understand the difference between Christian Fundamentalists and Conservative Christians, who are two different groups
you'd struggle to find a fundamentalist that wasn't a conservative and vice versa.
When the Moral Majority was established in 1979 to oppose things like abortion and homosexual rights, its evangelical founders did their best to include Catholics. Despite the organization's reputation for being the political voice box of televangelists and peddlers of the apocalypse, by the mid '80s it drew a third of its funding from Catholic donors. Leaders like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson consciously used the Moral Majority (and, later, the Christian Coalition) as an exercise in ecumenical coalition building.
Falwell and Robertson were fans of Pope John Paul II and his resilient anti-communism. But they also recognized, like Nixon, that the Catholic Church had a vast intellectual heritage that could be drawn upon when fighting the liberals. For example, when debating abortion, evangelicals had hitherto tended to rely on Scripture to make their case. Catholics, on the other hand, had been integrating the concept of "human rights" into their theology since the 1890s.
Under Catholic influence, the pro-life movement evolved from a zealous, theology-heavy rationale to one more couched in the language of human dignity and personhood. (Source)