Blue Cord

As if there weren’t enough silliness in the world, there are now those who are speculating that Barack Obama is the antichrist.

The whole idea of looking for the antichrist is based on the flawed notion that the book of Revelation can be read as a roadmap to future events. This misreading has lead to an interpretive tradition that has built up a rather imaginative framework in which Revelation can be read. The Left Behind series, for instance, draws upon this concept to construct a fictional idea of what will happen at the end of time as a way to instruct readers about things that supposedly will happen at the end of time. This framework has led to many believers thinking they know more about the antichrist than St. John ever did.

The current brouhaha actually seems to have two levels. On one level there is the ads being put out by the McCain camp itself, such as the one below.¹ This ad and the discussions by opinion mongers such as Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are not intended as a serious statement that Obama is an antichrist. Instead, they is meant to poke fun at his popularity, his inspiring speeches, and the religious imagery he and his supporters sometimes use. It is Politics 101: take something positive about your opponent and make it seem like a negative.

Apparently it is acceptable for Republicans to use religious language about their candidate but not Democrats. I listened to talk show hosts on Christian radio in Washington, DC, say over and over that God choose Bush instead of Gore so that Bush would be commander-in-chief on September 11, 2001, usually with a quote from Esther 4:14 that Bush had come to power for “such a time as this.” But for some reason the same language used about a Democratic candidate raises red flags.²

Yet even though this topic is intended on the surface to poke fun at Obama, I am sure those who are originating the discussion are also aware that it will provoke unease about Obama in some circles (primarily evangelical circles).  While John Hagee and Jerry Jenkins have both rejected the idea that Obama is the antichrist, others have accepted it. Take, for example, the Barack Obama the Antichrist? blog, which seriously discusses the question of whether Obama is the antichrist.³ Steve Waldman of beliefnet.com has a good article in the Wall Street Journal that takes a look at this blog and some others, as well as discussing the McCain ad.

It is rather depressing that dispensationalism still holds sway over enough of the population that this kind of interpretation could be accepted by even a small percentage of the population. Here is a small sampling of the faulty arguments from Barack Obama the Antichrist?:

• “Obama has really been using biblical rhetoric, and people are seeing him as ‘the one’ to save us.” Of course, the Bible never says that the antichrist will be give the title “The One.” And if the use of biblical rhetoric makes one the antichrist, then I know a number of preachers that may qualify.
• Barack referred to himsef as the devil. Even setting aside the fact that the devil and the antichrist are two different figures, what Obama said was, “It’s the devil you know verses the devil you don’t.” Numerous politicians have quoted this well-known proverb, but that doesn’t make them the antichrist.
• When confronted with the idea that Revelation was referring to someone in the first century, he states that this may be the case, but “[e]ither way, Barack Obama stands against many of my beliefs.” But just because someone stands against many of your beliefs does not make them the antichrist; it makes them the antiyou. Obama also shares one belief in common with the guy, however, namely his belief in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Apparently such a belief is not enough to prevent him from being the antichrist.
• He quotes Matthew 24:4-8, which says that there will be famines and earthquakes at the end of time. He follows this by saying, “I am just saying this weather phenomenon is really lining up with the phenomenon that is Barack Obama.” Of course, Matthew 24:4-8 does not mention weather; it meantions famines and earthquakes. And if we are going to connect national leaders to bad weather, I think Bush and Katrina hold the number one slot.
• Finally, the guy who writes the blog refers to the last book of the Bible as “Revelations,” when the actual title is “Revelation.” Yes, it is a minor point, but it is a pet peeve of mine.

I could multiply these examples ad naseum, but you get the point. I couldn’t find a place where he makes an extended argument for Obama being the antichrist. Most of the blog is just posts that take a recent news story about Obama and argue that this is the kind of thing the antichrist would do.

I will be the first to admit that Obama supporters have sometimes gone overboard in their praise of Barack, just as most political supports do. Take, for example, the blog entitled Is Barack Obama the Messiah? But if such overstatements and exaggeration were always taken at face value, the hagiography about Reagan would have me believing that he was the Second Coming of Christ.

1. The ad says at the end that it was paid for by John McCain 2008, but it does not contain the standard “I’m John McCain and I approve this ad.” I don’t know if the candidate himself endorses this approach. [back]
2. Yes, I am aware that double standards in politics are common practice. For instance, the same Republicans who are arguing that Obama does not have enough experience are the same ones that said eight years ago that Bush had plenty of experience, even though Bush had held public office only eight years while Obama has been in public office eleven years. [back]
3. If you doubt whether the Left Behind series could inspire something like this, the blog has a link to the series in his sidebar. It is in a group entitled “Christian Links.” The only other links there connect to an online Bible and a site that discusses end-times prophecy. [back]

According to the Associated Press, Dunkin’ Donuts has pulled one of their TV ads which featured Rachael Ray. In the ad, Ms. Ray is shown hawking iced coffee while wearing a scarf that has a paisley pattern  resembling a popular style of kaffiyeh. The ads were pulled because some conservative commentators, such as Michelle Malkin, complained that kaffiyehs were “pro-Palestinian jihad and anti-war” and claimed the kaffieyh partakes of “violent symbolism and anti-Israel overtones” She has accused supposed anti-American fashion designers of popularizing the scarves, which she refers to as “hate couture”.

I have never heard of Michelle Malkin before. A quick perusal of her website suggests that she comes from that class of opinion mongers who deal primarily in sophistry. But whatever else she may be, she is certainly ignorant about kaffiyehs.

Kaffiyehs are ubiquitous in the Middle East. They are an immensely practical and versatile garment. They are worn by most men, with the exception of those who have adopted Western style dress. Christians, Jews, and Muslims all wear them, although they are less prominent among Israelis. The only reason some people in America identify them with the Palestinian struggle is because most Palestinians wear kaffiyehs. But kaffiyehs long predate the founding of the modern state of Israel and the beginning of the Palestinians resistance.

Most kaffiyehs are white with red, black, or green designs on them. The colors are the Pan-Arab colors that were used in the Arab Revolt against the Ottoman Empire in World War I (assisted by T.E. Lawrence, who wore a kaffiyeh). Palestinians are more likely to wear the black design, while Jordanians prefer the red.¹ The King of Jordan, an ally of the US, is often seen wearing a red kaffiyeh. The green kaffiyehs are usually only seen draped over caskets, as green is the symbol of martyrdom.

Some in the US during the 70’s and 80’s did try to turn the black kaffiyeh into a symbol of solidarity with the Palestinians.  They were only moderately successful, and today the kaffiyeh is mostly viewed as simply a fashion item. Most people wear them without intending any kind of political statement. And even if the kaffiyeh was always intended as a statement of support for the Palestinians, that is not the same thing as expressing support for terrorists. I support the Palestinian people, but do not condone terrorism.

In an article with the risible title “Mainstreaming Terrorism to Sell Donuts”, someone at ????????Little Green Footballs states:

Of course, the fact that terrorists and terror sympathizers explicitly say that the kaffiyeh is a symbol of Palestinian “resistance” doesn’t get in the way of their ignorant mockery.

The number of things wrong with this statement is legion. First, terrorists don’t claim that the kaffiyeh is a symbol of Palestinian resistance. It is some American’s who have tried to turn it into that. Second, voicing support for Palestine does not make one a “terror sympathizer”, no matter how much the author of that article may want to imply guilt by association. And third, just because a small number of Palestinians supporters claim that it is a symbol of Palestinian solidarity does not make it so. If someone wears a kaffiyeh to show support for Palestine, then for them it is a symbol of solidarity. If they don’t have that intent, it isn’t. And in no case is it a sign of support for terrorism. Ms. Malkin and the people at Little Green Footballs don’t seem to be able to distinguish between the Palestinians and a tactic employed by a small percentage of them.

If symbols worked the way these people claim, then any non-soldier who wore camouflage pants would be automatically supporting the Iraq War. While some people may wear camouflage to show their support for the war, I suspect that the majority of them simply have no fashion sense.

Of course, one could also criticize the cowardice being shown by Dunkin’ Donuts in pulling their ad because of meaningless complaints. Just because some Philistines want to politicize deep-fried dough does not mean the company has to allow them to do so. After all, one would think that selling millions of bagels a year would be enough to insulate them from the charge of being anti-Jewish.

1. I personally own a red kaffiyeh, which I bought in Jordan. I wear it when I work on archaeological digs in Jordan. [back]

On his Town Hall blog this Wednesday, Michael Medved posted an article entitled “Biblical Liberation from Liberalism”. In the article, he echos the claim of Denis Prager that Leviticus 19:15 is “the most crucial conservative verse in the whole Bible” (emphasis his). For those who don’t know Leviticus by heart, that verse states:

You shall not commit a perversion of justice: you shall not favor the poor and you shall not honor the great, with righteousness shall you judge your fellow.

He goes on to say that liberals should note that Leviticus identifies favoring the poor as a perversion of justice. Since Leviticus is one of my favorite books and chapter 19 is a crux chapter, I wanted to address this.

I think Prager and Medved are wrong about this being an important conservative verse for a couple of reasons. First, what they are doing is prooftexting. Conservatives did not arrive at their conservative opinions based on this verse. Instead, they have simply found a verse that agrees with what they already believe. Liberals sometimes do this as well, but it is wrong in both cases.

Second, it seems that this verse also condemns showing preferential treatment in court for the rich, but I rarely hear conservatives arguing that this should be changed. Instead, they go along with a system where the rich can afford better lawyers and are acquitted even when guilty, while the poor cannot afford adequate legal representation.

Third, this verse is only talking about what happens in a court case. It does not mean that government should not help the poor in other cases. Medved states:

As I argued in my recent townhall column about the essence of liberalism (posted on March 21st), the outlook of the left insists upon favoring the poor and the unfortunate—and thereby injecting unfairness and discrimination into the very core of politics and government.

This has nothing to do with Leviticus 19:15. Favoring the poor out of court is not condemned by this verse. In fact, favoring the poor is illustrated in other instances in the Bible, including Jesus’ words that the kingdom of God belongs to the poor (Luke 6:20). Does Medved think that Jesus was going against Leviticus 19:15 in saying that the poor will inherit the kingdom? What about when Jesus told people not to invite rich neighbors to their parties but instead invite the poor (Luke 14:12-14)? Isn’t that giving the poor preferential treatment?¹

In short, Leviticus 19:15 does not support the burden that Medved and Prager want it to hold. Conservative positions may or may not be correct, but they have little to do with Leviticus 19:15.

1. For those who would point out that Medved is Jewish and doesn’t follow the New Testament, I agree. But at the same time, Prager — whom Medved is quoting — felt free to write a column explaining to Christians that Jesus would not support Democratic policies. [back]

As I have mentioned a couple of times before, one of my guilty pleasures is listening to talk radio. I love arriving at work feeling like my head is going to explode because of these guys’ willingness to lie, slander, and commit logical fallacies in order to score political points.

Yesterday I was listening to Denis Prager mention something about the Bible. I went on the web to find what it was, but found an article he wrote last December instead. It is on Townhall.com, a site whose main purpose seems to be to provide an outlet for people who like to think of the weirdest thing they can say about liberals and then write something even more outrageous.

Prager wrote an essay entitled “The culture war is about the authority of a book,” that book being the Bible. Now in my opinion, the “culture war” is mostly an idea invented by conservative pundits. It has no more reality that the imaginary “Red State / Blue State” divide that both liberals and conservatives like to tout. Both are merely ways to get the base fired up. But Prager begins by saying,

If you want to predict on which side an American will line up in the Culture War wracking America, virtually all you have to do is get an answer to this question: Does the person believe in the divinity and authority of the Five Books of Moses, the first five books of the Bible, known as the Torah?

While it would be easy to criticize him for his questionable use of the term “divinity” in this context, I want to stick to his main point. He goes on to say,

Name the issue: same-sex marriage; the morality of medically unnecessary abortions; capital punishment for murder; the willingness to label certain actions, regimes, even people “evil”; skepticism regarding the United Nations and the World Court; strong support for Israel. While there are exceptions — there are, for example, secular conservatives who share the Bible-believers’ social views — belief in a God-based authority of the Torah is as close to a predictable dividing line as exists.

This nothing more than another example of the “liberals don’t believe the Bible” argument that gets trotted out all the time. Prager shows that he knows this, because he points out that there are some secular conservatives who don’t believe the Bible but agree with his stance on these issues. In other words, the determining factor is not whether one believes the Bible. Instead, it is your political philosophy.

I am an example that disproves what Prager asserts.¹ I fully accept the authority of the Bible (or more precisely, the authority of God as exercised through the Bible), but I disagree with him on a number of these issues. Our difference come about not because of a disagreement in authority but because of a disagreement in interpretation. I hold positions counter to him on five out of six of these issues, but I do so because of how I read the Bible.

It is ironic that this argument is coming from Prager, who is Jewish. Similar arguments have been used against Jews in the past, saying that their problem is that they do not accept the authority of the entire Bible and the divinity of Jesus. Although Prager and other talk show host decry the idea of tolerance as a liberal notion that is destroying America, that tolerance is what enables him to be accepted as a conservative.

Prager includes the term “Judeo-Christian” in his article.² The term “Judeo-Christian” was first used at the beginning of the 20th century and only gained popularity during World War II, when the west was trying to distance itself from Hilter’s “Christians only” policy. In other words, fewer than 100 years ago the same argument would have been used as a way to attack people like Prager.

Prager’s sardonic use of this tactic also happens to violate one of the Ten Commandments: “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.” Unless I am mistaken, that commandment is found in the same Torah whose authority he claims to support.

1. Technically, I am a moderate, but Prager and other talk show host of his ilk would consider me a liberal. [back]
2. Although I have never met a Judeo-Christian, I am told they are very nice people. [back]

Over the past few years, one of the ways that conservative talk show hosts have been attacking the idea of global warming is by claiming that it is a religion.  I was reminded of this on Thursday listening to the Howie Carr show, but I have heard other hosts do it as well.

I don’t want to get into an argument over global warming.  What I have a problem with, however, is these hosts saying that global warming is a religion.  The reason this seems problematic to me is that the view they seem to have of religion is that it is a set of beliefs that someone holds despite all of the evidence to the contrary.  These host all think that there is no evidence for global warming, so when they claim people believe it as a religion, they are implying that holding a religious belief is irrational.

I am surprised that conservative talk show hosts would take this approach, and I am even more surprised that their conservative listeners would let them get away with it.  After all the conventional wisdom is that conservatives are more religious than liberals.  This means that when conservative talk show hosts refer to global warming as a religion, they are in fact insulting the majority of their listeners, who are religious.

This is not limited to secular broadcasters either.  I have heard Christian political talk show hosts make the same claim about evolution, i.e., that it is an irrational system not supported by evidence which people nonetheless believe.  They even call it a religion.  Why would a Christian host define religion in such a way?