Many are still unaware of the eccentric, 180-year-old British theory underlying the politics of American evangelicals and Christian Zionists.
Journalist and historian Dave MacPherson has spent more than 40 years focusing on the origin and spread of what is known as the apocalyptic “pretribulation rapture” – the inspiration behind Hal Lindsey’s bestsellers of the 1970s and Tim LaHaye’s today.
Although promoters of this endtime evacuation from earth constantly repeat their slogan that “it’s imminent and always has been” (which critics view more as a sales pitch than a scriptural statement), it was unknown in all official theology and organized religion before 1830.
And MacPherson’s research also reveals how hostile the pretrib rapture view has been to other faiths:
It is anti-Islam. TV preacher John Hagee has been advocating “a pre-emptive military strike against Iran.” (Google “Roots of Warlike Christian Zionism.”)
It is anti-Jewish. MacPherson’s book “The Rapture Plot” (see Armageddon Books etc.) exposes hypocritical anti-Jewishness in even the theory’s foundation.
It is anti-Catholic. Lindsey and C. I. Scofield are two of many leaders who claim that the final Antichrist will be a Roman Catholic. (Google “Pretrib Hypocrisy.”)
It is anti-Protestant. For this reason no major Protestant denomination has ever adopted this escapist view.
It even has some anti-evangelical aspects. The first publication promoting this novel endtime view spoke degradingly of “the name by which the mixed multitude of modern Moabites love to be distinguished, – the Evangelical World.” (MacPherson’s “Plot,” p. 85)
Despite the above, MacPherson proves that the “glue” that holds constantly in-fighting evangelicals together long enough to be victorious voting blocs in elections is the same “fly away” view. He notes that Jerry Falwell, when giving political speeches just before an election, would unfailingly state: “We believe in the pretribulational rapture!”
In addition to “The Rapture Plot,” MacPherson’s many internet articles include “Famous Rapture Watchers,” “Pretrib Rapture Diehards,” “Edward Irving is Unnerving,” “America’s Pretrib Rapture Traffickers,” “Thomas Ice (Bloopers),” “Pretrib Rapture Secrecy” and “Pretrib Rapture Dishonesty” (massive plagiarism, phony doctorates, changing of early “rapture” documents in order to falsely credit John Darby with this view, etc.!).
Because of his devastating discoveries, MacPherson is now No. 1 on the “hate” list of pretrib rapture leaders!
There’s no question that the leading promoters of this bizarre 19th century end-of-the-world doctrine are solidly pro-Israel and necessarily anti-Palestinian. In light of recently uncovered facts about this fringe-British-invented belief which has always been riddled with dishonesty, many are wondering why it should ever have any influence on Middle East affairs.
This Johnny-come-lately view raises millions of dollars for political agendas. Only when scholars of all faiths begin to look deeply at it and widely air its “dirty linen” will it cease to be a power. It is the one theological view no one needs!
With apologies to Winston Churchill – never has so much deception been foisted on so many by so few!

[Also Google "David Letterman's Hate, Etc."]

The Afghan Taliban, whose target is the US, are not interested in upsetting their hosts by causing problems inside Pakistan, while the actual target of the Pakistani Taliban are the Pakistani forces themselves. The US pay Pakistan a hell of a lot of money to keep those trucks moving, and one imagines there is close cooperation between the US and Pakistani militaries over it. They are not routed through Pakistani Taliban strongholds either. Even so, you would still think there would be at least occasional attacks.

I may have missed it, but I don’t think anyone responded to Eric’s P.S. (first comment) about US troops in Pakistan. I understand there are special operators there now; we had them there before, but the Paks invited them out in, I think, 2003. I believe the US government is either not commenting on their presence or is denying it publicly while acknowledging it privately. On the latter point I’m trying to recall from memory; I may have my facts mixed up.

Note to Sakineh Bagoom: remember that the Boston Globe is a satellite of the New York Times.

I think the crucial thing is for Obama to create a point of conflict with Israel, where US and Israeli interests diverge, which Obama can use to clearly demonstrate Israel acting against the interests of the US. Only then can he take on the Lobby, because that is really what the whole game is all about.

The GWB era saw the US adopting Israel’s enemies as their own. That link must be broken first, and Iran is the obvious candidate. Until it is broken, the US will always risk being roped into Israel’s senseless battles. It won’t take much to break it, just a simple change from an adversarial posture toward Iran to a non-adversarial posture. A small deal like the TRR one could do it, and then all the dynamics change, at home and in the region.

“Israel blocked an Iranian initiative early in the G W Bush administration, calling for normal US/Iran relations in the context of Iran’s accepting Israel WITHIN ITS JUNE 1, 1967 BORDERS.”

I assume you’re referring to the Swiss ambassador’s memo (see “Key Documents” at bottom of this website page) reporting the Iranian’s willingness to negotiate toward a grand bargain with the US in May 2003. Much as we all might like to believe such a GB was feasible, if you take a look at that memo and then consider the situation in May 2003, I can’t imagine you or anyone else could really imagine that such a deal, or anything remotely close to it, was do-able, or even worth discussing. Even if the Israelis had been entirely asleep at the switch when that memo came across the transom, the result (nothing) would have been exactly the same. Even if Obama had been president then, I suspect the result would have been exactly the same. (Six months ago, I’d have been less confident saying this hypothetically about Obama, but given his passivity, it’s hard to imagine he’d have acted any differently from George W. Bush).

Read the memo, then see what you think. It’s pie-in-the-sky memos like this that make me feel so strongly that we and Iran will be much better off taking much smaller steps if we expect ever to get anywhere. To imagine that US and Iranian diplomats will ever sit down across a conference table and start working their way down the wish-list that was that memo is just this side of absurd – then, now, and at every moment of time in between. Great to imagine, and any diplomat sitting at that table would have a great shot at a Nobel Prize and the Time Magazine Person of the Year if something actually came of it. But if we’re actually trying to get something accomplished, rather than win Nobel Prizes and Person of the Year awards, we’d better just scrap the memo and try first to clear some smaller hurdles.

Not that I agree with Mr. Rohani, or CSR on all their views and presentations, but I think in 2003 for Iran and, the west, I mean for both sides, there wasn’t many other choices other then what took place.

And I don’t believe the decisions that took placed was Mr. Rohani’s alone since I do believe Iran’s foreign relation’s policies, especially strategic ones, are made in conscious, it does not seem to be possible to be decided by one person alone.

The regional and broader global (opinion) environment in 2005 was more possible to reverse course in favor of Iran, therefore just like its entire history, since Iran was on the defense in the home field it did what she has always done to survive, zig zag and buy time which will equal to energy and cost for the other side.

By just observing the comments between Eric and Allen on this page, interestingly one will note that how much the US will have to reform, and struggle to reform, its internal, and regional polices to just create an atmosphere possible for negotiations with Iran. Can you imagine what would be the show in NSC or State? In 2003, this luxury was not possible for Iran if it was the Bush administration would not throw the Swiss proposal to the bin.

Salamat Bashi