Zionism is the belief in a Jewish homeland in Israel for Jews. It has nothing to do with Christianity whatsoever. Plenty of zionists believe that a Christian does not have to recognise Israel to be a Christian, including Theodore Herzl, the founder of Zionism.

jewsagainstzionism.com

Would you like this forum to be on why Christians don't have rights?

you did say they don't have rights when you said they shouldn't be allowed to impose views on the political world

...obviously another group of people you can't seem to tolerate and are attemping to belittle

Not much different from the radical Muslims he's against.

I have underestimated him.

The White House has explained the nuances of God's plans to Armageddonites before. Last year, it sponsored a meeting with leading fundamentalist preachers to explain that Gaza was not part of the historical Judea and Samaria. Therefore, its spokesman argued, Israel's withdrawal of settlements would not interfere with God's plan to end the world.
Aug 2006

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/April2004/Monbiot0420.htm

We can laugh at these people, but we should not dismiss them. That their beliefs are bonkers does not mean they are marginal. American pollsters believe that between 15 and 18% of US voters belong to churches or movements which subscribe to these teachings. [7] A survey in 1999 suggested that this figure included 33% of Republicans. [8] The best-selling contemporary books in the United States are the 12 volumes of the Left Behind series, which provide what is usually described as a "fictionalized" account of the Rapture (this, apparently, distinguishes it from the other one), with plenty of dripping details about what will happen to the rest of us. The people who believe all this don't believe it just a little; for them it is a matter of life eternal and death.

And among them are some of the most powerful men in America. John Ashcroft, the attorney-general, is a true believer, so are several prominent senators and the House majority leader, Tom DeLay. Mr DeLay (who is also the co-author of the marvellously-named DeLay-Doolittle Amendment, postponing campaign finance reforms) travelled to Israel last year to tell the Knesset that "there is no middle ground, no moderate position worth taking." [9]

So here we have a major political constituency - representing much of the current president's core vote - in the most powerful nation on earth, which is actively seeking to provoke a new world war. Its members see the invasion of Iraq as a warm-up act, as Revelations (9:14-15) maintains that four angels "which are bound in the great river Euphrates" will be released "to slay the third part of men." They batter down the doors of the White House as soon as its support for Israel wavers: when Bush asked Ariel Sharon to pull his tanks out of Jenin in 2002, he received 100,000 angry emails from Christian fundamentalists, and never mentioned the matter again. [10]

The electoral calculation, crazy as it appears, works like this. Governments stand or fall on domestic issues. For 85% of the US electorate, the Middle East is a foreign issue, and therefore of secondary interest when they enter the polling booth. For 15% of the electorate, the Middle East is not just a domestic matter, it's a personal one: if the president fails to start a conflagration there, his core voters don't get to sit at the right hand of God. Bush, in other words, stands to lose fewer votes by encouraging Israeli aggression than he stands to lose by restraining it. He would be mad to listen to these people. He would also be mad not to.

anyone watch the left behind series?

think those who want to bring back a theocracy

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.


Pastor Martin Niemöller

Someone please explain the difference between a leadership that bases it's policies on a Biblical end of the world myth and one that relies on the use of psychics,astrologers,phrenologists or tea leaf readers.

So you think it's perfectly OK to advocate war and invading another country based on religious beliefs?

I never said they didn't have the right to EXPRESS their views.No one has the right to IMPOSE.In democratic societies,people vote,which they have every right to do,but this Hagee idiot is calling for a full scale military assault on Iran and other Islamic nations.His motivation,even though he denies it in a sound bite,is to bring about The Rapture.Not much different from the radical Muslims he's against.

"when Bush asked Ariel Sharon to pull his tanks out of Jenin in 2002, he received 100,000 angry emails from Christian fundamentalists, and never mentioned the matter again."

Someone please explain the difference between a leadership that bases it's policies on a Biblical end of the world myth and one that relies on the use of psychics,astrologers,phrenologists or tea leaf readers.We've seen this before.I think the Reagans were heavily into astrology and UFO's and there was talk about Clinton consulting psychics,so magical thinking is nothing new in the White House.

This is why I think that NO lobbyist groups should have any power to influence Government. The Government should be responsible to an independent and objective body, but not angry letter writers, or lobbyist groups.

...Beyond that, Israel and its friends in the United States should seriously reconsider their alliances not only with the neocons, but also with the Christian Right. The largest "pro-Israel" lobby day during this crisis was mobilized by Pastor John Hagee and his Christians United For Israel, a believer in Armageddon with all its implications for a rather particular end to the Jewish story. This is just asking to become the mother of all dumb, self-defeating and morally abhorrent alliances.

"Ending the neoconservative nightmare"
By Daniel Levy
04/08/2006
-Ha'aretz

"As president," Huckabee promises in a position paper, "I will always ensure that Israel has access to the state-of-the-art weapons and technology she needs to defend herself from those who seek her annihilation." He often mentions that he has visited Israel nine times. "I've literally traveled from Dan to Be'er Sheva," he said in a candidates' debate a few days ago.

He didn't mention that most of the visits were religious in character, not political. He led believers to churches and archaeological sites. A few Jewish community leaders question whether his support for Israel stems from his sense that "we've got one true ally in the Middle East, and that's Israel," or whether it's linked to his desire to hasten the End of Days, Armageddon.

Even the members of the Israel Factor panel, who have been following the U.S. election campaign for Haaretz, have no clear answer to this question. They look at Huckabee and see, first of all, a governor with no international experience and no clear record. For that reason, Huckabee is still near the bottom of their candidates' list.

"Why Republican candidate Mike Huckabee worries Jewish voters"
January 20, 2008
Shmuel Rosner Chief U.S. Correspondent
-Ha'aretz

John Hagee can no more do anything to bring about the return of Christ than I can bring peace to the Middle East!

I don't believe that Hagee has as much political influence as he claims to have.

Well, if you look at the Bible,OT and NT,as astrotheological metaphor instead of as literal history,the Bible becomes one big astrology book.

The Evangelical Christian fundamentalist lobby is one of the biggest on Capital Hill, as is the pro-Israel lobby (AIPAC, CAMERA, MEMRI, etc, etc, etc,)

While the Armageddonites have their own agenda (end of the world), the Israel lobby in the US has no problem with welcoming their support. Some Israelis feel otherwise.

And neither does the rest of the world, that distinction belongs to the US and Israel.