Canadian Republicanism and Christian Zionism

It tends to be glossed over when these groups get together, but it's important to remember that the right-leaning Christians who support Israel do so while looking forward to the day when war rends apart the Middle East, since this is supposed to be one of the events signalling/leading to Armageddon. And when that happens, these same Christians believe that Jesus will come back and usher them up to heaven, while the Jewish people--well, they'll be SOL, not being Christians. So all of that "support" hides a pretty cynical belief that Jews are important to God and to the salvation of Christians, but once that happens, Jews (if they don't convert to Christianity) are apparently disposable. See for example the following article, which specifically mentions Christians United for Israel. And bear in mind that it appears Bush himself believes these things. <a href="http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/living/15221578.htm">For some evangelicals, Mideast war stirs hope</a> Believing the Mideast conflict is a sign that Christ will return soon, some evangelical groups have cheered Israel's military actions. BY ALEXANDRA ALTER [email protected] <blockquote> The Rapture Index -- a popular evangelical Christian Web posting that calculates a global rise in natural disasters, war and inflation -- bills itself as ``a Dow Jones industrial average of end-time activity.'' An index below 85 signifies a week of ''slow prophetic activity.'' Anything above 145 signals the apocalypse is near. The Rapture Index this week: 158. The spike reflects many U.S. evangelicals' view that growing conflict in the Middle East signals the start of a global struggle leading to Christ's return... ...Some have ratcheted up support for Israel in its current battle in Lebanon with Hezbollah out of belief that a raging war -- perhaps even a nuclear confrontation -- marks a prelude to the apocalypse. Christian groups are sending millions of dollars to Israeli communities and shelters, hosting pro-Israel rallies and urging U.S. politicians to back Israeli military action... ...'The Scripture bears witness to these events being part of the end-times prophecy,'' said Gary Cristofaro, pastor of First Assembly of God in Melbourne. ``Israel is so important in God's eyes.'' Cristofaro's church is one of a handful of Florida congregations that tithes a monthly donation to Israeli settlements in the West Bank, a practice that stems from a belief that Israel must control the Palestinian territories in order to fulfill biblical prophecy. The congregation has donated more than $100,000 to support Israeli settlements in the past decade, Cristofaro said. On Saturday, church members plan to hold a ''Bless Israel'' fundraising event for 2,000 people. Evangelicals' financial support for Israel has increasingly been supplemented by political action, Christian and Jewish leaders say. At a July 18-19 pro-Israel rally in Washington, Christians from Florida and other states lobbied politicians to back Israel's military campaign in Lebanon. The Rev. John Hagee, pastor of a mega-church in San Antonio and founder of Christians United for Israel, organized the convention in hopes of launching a pro-Israel political network in 50 states. Hagee has issued dire predictions about instability in the region leading to apocalypse. In his 2006 book Jerusalem Countdown: A Warning to the World, Hagee warns: ``The coming nuclear showdown with Iran is a certainty. The war of Ezekiel 38-39 could begin before this book gets published.'' Other high-profile Christian leaders have espoused similar views. In a July 22 commentary, the Rev. Jerry Falwell predicted present-day conflict in the Middle East will ''serve as a prelude or forerunner to the future Battle of Armageddon and the glorious return of Jesus Christ.'' Pat Robertson has shied away from declaring Armageddon but has warned ''God himself'' will fight for Israel. WARY OF SOME EFFORTS While a number of Jewish leaders have courted evangelicals' support for the Jewish homeland, others are troubled by its theological underpinnings, said Rabbi James Rudin, senior interreligious advisor at the America Jewish Committee in New York. Jewish leaders have long been wary of evangelicals' effort to convert Jews to Christianity through messianic groups such as Jews for Jesus and the Chosen People Ministries. ''Is the motivation to stand up for Israel, or convert the Jewish people and bring on the end of days?'' said Rabbi Solomon Schiff, executive vice president of the Rabbinical Association of Greater Miami... ...Christian Zionism -- the belief that Israel will set the stage for prophetic events such as the rise of the Antichrist, the Battle of Armageddon and Christ's 1,000-year reign -- has steadily gained popularity since the rise of the Christian right in the 1970s and '80s, said Timothy Weber, author of On the Road to Armageddon: How Evangelicals Became Israel's Best Friend. In the most gruesome scenario, evangelicals envision a global battle breaking out when a 200-million-man army invades from the east and Jesus returns to take on the Antichrist. Jews and other non-Christians will face conversion or death. </blockquote> See also just to start: <a href="http://www.alternet.org/middleeast/13267/">Onward, Christian Soldiers</a> (2002) <a href="http://www.counterpunch.org/hill1019.html">Bush's Armageddon Obsession The Looking Glass War</a> (2002) <a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0317/p01s01-uspo.html">New scrutiny of role of religion in Bush's policies</a> (2003) <a href="http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0420,perlstein,53582,1.html">The Jesus Landing Pad</a> (2004) <a href="http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts06122006.html">Bush's Armageddon Wish</a> (2006) etc etc etc --- "When I told him about class warfare, he asked if we did it in JellO."--translation/paraphrase, The Candidate, CBC

Written By: sthompson
Date: 2006-08-24 09:32:20
<a href="/article/133220685-canadian-republicanism-and-christian-zionism">Article Link</a>

Christians United for Israel and Institute for Canadian Values point the way to Equipping Christians for the Public Square Centre (<a href="http://www.ecpcentre.org">www.ecpcentre.org</a>). Tristan Emmanuel is the captain and chief of Equipping Christians for the Public Square, and there is no doubt where such a tribe rests their committed head. The hot button social issues such as family, abortion, gay rights, crime and punishment, public education and the welfare system dominate the day. The USA, guided by Bush, and Canada, led by Harper, are seen as the great hope of Christian political and national renewal. Again, a tour of the website of Equipping Christians for the Public Square reveals the how a limited and reductionistic interpretation of Christianity has come to be equated with republicanism in the culture and political wars of our time. I’m sure many Canadians and Christians would have their doubts and questions about the merging of Canada-Christian-republican-Zionist. But, these organizations and think tanks often make such move. Needless to say, such an ideology does breed serious distortions about the meaning of what it means to be a Canadian and Christian.

Christians United for Israel has another companion organization in Canada that has drawn the naïve and historically illiterate. Watchmen for the Nations
(<a href="http://www.watchmen.org">www.watchmen.org</a>) was started by Bob Birch on the West Coast. Bob Birch was well connected with Bernice Gerard, and both have played a significant role in linking the Christian charismatic and renewal movements with republican politics and Zionism. Bob Birch and Bernice Gerard have a decades long history with David Mainse of 100 Huntley Street in Burlington, Ontario, and Mainse, Birch and Gerard have made it quite clear why and how they turn to the political right and Zionism in their read, interpretation and application of the Bible for these times. Birch and Gerard and now aging, but new leadership has taken over Watchmen for the Nations, and the position of such a group merely follows the republican and Zionist lead of their elders.

Christians United for Israel, Watchmen for the Nations, Institute for Canadian Values and Equipping Christians for the Public Square have their distinct appeal for those who think Western civilization and Canada is slipping into a moral abyss and vacuum. Such organizations and their leaders do much to motivate the rank and file foot soldiers to fight for traditional values against the corrosive nature of liberalism and secular humanism. Such words are often bandied about without much in depth understanding of what they mean, but such is the nature of ideology.

There is yet another group (dominated by younger people) that have joined this right of centre parade. Such a group drew more than 5,000 to Parliament Hill this spring to rally the republican cause. Zionism is always there. 4MyCanada (<a href="http://www.4mycanada.ca">www.4mycanada.ca</a>) has been led by Faytene Krystow, and, in many ways, this movement of people in their teens and twenties is indebted to the earlier vision of Birch, Mainse and Gerard. 4MyCanada stands on the shoulders of Mainse and 100 Huntley Street and Birch’s Watchmen for the Nations. All of these groups tend to merge Christianity, Republicanism and Zionism. The USA is seen as a good place, for such an empire has tended, in the last few decades, to support the Jewish cause. Therefore, Christianity becomes linked to the American republican way, and both join affectionate hands with Zionism. The mixture becomes even more interesting when this concoction is stirred with the Bible and Canadian values. 4MyCanada brings together charismatic and Christian renewal types with Harperite conservatism and pro-Israeli policies in the Middle East.

I must admit, as a historic Canadian Tory of the vintage of Inglis and Strachan, Forsey and Creighton, Leacock and Grant, Acorn and Fiamengo, Sibbald and De la Roche, Moodie and Parr Traill, I find little in common with such notions of conservatism. Such ideas are foreign to the noblest and best aspects of Canadian High Toryism. A real turn to Canadian virtues begins with a much deeper understanding of Canadian religious, political, and intellectual history. It is rather ironic that the organizations mentioned above that claim to be conservative have little knowledge of what it means to truly conserve Canadian history. Most, I suspect, have a rather thin knowledge of Christian and Western history, also.

We do need to ask, by way of conclusion, whether it is possible to link, with any serious integrity, Christianity, republicanism and Zionism. The attempt to do this by Christians United for Israel, Watchmen for the Nations, Institute for Canadian Values, Equipping Christians for the Public Square and 4MyCanada does need to be called into question by both Canadians who know their history well and Christians grounded in the finest tradition of peacemaking and justice seekers. Ideology of the right, centre of left in the
Culture wars of our time will not do. Critical thinking is called for to prevent a new form of religious and political Puritanism and fascism from colonizing hearts, head and souls.

Ron Dart

It should be no surprise to anyone that those who promote the union of church and state support Zionism. If they were not hypocrits they would also support the concept of Islamic states as well. What they are really promoting is the use of religion combined with state power to entrench a class based system which suppresses social mobility and progress. They seek a return to the past power relationships. They are truly regressive conservatives seeking the past rather than progressive conservatives.

"I must admit, as a historic Canadian Tory of the vintage of Inglis and Strachan, Forsey and Creighton, Leacock and Grant, Acorn and Fiamengo, Sibbald and De la Roche, Moodie and Parr Traill, I find little in common with such notions of conservatism."

That doesn't make them wrong, or un-Canadian.

"Such ideas are foreign to the noblest and best aspects of Canadian High Toryism."

What noble aspects? Elitism mixed with noblesse oblige? Deference to one's "betters". Absolute faith in the ability of government to solve every problem?

Canadians are pragmatists. Ironically, one of the things which distinguishes Canadians from their neighbours to the south is our unwillingness to put our historical figures on a pedestal. While Americans wonder how Thomas Jefferson would have approached a particular modern problem, we simply assume that John A. MacDonald would have gotten drunk.

"What noble aspects? Elitism mixed with noblesse oblige? Deference to one's "betters". Absolute faith in the ability of government to solve every problem?"

As far as elitism goes the new form of conservatism is even more apt to defer to those who they consider their "betters": corporate CEOs, leaders of certain other governments, certain religious leaders. They also have adopted the idea that only those who control capital can solve every problem (but by using the coercive power of the state). This union of corporate and government power characterizes the conservative movement today and the use of religion is seen as an effective tool for social control.

Terms such as freedom and individualism are used with very precise meaning: the freedom of the economic elite to pursue their individual self-interest backed by the coercive power of the state. This form of Conservatism maintains the elitism of British conservatism without the progressive belief in the tempering aspects of liberal democracy.

"Ironically, one of the things which distinguishes Canadians from their neighbours to the south is our unwillingness to put our historical figures on a pedestal. While Americans wonder how Thomas Jefferson would have approached a particular modern problem, we simply assume that John A. MacDonald would have gotten drunk."

Certainly this is an idea promoted by certain Liberal academics and of course those new Conservatives who reject "progressive" ideas. It was a successful political strategy designed to take the focus from his considerable achievements.

Both forms of conservatism are elitist. It comes with the territory. This of course, does not mean that we should totally reject what conservatives - and here I am talking about genuine ones - not neocons, have to say. American conservatism is really classical liberalism, Canadian conservatism is Tory or based upon the thinking of Burke and Disraeli. American conservatism tends to be elitist libertarian, emphasizing freedom largely for the rich and bugger everyone else if they can't play the game. Toryism does not emphasize freedom but looks at the world in organic terms. Everyone has their place and duty. The duty of the powerful is to make sure the less powerful do not suffer too much. Hence Red Toryism's emphasis on social democratic reform. I suggest that for the 80% of the populaqtion who have to work for someone else, Red Toryism is a preferred option, though I do not believe there is really a distinction between liberty and equality (but that is another matter.)

.....or remained drunk.........

---
"We can have a democracy or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of the few. We cannot have both."
- Justice Louis Brandeis

At least the older tories were more or less sane. Modern versions are simply spoiled brats plus a few beers [or martinis].

Traditional British conservatism was definately elitist. The form of conservatism that developed in Canada was moderated in large part by pioneer conditions. Those conditions led to the adoption of the concept of "progressive" conservatism. Even Sir John A. Macdonald used that term.

The form of conservatism that developed in Canada, and in the early United States, was based on the belief in social mobility. It was based on the belief that society stratified itself but most did not accept the morality of the resulting inequality (a concept that is central to the new conservatism). People emigrated to Canada primarily to improve their station in life. They sought a "progressive" society in which that was possible.

A "progressive" does not believe that it is enough for opportunities to exist but that a role of government is to provide access to those opportunities for the widest possible number of individuals through public policy. It is up to the individual or family to seize these opportunities.

The new Conservative ideology sees success in the marketplace as the primary mark of "superiority." Hence they tend to award political influence to those who they believe are entitled to influence: mainly corporate CEOs or their close associates. Since the main focus of corporate ideology is profit (and the level of profit often provides the CEO was huge personal financial rewards) their viewpoints are tied to the interests of the corporate class. This creates a clear conflict of interest as government promotes the interests of the economic elite (they believe in the concept of trickle-down economics).

The new conservatives see inequality as not merely the result of natural processes they are convinced that it is moral or God's will. Government (even if chosen by the people) should never interfere with God's "natural" order. This is why they so strongly reject "progressive" thinking.

The growth of this ideology is not confined to the new conservatives but today most leading liberals have adopted the same form of elitism. While it is not a surprise that some the candidates for the Liberal leadership, such as Scott Brison is fully in line with that viewpoint, it is disquieting to see the former NDP leader of Ontario, Bob Rae, has adopted these views.

Good posting, Innes. You fleshed out the concept of traditional concervatism nicely. I wonder, though, what our contemporary (pseudo) conservatives will make of it. Trolls, where are you?

"The new conservatives see inequality as not merely the result of natural processes they are convinced that it is moral or God's will. Government (even if chosen by the people) should never interfere with God's "natural" order. This is why they so strongly reject "progressive" thinking."

So, how does drug prohibition fit with this vision? Or is it simply to keep the prices of drugs artificially high for 'market value' so the greatest number of criminals can make a living? God put the cannabis plant on earth and conservatives have been trying to stomp anyone who uses it since the 1920s.

I agree full-heartedly with decrim of pot. But I wouldn't make a blanket statement that all conservatives are in favor of the stupid and evil pot prohibtion. I know in the States there are a number of right-wingers - Milton Freidman, off the top of my head - think the law idiotic.

The new conservatism combines market ideology and certain selective religious and "moral" traditions. That means there is a clear difference between the new conservatism and libertarianism. What I have read by Friedman suggests that he is more libertarian than new conservative. From my point of view the new conservatives have selected the worst elements of conservatism (its elitism and moral absolutism) and liberalism (its belief in economic determinism--the invisible hand--as part of its moral point of view).

In my opinion, the appeal of new conservatism to libertarians is more related to what they new conservative leaders "say" rather than what they "do" once in power. They use the rhetoric of free market liberalism to promote a form of corporate elitism.

One of the biggest differences between new conservatism and free market liberalism is the belief in the use of "hard" or military power to enforce their version of capitalist values. Just as the pot argument, it reveals the problems with the ideology because "free markets" were supposed to eliminate the need for the use of hard power to create hierarchy.

The concepts of economic freedom and individualism (respect for the individual) were never supposed to be used to entrench an economic class system but to ensure that each individual within the system was given the best possible opportunity to reach their potential.

"The form of conservatism that developed in Canada, and in the early United States, was based on the belief in social mobility."

Social mobility was *not* a principle of early Canadian conservatism. Canadian Toryism was about fixed classes based on bloodline, and about protecting the Family Compact from any kind of competition or threat. It was about inherited privilege over personal merit and achievement.

If I have to choose on elitism based on which birth canal a person passes through or one based on what one achieves in the business world, I'll take the latter. Meritocracy over aristocracy.

What Innes is talking about is the conservatism of the early Conservative Party, not the Toryism of the Family Compact. In the same way that Disraeli constructed the British Conservative Party out of moderate Tories and dissaffected Whigs, MacDonald and his friends did the same in Canada with moderate Reformers and moderate Tories. If I remember correctly, at one point the early CP was called the Liberal-Conservative Party. Tories of the Compact and the old pre-Disraeli Tories tended to be the reactionaries of which you speak. The new parties had a lot of Whig or Reformer about them and as such made a deliberate and direct appeal to the newly enfranchised working class. Both the new parties took the old name Tory as a nickname, though the outlook was in many respects different. Although, right up till the end both PC's always had a reactionary "hang 'em and flog 'em wing.