November 20, 2105--ISIS v.ISIL

Most of the right-wing radio talk-show hosts I monitor in the middle of the night are so frustrated, almost  speechless, so descended into sputtering about what is going on in France and the Middle East that a recent focus of their anger and impotence is calling Barack Obama to task, actually savaging him,  for his stubborn insistence on calling the Jihadist terrorists ISIL while most of the rest of us "ordinary folks" refer to them as ISIS.

Small differences in ordinary circumstances but in the current inflamed state of things yet another opportunity to rant and fulminate.

ISIS gained its name as the Iraqi branch of al Qaeda after it invaded Syria in 2013. ISIS is the acronym for "Islamic State in Iraq and Syria" or "Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham," which is the original Arabic name for the caliphate in the region.

ISIL stands for "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant." A much larger region that stretches to the eastern shore of the Mediterranean and includes present day Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Israel, and Jordan. The Obama administration prefers ISIL claiming it is a better translation for al-Sham.

A few things--

By thinking about the regional terrorists as active in all of the Levant, rather than "just" Syria and Iraq, isn't Obama granting them more geographic girth and influence than thinking about them as more contained?

Also, Levant etymologically and historically is a French construct. From the Middle French lever, literally "to rise," meaning, from a literal European perspective, facing east to the Orient where the sun rises. Couple this with the traditional European-defined lands of the "Orient," also of French origin, from the Old French oriri, "to rise," and the Middle Eastern region becomes the Orient, which in the Near East includes the Levant and those who study it "orientalists." None of these any longer politically correct.

Except perhaps, with deep irony, to Barack Obama who should know better.

What does President Obama's surprisingly Eurocentric insistence on ISIL suggest?

Nothing good. It seemingly means that to him ISIL is even more widespread in its influence than it currently, fortunately, is. And by viewing them as ISIL, cedes to them the possibility that over time, unthwarted, they will seize all the lands of the Levant.

The Eurocentrism is also surprising and disappointing for a president who came into office pledging that he would treat all of the world, especially the Islamic world, more equitably and less xenophobically than his predecessors.

Additionally, unreported in the posturing and demagogy on all sides is the fact that the Levant plus the current Iraq is the final playing field for all three religions of the Book--messianic Judaism, evangelical Christianity, and apocalyptical Islam--as they all, in their most extreme expression, await and look forward to the End Time when the world will end in a cataclysm.

Thus it is understandable that many, especially those on the right who hate and feel put down by Obama's dispassionate, patronizing professorial tone, would find his stubbornness, even fixation on ISIL maddening. Even if they know nothing about the Levant or connect any of this to eschatological matters.

November 3, 2015--Ben Carson's End Times

It was fair to grill presidential candidate John F. Kennedy about his Catholicism. Especially, if he were to be elected president would he take his orders from the Vatican or the U.S Constitution.

At a meeting with Protestant miniseries he assured them that he wouldn't and that if there was ever an irreconcilable different between Church dogma and his oath to defend the Constitution, he would step down from the presidency.

What he didn't tell them was that he was not that observant. In fact, he went to church more for political reasons than because of faith. And he would never step down and turn the Oval Office over to the Kennedy-family-hated Lyndon Johnson.

And if it was fair to wonder in public about Mitt Romney's Mormon beliefs--he holds them strongly--particularly if as a Mormon he was or was not a Christian (many Christians claim Mormons are not of their faith), then isn't it fair to question Republican front-runner-at-the-moment Ben Carson about his beliefs?

Especially since as a Seventh Day Adventist he may hold some views that voters should know about before voting.

The Seventh Day sect is derived from the apocalyptic beliefs and preaching of William Miller, who as founder of the Adventists attracted a large following toward the middle of the 19th century when he prophesied that the end of the world would be coming in 1843, ushering in not just the end in a fiery conflagration but the Second Coming of Christ and ultimately the Last Judgement.

His followers, Millerites, in 1843 gave up all their worldly possessions and moved to high ground so they could have a front row seat for the apocalypse.

1843 came and went, even 1844 came and went and so, in turn, did the good reverend.

A few years later Miller's Adventist Church morphed into what we now know as Seventh Day Adventists. The "seventh day" refers to that aspect of Carson's church's doctrine that most of us know--the fact that they celebrate the Sabbath on Saturday, not Sunday.

But, informed voters may want to know that at the heart of the Seventh Day Adventist belief system is still the apocalyptical teaching, the eschatology, and prophecies of Reverend Miller. Adventists are still waiting for, looking forward to the end, the destruction of the world.

I would want to know what Doctor Carson thinks about this.

This is important to me as many Adventists think, believe the literal End is near, not centuries or millennia in the future.

If the End is that imminent what are the political policy implications?

Why bother fixing the infrastructure if it all will soon go up in smoke. Why set policy to improve schools as soon there will be no need for schools? Why provide health care coverage when we're all about to die in a global conflagration? Why worry about the proliferation of nuclear weapons when God has something much more explosive in mind?

A friend sent me a link to the October 28th Borowitz Report that appears regularly in the New Yorker.

This one is a satirical piece about a debate between Ben Carson and Ted Cruz, also a millennialist, about whose presidential policies would be more effective in bringing about the End Times.

According to Borowitz, the doctor promised he would end the world during his first term. Cruz one-upped him, pledging to do so on "day one." The same day he would rid us of Obamacare and tear up our nuclear agreement with Iran.

This is all very amusing, we can joke about not having to worry about the fact that half our highway bridges are about to collapse or the Social Security Trust running out of money. But it is also scary since they both really believe this stuff!

Too bad the CNBC moderators who so botched the last debate didn't ask Cruz and Carson to talk about  this rather than seek their views on on-line sports betting.