And that’s when I got to thinking…

Why do people believe in the literal “mark of the beast,” not to mention all the other problematic images in Revelation? Is it really because they read scripture and that was the most obvious interpretation (I’ll save questioning their hermeneutics for later)? Is it really only because that’s what’s been passed down to them (I’m sure this is often it!)? Or is it because it makes for very effective scare tactics?

I don’t think it’s a coincidence that dispensationalist literalism makes for very powerful conservative propaganda. I believe that this is part of the reason it is so alive and well in our world. While George W. Bush was in office, dispensationalism was used as propaganda for people to support war in Iraq and to give up on peace making in the middle east. Now that we have Barack Obama in office, it’s the mark of the beast language that scares people into looking negatively upon anything the president does or says. Whatever the situation, dispensationalism is good at twisting current events, no matter how horrific they are or how really good they really may be, and adapting itself so that everything is secret knowledge for the conservative dispensationalist. So the question is, do dispensationalists believe their outlandish interpretations because they’re being honest with the text or is it because it conveniently fits into their conservative bias and fear mongering? Is the literal and future mark of the beast expectation a reasonable interpretation or is it just a convenient scare tactic?

A newly entrenched democratic majority in congress flew in on the wings of an anti-war platform.  Many congressmen and women have a vested interest in getting Americans out of Iraq.  There is, however, a power vacuum that could be taken by countries such as Iran if America withdraws.  O’Reilly’s argument here does hold merit in my eyes.  Whispers occurring all over the American media speak of Bush wanting a war with Iran.  This is all above my head, and I am no prophet.  What we do know is that Iran is hurting.  Iranians are upset that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who ran on a platform to end poverty, concentrates more on anti-West speeches than his own economy.  A recent Newsweek Article suggests that vegetables have tripled in price in the last month.  This should not just be dead information to American ears. 

Perhaps what we need is not more wars, but a united effort with a coalition of Western and Arab countries who promise in good faith to help rebuild Iran.  Instead of threatening and hard-lining the Iranian government Bush should call for meetings with Ahmadinejad.  What we need is a kind of Arab Marshall Plan, a humanitarian aid plan with no strings attached.  What is good for our neighbors, according to the laws of economics, is good for us.  Promotion of international trade and the modernization of Iran (while at the same time respecting religious and cultural tradition of the Iranian people) is good for the West and the Middle East. 

What will Ahmadinejad be left to say when Bush offers, along with a plethora of other countries, economic aid with no strings attached.  There is currently no war going on in Iran.  If we go in with a silent revolution, under only a humanitarian pretense, how can they call us the “great Satan?”

But fixing Iran does not solve the Iraq problem.  The problem in Iraq is a much more serious threat because of the nature of the country.  Due to many mistakes made by Rumsfeld and Bush, the country of Iraq is in shambles with power vacuums filled by such extremist leaders as Moqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi Army.  What we must understand is that the between Sunni and Shi’ite was first a religious difference and then a cultural difference. 

What Bush should really be looking for is not a powerful political leader, but a powerful religious leader who might have the ability to unite a politically divided Iraq.  Following our own years of civil war in America, we wanted to bring the South to “justice.”  The “radical republicans,” as they are now known, called for hard-line punishment of those who began the war in the South.  The leaders took an “us vs. them” mentality.  It was only by Lincoln and others after his death who allowed for forgiveness that the once split America was able to be reunited.  We cannot take this mentality in Iraq.  There is not an Iraqi and an American, there are only humans. 

What Iraq needs is a Desmond Tutu or a Nelson Mandela—people who would be willing to work for the reconciliation of Iraq.  More troops can keep the peace, but the power vacuum with always be there when we leave.  The only way to fight a terrorist ideology is a better and more peaceful ideology that must be widely accepted in Iraq.

For this we must continue to hope and pray.  A definitive leader, who can control both Sunni’s and Shi’ites, is in my estimation the only way to save and salvage Iraq.