BEWARE THE RED HEIFER: How religious nutballs could start World War III

Antiwar.com ^ | April 15, 2002 | Justin Raimondo

[H.R. Gross]

Behind the Headlines
by Justin Raimondo
Antiwar.com

April 15, 2002

BEWARE THE RED HEIFER
How religious nutballs could start World War III

While the American secretary of state shuttles back and forth between Yasser Arafat and Ariel Sharon, trying desperately to cobble together a) a ceasefire, and b) some basis for a settlement of the world’s most tiresome perpetual crisis, it behooves us to examine the issue of … the red heifer.

Say what?

You heard me, I said the red heifer….

IMPOSSIBLE – YET IT HAPPENED!

When I was a lad, my favorite feature of the Sunday comics was something called “Impossible! – Yet It Happened!” Stories of haunted ghost ships, three-headed babies, and frogs mysteriously raining down from the heavens, odd occurrences chronicled in the classic style of Charles Fort and breathlessly described in lurid prose under the tantalizing headline: Impossible? Yet It Happened! It seemed to me to be a trope for the irrationality of the world I was beginning to enter, a sign that the society of adults wasn’t all it was cracked up to be: after if, if it’s impossible, then it couldn’t have happened – right?

Wrong! To confirm this fact, we need only look at the most significant recent development in the Middle East, and, no, I don’t mean the intifada, or Colin Powell’s visit, or the suicide bombings, or any of that other stuff: I’m talking about the recent birth of a red heifer on a farm in Israel. Why is this so important? The answer is to be found in a fascinating piece by Rod Dreher in National Review Online, “Red Heifer Days,” which recounts the theological significance of this event – and it’s ominous implications for the future of the region:

“Could this little calf born last month in Israel bring about Armageddon? The concept would have struck many people as absurd the last time such a calf was born, in 1997, and probably makes most readers laugh today. Big mistake: Never underestimate the power of religious faith to shape events, especially in the Holy Land. Especially right now.”

THE ESCHATOLOGICAL FACTOR

It all has to do with eschatology, a religious conception of the Final Days of mankind, a scenario mapped out by three of the world’s major religions in very similar (and specific) detail. The focus is on the Temple Mount – the site of Ariel Sharon’s provocative visit that set off the current intifada, and also site of the First Temple of the Hebrews. Destroyed by King Nebuchadnezzar,, and then again by the Romans, according to Jewish traditionalists the Third Temple will be built by the Messiah, who will be not only king of Israel but also high priest of the rebuilt Temple. To the Muslim Palestinians, and their co-religionists worldwide, this is the site of the Dome of the Rock, a Muslim shrine, the sacred al-Aqsa mosque, and the place where Mohammed mounted a fine Arabian horse and galloped straight up to heaven. A large number of Christian fundamentalists have also imbued this spot with millennialist import: according to this “dispensationalist” view, Jesus Christ will return to earth to do battle on the plain of Armageddon and triumph over the Antichrist only after the building of the Third Temple. Dreher cites Gershom Gorenberg, whose book, End of Days: Fundamentalism and the Struggle for the Temple Mount, describes the apocalyptic intersection of religion and politics both in Israel and the US:

“What happens at that one spot, more than anywhere else, quickens expectations of the End in three religions. And at that spot, the danger of provoking catastrophe is greatest.”

I hate to tell you this, but the danger just got much greater. Now, as for that red heifer….

OUR NUTBALLS, AND THEIRS

The key thing to remember, in all this mythological murk, is that no religious Jew is allowed to set foot on the Temple Mount, for fear of desecrating the sacred ground. In any case, the Temple can only be reconstructed when the Messiah returns to save his people, and, so far, no Messiah, and no Third Temple. But not all Israelis are willing to assume such a passive stance, tradition or no tradition. Ever since Israel came into possession of old Jerusalem, in 1967, a fanatical group of Israeli nationalists have tried to kick-start the eschatological machinery, plotting the destruction of the Muslim shrines and busily constructing the various ritual objects for use in the rebuilt Temple. These Israeli nutballs have forged a natural alliance with our Christian nutballs, who have their own theological rationale for hurrying Apocalypse along. They are dispensationalists, who believe – among other things – that the colonization of the Holy Land by the children of Israel signals the second coming of Christ: the efforts of these “Christian Zionists” account for the uncritical support for Israel among many “born again” Christian conservatives.

PROVOKING ARMAGEDDON

Okay, so now we get to the part about the red heifer: it turns out that, although no religious Jew is allowed on the Temple Mount, there’s a loophole – it’s okay if he or she is first purified in the ashes of a pure red heifer. These creatures are exceedingly rare. One was born a couple of years ago, in Israel, but it soon began sprouting white hairs on its tail and was deemed insufficiently pure by the rabbinical authorities. Ah, but science found a way around the fickleness of God’s creation, and through the modern miracle of genetic engineering – and funding provided by “Christian Zionists” in America – a red heifer has been bred, and pronounced pure. As Dreher points out, the world media covered this as a joke, but in reality the red heifer is the theological and political equivalent of a suitcase nuke waiting to go off. Dreher cites Richard Landes, a professor of history at Boston University and director of the Center for Millennial Studies:

“These kinds of circumstances are exactly what people are waiting for. We could be starting a war. If this is a real red heifer, and strict Orthodox rabbis have declared her worthy of sacrifice, then a lot of Jews in Israel will take that as a sign that a new phase of history is about to begin. The Muslims are ready for jihad anyway, so if you have Jews up there doing sacrifices, talk about a red flag in front of a charging bull.”

Rod Dreher, by the way, is the only writer I know of to catch the significance of this red heifer business, because the media tends to not take religion seriously, and yet I can’t help thinking that he perhaps unintentionally underscores another overlooked reality: that the problem of fundamentalism is not limited to the Arab world. The Islamic brand brought down the World Trade Center, but the Judeo-Christian varieties may succeed in starting World War III.

We have heard much about the evils of “moral equivalence” in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The former, we are told, are superstitious terrorists, whose fanatical mindset makes the perfect receptacle for the hatching of murderous plots, while the Israelis are Westernized democrats, ensconced, just like us in, in a secularized consumer culture. But Dreher points to the existence and growing influence of Jewish fundamentalists, fanatics on the order of Al Qaeda, who could well spark an all-out Arab-Israeli war. Citing Professor Landes, he writes:

“’It’s entirely conceivable that this [red heifer] could trigger a new round of attempts to blow up the Dome of the Rock.’ This is something the Israeli security forces have long been vigilant against. But with their attentions drawn elsewhere by the war with the Palestinians, it’s possible that a radical group could slip the net. And it’s possible that religious extremists elements within the Israeli army could help them.”

EVEN IF…

As Colin Powell shuttles back and forth between Sharon and Arafat, I can’t help but think of that red heifer, growing fat and glossy under the ministrations of its deluded creators. Even if the US somehow succeeded in forging a “peace plan,” even if President Bush actually had the guts to stand up to Sharon and say: “Enough – or else!” Even if, somehow, the nutball tendencies among the Palestinians could be minimized or at least contained – even then, it seems, the cause of peace in the Holy Land is utterly doomed. For what happens at the end of three years, when the red heifer grows old enough to sacrifice, and its ashes can be used for purposes of ritual purification? At that point, the locus of religious conflict in the world could well see yet another Israeli invasion, this time prompted by an upsurge of religious fanaticism married to a virulent ultra-nationalism – precisely the forces that want to propel the Satanic Benjamin Netanyahu and his nutball followers into power.

HISTORY AND IRONY

Sharon knows full well that if he accedes to the demands of the Americans, Netanyahu, the ultra-hardliner, is bound to succeed him. The irony of US intervention, in brokering a “peace plan,” is the unintended consequence of a burgeoning religious supremacism in Israeli politics, one with the power to undo all the good work of American diplomacy.

A DANGEROUS HERESY

What, then, is the solution? The widespread idea that it is the task of American diplomacy to come up with a solution to all or even some of the world’s most intractable problems is precisely where US foreign policy has gone wrong since the days of the Founders. It is a dangerous heresy promulgated by cold warriors trained in the European tradition of realpolitik that the earth is our chessboard, and we must always be making or planning a move: this troublesome activism has been the cause of much misery in the world, and much social and economic dislocation in this country. It is responsible for the policy of perpetual war pursued in modern times by our rulers in Washington, and eventually it will be our undoing. For what can Colin Powell do against the red heifer? Against this improbable creature, the whole architecture of US policy in the Middle East could be laid low, and that is a humbling thought – or at least it ought to be.

INGRATITUDE, THY NAME IS ‘ISRAEL’

You’ll recall that the big reason for US involvement has been to clear the decks for an all-out attack on Iraq. Hey, but wait a minute – with all this talk of Saddam’s alleged “weapons of mass destruction,” the image one gets is of the Iraqi ruler raining missiles down on, say, Brooklyn. But he hasn’t got anything even close to that kind of range: now that the Iraqis and the Saudis have kissed and made up, his only possible target is Israel. We are begging Sharon to please lay off the Palestinians so we can do Israel the favor of taking out a deadly threat to its continued existence. And still, Sharon says no.

GO, COLIN, GO!

Since US tax dollars have funded the colonization and humiliation of a people, the Palestinians, the American secretary of state has a moral responsibility to see that they get a break, and a fair deal. Powell seems admirably committed to that, and he is more than living up to the role implicitly ascribed to him in this space as the conscience of the Bush administration. As such, he faces a powerful and vocal interventionist claque, reflexively pro-Sharon (actually, pro-Netanyahu), and highly influential in the Republican party. It’s one man against the War Party, a truly heroic struggle on Powell’s part, and, so far, he’s proving himself to be at least the equal of his adversaries. More power to him – as long as he sees that the only rational long-term strategy for the US in the Middle East is an exit strategy.

A FUTURE SCENARIO, CIRCA 3002

Our Israel-centric foreign policy, which has alienated the entire Arab world, Muslim and Christian alike, must go. The urgency of this reorientation is underscored by the Israeli government’s intransigence. We need to extricate ourselves from this volatile region, which seems cursed by some special blight, and a likely target of divine anger or some kind of retribution that can’t be long in coming. For all the good intentions, the diplomatic phrases, the talk of “peace” and “justice,” are as nothing when they come up against the awful power of the red heifer.

In this context, imagine the following scenario. It is the year 3002, and some kid is reading the Sunday funnies – yes, they still have Sunday comics, because some traditions are indeed sacred – and he comes across a little item that starts like this:

“How could a red heifer have started World War III? Impossible? Yet it happened….

[detsaoT]

There is a biblical quote someplace that states this question and answer. I don't recall it exactly but Jesus was asked to prove the existance of God by putting himself in harms way. The inference being that God would allow no harm to come to him. The answer was priceless. I don't recall it verbatim so I will not attempt a paraphrase. (Too much respect for the words to muck them up) Perhaps someone can put them on this thread.

The quote to which you refer originates from Satan's temptation of Christ in the desert. Both Satan and Christ knew that God existed, so it was not a matter of trying to prove or disprove so. The context and purpose of the discussion was (a) Satan tempting Christ to cast himself down to the Stones (killing himself), inferring that all of the Angels in heaven would prevent Christ from dying (which, we see from the Crucifixion, was a false inferrence), and (b) Christ rejecting the lies and distortions which Satan made (the text which Satan quoted did not say what he implied it did, but was a distortion of the orginal meaning - kinda like what the liberals in the Methodist and Episcopal church are doing today).

The entire episode can be found in Matthew Chapter 4, 1-11. That was one of the THREE temptations brought upon Christ directly by Satan himself.

:) ttt

[Cold Heat]

That's the one! Thanks.

[detsaoT]

(You beat me to it! - Should've put the whole context of the Temptation (vs 1-11) in, though...)

:) ttt

[weikel]

The actual god can't be the one of the Bible God would have to be eternal that I did prove( unless you can find a flaw with my logic) and thus not subject to sequential, transient emotions which god is in the Bible( " I thy lord thy God am a jealous God" etc). God could interfere for his own unfathomable reasons but I would tend to doubt that he would if we can set up the universe so that it runs itself the way he wants.

[TheHeterodoxConservative]

You're right, but I was trying desperately to be the first one to post it (and I was.) Your answer was better and more complete, though.

[TheHeterodoxConservative]

Sure thing. My Confirmation instruction (Lutheran), 30 some years ago, was, at the time, boring, repetitive, painful (literally, sometimes), but, I guess, effective. Once it's beat into you, you never forget.

Six Chief Parts, Table of Duties, Christian Questions With Their Answers. . . . used to have them all memorized, and they still come back, whenever needed, and some other times, too.

[AnalogReigns]

For the record, I'm an evangelical Christian, and not a dispensationalist. Most evangelicals of all stripes are though, and the largest Protestant denomination in America is (the Southern Baptists) and these people do not fit the category of "nutball" regardless of what this atheist thinks...

Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Moa, Pol Pot, the most murderous leaders of all time (by a factor of what, 100 X???) were all atheists, correct?

[Cold Heat]

The point I was trying to make, (hard for many to accept) is that I believe that God does not mess with the small stuff. He has warned against tempting him with intentional misbehaviors. He has sent his words to be as a guide to life and if not believed he has stated the consequences.

He will wipe the picture off the canvas and start over.

[weikel]

Hitler was not an Athiest. Mussolinni does not belong in the same category as the others.

[detsaoT]

The actual god can't be the one of the Bible God would have to be eternal that I did prove( unless you can find a flaw with my logic) and thus not subject to sequential, transient emotions which god is in the Bible( " I thy lord thy God am a jealous God" etc). God could interfere for his own unfathomable reasons but I would tend to doubt that he would if we can set up the universe so that it runs itself the way he wants.

But even these supporting arguments can be undeniably asserted. You're NOT God, how do you know that he isn't Jealous? Or that He exists? (to refer to some of the other religious worldviews we've covered so far)... All of these assertions require some level of faith, logic be damned.

:) ttt

[weikel]

Maybe its possible for an eternal powerful being to be jealous but its not bloody likely. Thinking this is not the same as blind faith. As I said there is a possibility for there to be no "God" but that would mean the Universe itself was eternal and uncaused its an either/or proposition and the idea that time goes back forever is inconcieveable to me so I'm a Deist.

[detsaoT]

The point I was trying to make, (hard for many to accept) is that I believe that God does not mess with the small stuff. He has warned against tempting him with intentional misbehaviors. He has sent his words to be as a guide to life and if not believed he has stated the consequences. He will wipe the picture off the canvas and start over.

The purpose of documenting the Temptation, and the ultimate thing that this documentation proves, is that Christ Almighty was tempted as we were (though to an infinitely greater degree - Tempted by Satan himself), and unlike us, rose above the temptations brought before him (Godlike control over hunger (ignoring the fast that Christ was on), Godlike control over the Angelic Hosts (all while intentionally distorting and twisting the teachings of the prophets to infer that the Bible [Talmud] says something it did not), and Godlike control over the entire earth (so long as Christ bows down to Satan as the authority).

In all three Temptations, Christ rebuked Satan. I'm sure that, in the same position, none of us would be able to.

Insofar as what you've stated above, I'm not sure I understand (a) where it's coming from, and (b) where you're going with it, so it's tough for me to debate it. My gut instinct says that this is an incorrect interpretation of Scripture. If that is the case, a simple question:

Do you believe that the Scriptures, revealed to us by God through His servants, is absolutely correct? If not, what have your studies led to believe you is false in the Bible?

:) ttt

[Cold Heat]

I did not read all of JR's article, his words generally make me too angry but the premise that religion starts conflict and war is real.IMHO.

Since we have a democracy(representative republic actually) we change our leadership often enough to slow the debates and conflicts and give time for compromises.

Religions, on the other hand are more stagnent and prone to collecting power at the top and not changing. This is evident by the backlash of churches in the protestant religion (for example) who are severing their ties with the mother churches because of disagreements with the political views of the leaders of such churches.(hit them where it hurts, in the wallet)

That is what propted me to post on this thread, since it is a sore spot with me. (I digress) Now that I have totally lost my train of thought, I will quit! :-)

[detsaoT]

Maybe its possible for an eternal powerful being to be jealous but its not bloody likely. Thinking this is not the same as blind faith. As I said there is a possibility for there to be no "God" but that would mean the Universe itself was eternal and uncaused its an either/or proposition and the idea that time goes back forever is inconcieveable to me so I'm a Deist.

And I will stand by my argument that no matter how well we think we have thought out our positions on these matters, we ultimately base portions (large or small, depending) of our position on faith alone, as we, being mere mortals, are completely unable to undeniably confirm the cores of our positions.

In other words, we're both being religious and dogmatic about our beliefs. And there's nothing wrong with that.

:) ttt

[Cold Heat]

Ah! I see your confusion with me.

The answer is simple, I only believe about half of what I read. I question everything! Including the Bible.

Political motives(whether you amit them or not) were at work then, as they are now.

Some would call me foolish. I prefer to be practical. Don't ask me what I accept and what I donot, because I cannot state it that directly. Suffice it to say, This is why I listen not, to most interpreters and preachers. Everyone has a agenda.

[Vets_Husband_and_Wife]

The true NUTCASE is Antiwar.com!!!! A bunch of Commie bedwetting liberals. To the group at "antiwar.com" I give this quote;

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.

~~ John Stuart Mill ~~

For those who are interested ... here is the red heffer;

And, here is the quote from the Bible that people are referring to regarding the red heffer;

"Numbers 19:2-10"

"This is a requirement of the law that the Lord has commanded: Tell the Israelites to bring you a red heifer without defect or blemish and that has never been under a yoke. 3 Give it to Eleazar the priest; it is to be taken outside the camp and slaughtered in his presence. 4 Then Eleazar the priest is to take some of its blood on his finger and sprinkle it seven times toward the front of the Tent of Meeting. 5 While he watches, the heifer is to be burned-its hide, flesh, blood and offal. 6 The priest is to take some cedar wood, hyssop and scarlet wool and throw them onto the burning heifer. 7 After that, the priest must wash his clothes and bathe himself with water. He may then come into the camp, but he will be ceremonially unclean till evening. 8 The man who burns it must also wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he too will be unclean till evening. 9 "A man who is clean shall gather up the ashes of the heifer and put them in a ceremonially clean place outside the camp. They shall be kept by the Israelite community for use in the water of cleansing; it is for purification from sin. 10 The man who gathers up the ashes of the heifer must also wash his clothes, and he too will be unclean till evening. This will be a lasting ordinance both for the Israelites and for the aliens living among them."

I don't write it.. I read it. Far be it for me to interpret Gods words. My job is to obey His words. To believe. I'm 100 percent positive that believing in God, in Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit is the right way.

I'm also 100 percent positive that antiwar.com are a bunch of cowards. Their "way" has gotten us where we are today. I say to them.. thanks but no thanks. We've listened to their kind of liberal trash for too long. We are where we are today regarding our Nations security and the security of the World, because of cowardice like theirs.

This article is pure unadulterated bullcrap. Pun intended!!! (Trying to keep the "theme" thing goin here :o)

[detsaoT]

Ah! I see your confusion with me. The answer is simple, I only believe about half of what I read. I question everything! Including the Bible. Political motives(whether you amit them or not) were at work then, as they are now.

Have you ever witnessed the method by which the books which make up the Bible were copied throughout the centuries? It's quite amazing. People spent their entire lives doing nothing but copying scrolls, intricately and meticulously verifying that not a single letter was transcribed incorrectly (Hebrew, for example, can be represented as mathematical numerics as well as characters. Based on this, an extensive checksumming system was devised by which any scroll could be quickly compared with any other scroll to determine whether or not they are identical. We have similar technology using computers and the MD5 algorithm, for example..). Upon the discovery of a mistake, the scroll was generally destroyed and work was begun again, to ensure that the copy exactly matched the original.

I fail to see the political motives in this. The original texts are exactly the same today as they were when they were written (if you don't think so, learn Greek and study the texts themselves, instead of their english translations). Even if you don't approve of the process by which the Bible was compiled from the original texts, finds such as the Dead Sea Scrolls have proven to us that the methods used to copy the texts kept them unchanged for centuries.

Some would call me foolish. I prefer to be practical. Don't ask me what I accept and what I donot, because I cannot state it that directly. Suffice it to say, This is why I listen not, to most interpreters and preachers. Everyone has a agenda.

I will not go so far to call you foolish, unless you have not bothered to do any requisite research into your beliefs. I think you'll find lots of fascinating things out, regardless of whether or not you agree with me.

(And csn is still an excellent source for this type of background information, if you don't mind hearing it secondhand - just keep in mind that you can always go back to the texts referred to and check to see if the message matches up with the writings, which is what is important in validating ANY teaching you hear from someone else.)

After all, how do you know if what you're hearing is true, if you're unwilling to take the effort to investigate it? There's nothing wrong with suspecting everything. It's only when you suspect everything without investigating it that a problem begins to arise.

FReegards, friend. Don't let the Methodists' idiocy convince you that the core tenets of Christianity are false. Do your own legwork to come to or disprove THAT position.

:D ttt

[MissAmericanPie]

The author can kick and scream all the way to the last battle, he can accuse people of being nut balls, he can deny, evade, zig and zag, but he will not change the course anymore than he can change the course of the Mississippi River.

I am not sure about this, but isn't it at the sacrifice of the red heifer that every Jew in the entire world must go to Isreal for the pruification or they are no longer considered Jewish or something like that?

[tpaine]

Human fanatics cause war, regardless of the 'religion' to which they profess to devote themselves.

--- Arthur Koestler on fanaticism: ---

"The continuous disasters of man's history are mainly due to his excessive capacity and urge to become identified with a tribe, nation, church or cause, and to espouse its credo uncritically and enthusiastically, even if its tenets are contrary to reason, devoid of self-interest and detrimental to the claims of self-preservation.
We are thus driven to the unfashionable conclusion that the trouble with our species is not an excess of aggression, but an excess capacity for fanatical devotion. "

I hate to say it, bud, but if this statement WERE true, then the Roman Empire would still exist today. Furthermore, if this statement WERE true (rather than just being an opinion), agencies like the UN would be effective in stopping war.

Of course it's an opinion, why would you think otherwise? - Strange reaction. - As are your comments on Rome & the U.N.

For, if it WERE true that the only thing preventing us from having GLOBAL PEACE was national identity, then we would've LONG ago been consolidated into one of the MANY large empires which have risen throughout the centuries (Persia, Greece, Rome, the United Kingdom, etc). Even with the advent of such super-entities as mentioned, internal fractionalism and strife STILL occurred, regardless of the fact that there was a Distinct Unifying Authority over all of the citizens in the jurisdiction thereof.

National identity? - Thats all you got from Koeslers 'opinion' on fanatics? Weird.

Therefore, I think whomever you quoted from is wrong.

Sure, --- that must be it. Thanks, bud, for your own rather devoted opinion.

[Cold Heat]

I do not question the honest work of the monks, etc. who wrote the words. I question the compiling and re,re,compiling of the scriptures and the word of mouth stories they were based on.

I have no doubt about the general gist of the stories and the good that they do for humanity.

I am simply a rebellious child who asks a lot of why's!