Condi's Coded Words: Birth Pangs

[Emit]

On July 21, 2006, during a Q&A session of her Special Briefing on Travel to the Middle East and Europe, Rice referred to the 'birth pangs of a new Middle East':

What we're seeing here, in a sense, is the growing -- the birth pangs of a new Middle East and whatever we do we have to be certain that we're pushing forward to the new Middle East not going back to the old one.

In researching this word combination, 'birth pangs', it is interesting to note the significance it has to end time believers (Google 'end time' and 'birth pangs' for starters)


From what I was able to discern, The New Jerusalem bible is considered "one of the very best translations available today" and translates The Gospel According to Matthew this way (apparently, many Evangelical end time believers believe that Matthew 24:4-14 is a general overview of the end times, where as the book of Revelation fills in the details):

6 You will hear of wars and rumours of wars; see that you are not alarmed, for this is something that must happen, but the end will not be yet. 7 For nation will fight against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. 8 All this is only the beginning of the birthpangs.

The Gospel According to Matthew

http://www.kofc.duq.edu/scripture/gmatthew.html

(The New American Standard Bible also translates this passage using the words 'birth pangs'; see: http://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=birth+pangs&qs_version=49 )

'Birth pangs' is also noted in Mark 13:8 (New American Standard Bible)

8"For nation will rise up against nation, and kingdom against kingdom; there will be earthquakes in various places; there will also be famines. These things are merely the beginning of birth pangs.

Also of particular interest in light of recent posts concerning Hagee's Christians United For Israel...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1913343&mesg_id=1913343

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=1865379

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=1734756

...is the fact that all three major religions that are at the root of the conflict in the Middle East have their end time prophesies:

Muslim, Jewish, and Christian End-Times Prophecy Comparison

All three major monotheistic religions have teachings regarding the end-times. The following chart reveals some of the similarities and differences in the eschatological prophecies of Islam, Judaism, and Christianity.

For contrasts and comparisons see: http://contenderministries.org/prophecy/eschatology.php

While Bush & Co. denigrate Muslims and Islam, and while much is discussed in our country about 'Islamofascism' and the like, it is all but ignored that religion may be influencing our own foreign policy as it relates to the Middle East, whether by true believers, or by folks just wanting to control the masses through religiosity.

[eleny]

1. K&R

[Maat]

2. Even though I research the Religious Hardright,

I've always believed that "it's all about the money." In other words, like Greg Palast said in "Armed Madhouse," Sadaam had to go because he was displeasing Big Oil; and, I thought that for Dobson, and people like Pat Robertson and John Hagee, it was all about the big-dollar "ministries." They each have a really nice racket going on.

I just watched the interview with Max Blumenthal, of "The Nation," at democracynow.org. Maybe I was wrong; maybe, and this is REALLY frightening, those in power, or those enjoying a whole lot of power, genuinely believe in this malarkey - and are planning our policy accordingly.

[Emit]

4. I agree

But it is my mother who has reminded me that one should never underestimate the influence of religion on a leader's decisions, even in this day and time.

Nevertheless, I do agree with the notion that many of those pulling the strings are using religiosity on all sides to motivate the masses at all ranks, and it is, by coincidence, for geopolitical concerns, a handy tool to be had by the war profiteers and Military Industrial Complex.

This has been a subject of interest for me for a variety of reasons, and has prompted me to look into where these movements stem, who supports them, etc. That is why is was so intriguing for me when I came across an article written by Michael Ledeen and his wife Barbara back in the 80's about this same subject. Here's how the Ledeens end their article:

With the redemption of mankind and the fulfillment of prophecy at stake, arrests are transformed into temporary setbacks, extremism becomes righteous action, and political considerations pale into such insignificance that even conservative Christians and radical Jewish nationalists can become allies.

Source Citation: Ledeen, Michael, and Barbara Ledeen. "The Temple Mount plot: what do Christian and Jewish fundamentalists have in common?." The New Republic 190 (June 18, 1984): 20(4)

And here is a link to its entirety: http://discussions.pbs.org/viewtopic.pbs?topic_view=threads&p=433614&t=60840

Keeping the content of the Ledeen's article, his current involvement in the Bush administration (Rove's foreign policy adviser, I have read), her alleged involvement in the Temple Mount movement (this was cited by a Larouche group, Executive Intelligence Review, and I have not been able to confirm this with an adequate alternative source) and the neoconservatives' modus operandi in mind:

:redbox: A leader must perpetually deceive those being ruled.
:redbox: Those who lead are accountable to no overarching system of morals, only to the right of the superior to rule the inferior.
:redbox: Religion is the force that binds society together, and is therefore the tool by which the ruler can manipulate the masses (any religion will do).
:redbox: Secularism in society is to be suppressed, because it leads to critical thinking and dissent.
:redbox: A political system can be stable only if it is united against an external threat, and that if no real threat exists, one should be manufactured.

See:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=1897968

I am left with the conclusion that religion is being used for sheer political purposes, on the whole.

BTW, here's more from Blumenthal regarding this matter, including a portion of a recent interview he had with Dick Armey, former US House Majority Leader. I do not know if the Democracy Now interview included this:

http://blogs.salon.com/0003494/2006/08/14.html


And more here on the same subject: Dick Armey Denies Bush Administration Trying To Provoke "End Times"

http://www.talk2action.org/story/2006/8/15/12348/4792

Lastly, whether these are just crazy cult-like tangents, as a secular thinker, it never ceases to amaze me, in this day and age, to discover how many funding agencies, people in government, religious groups, think tanks, etc. are somehow intertwined with religiosity of this nature.

[WiseButAngrySara]

10. "I am left with the conclusion that religion is being used for sheer

political purposes, on the whole."

I could not agree more. It is straight from Machiavelli's The Prince and Rove's rule book for political leaders. What most people don't realize is that Mach wrote about what he perceived to be truth about human nature, and it is apparent in his chosen examples of history; but he believed in God. He had such disrespect for organized religion however, that he said "The closer one gets to the papacy, the further one gets from God." But he also urged the use of religion as a political tool. Machiavelli's wisdom about human nature has been much abused by the neocons.

It is also straight from Leo Strauss, who BTW, even though he purported to understand the 'hidden, esoteric' meanings of the great political philosophers, was an atheist, as was Bloom, one of his most influential protegees. IMHO, it is impossible to understand 'esoteric' truths without a belief in or knowledge of God. All of his deductions, beginning with Plato, are therefore suspect.

There was a post on Dean's book in an interview for Democracy Now last night, but I read it just prior to signing off, and don't have it bookmarked. I'll see if I can find it.

[Maat]

23. Wow, that is INTERESTING stuff (n/t)!

[SPKrazy]

16. I Think It Is A Mixture

I think some believe

I think some are in it for the money and power

some for both

[Maat]

22. You're right! (n/t)

[zeemike]

3. The NJB is not one of the best translations today

The King James is the most accurate in a word for word sense. Now look at the same passage in the KJV;

6. And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.
7. For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.
8. All these are the beginning of sorrows.

The word is sorrows not birth pangs.

[Emit]

5. Perhaps not

The comment I put in quotations in the OP came from personal reviews I had read. What version fundamentalist Evangelicals are using, I do not know. I would be curious, though, since it seems many of their websites are very familiar with the word combination 'birth pangs' in relation to their anticipated end times.

[zeemike]

13. It is because it connects with Revelations

There is a cryptic passage about the birth and a flight into the wilderness, but I don't have time to go into all that.
And they chose that meaning in Mathew for that reason, to connect it to revelations.
But if you read the whole thing closely Sorrows in the most logical meaning and context of what Jesus was saying.

[Recursion]

6. Well, the word is odinon

Ωδινων, which is the genitive plural of Ωδις, which can be translated "pain of childbirth", "birth", "child", "travail", and "sorrow".

[WiseButAngrySara]

12. Oh, the real Greek! I love it. I took Greek years ago and have always

wanted to master it. Maybe one of these days!

[zeemike]

14. That is my point

the word can be interpreted in different ways. But the way that the KJV interpreted more fits the context of what Jesus was talking about.
The fundies chose the later translation so they could tie it to Revelations.

[Emit]

34. Thanks for that info, dmesg.

Very interesting, and now I see how the translations have been selected.

[cry baby]

7. For one moment, I thought you were going to say that Condi is preggo

with *'s baby. Birth pangs....preggo...?!?!?!?

I about threw up!

[Kip Humphrey]

8. The Middle East as fetus => protect the unborn => fuck the living

[KoKo]

20. She also said she didn't want to see the "baby strangled in the crib"

when talking about the Lebanon crisis. I posted both quotes in a post on DU. The second quote was from the Asia Times. I think it's posted on my journal here on DU...the two quotes.

I took it that she was psychologically disturbed just like her boss but I guess the Biblical implication of "birth pangs" could be due to her fundie speech writer. I'll believe anything about these people.... sheesh!

[WiseButAngrySara]

9. Amazing find. Coincidence? I doubt it. KNR. ....n/t

[Emit]

15. I thought I'd look into it (Condi's 'birth pang' comment)

When I was thinking about a post I read earlier from a fanatical Bush bot on another discussion board who had said he was all for Bush invading Iran SOON and "cleaning up the swamp in the Middle East" and in relation to another unrelated post by Will Pitt on Iran and "A Clean Break" (posted earlier today on DU). So I did some googling to see what Condi was really referring to when she said this.

But, this is odd, because I haven't yet listened to the interview with Max Blumenthal on Democracy Now, and I hadn't read all of Blumenthal's article in The Nation (referenced by a few people here on this thread and other related threads) until just a few moments ago. He points out, too, the use of the term 'birth pangs' -- but in reference to Hagee's (CUFI) 'political point man,' David Brog, ("...a seasoned and articulate lawyer who has been Republican Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter's chief of staff"):

Brog's recently published book, Standing with Israel: Why Christians Support the Jewish State, expands his case for Jewish acceptance of evangelical political goals. Brog told National Review that his book has universal appeal and will help anyone to "better comprehend the birth pangs of what in time will be a very important alliance." The phrase "birth pangs" is clearly understood by evangelicals as a scriptural citation from Matthew 24, which refers to the apocalyptic struggle that will usher in the Second Coming of Jesus Christ.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060814/new_christian_zionism

This just leads me to believe Condi was very likely using code for the fundies.

[WiseButAngrySara]

18. Very interesting and odd....gave me goose bumps. Synchronicity!

This unhealthy merging of Christian Evangelical Zionists and the neo-cons with their Project for a New American Century causes me grave concern. I do not like the merging of religion and politics, but as a believer in God who has studied political philosophy, I have come to the conclusion that many treatises on government are 'divinely inspired,' as are most major religions. All religions are the same at the core, because there is only one God. So to discount God from government is not a good idea, IMHO, but to include a particular religion is asking for disaster. This is a personal conundrum; it's much easier for an atheist or an agnostic!

Separation of Church and State is separation of religion and politics. My view of the world is that you can't separate God from anything. While religion should never be imposed on anyone, God exists, and the atheist/agnostic/Marxist world view is simply wrong. As the later group are in the minority, I don't believe they should dictate to the majority.

[Emit]

21. I think it's the "particular religion"

thing that is making me feel uncomfortable with all of this.

Thanks for your post, WiseButAngrySara. I have a very eclectic view on religion and have left myself open to beliefs since I was very young. Your post took me back to a time when I was in my 20's, when, at a party, a lady analyzed my handwriting. She told me that I had not committed to a firm religious belief, and that I likely would not, and that I would be more apt to spend my life seeking rather than settling. Now, I have no idea why she would've focused on religion, as that had not been part of the discussion prior to her reading, and I have no idea how she could have discerned this from a sentence I copied down onto a piece of paper -- I had never met her prior, either. But, I only think of this in times like these when I ponder what religion I would chose if I wanted. I've been exposed to many, but have never settled on any.

My concern with this overt mixing of religion and politics likely stems from my personal fear of someone else choosing a particular brand of religion for me, or perhaps living under the confines of a religion I could not accept, or fear of losing my freedom to choose altogether. I have nothing against the basic tenants of most religions -- many share the same basic messages -- and I consider myself a spiritual person and a moral person. It is often the way religions are interpreted, espoused or used by humans, or the hypocrisy found in people who claim piety but whose actions tell otherwise, that I have a difficult time accepting in many cases.

[WiseButAngrySara]

35. Oh, I so enjoyed reading this! You and I are quite similar. It was

because of my study of political philosophy, starting with Thucydides and Plato, years ago, that I quit my agnostic stance and became a true believer in God. Although I was raised Presbyterian, when I started reading the 'mystics' in all religions, and saw the same truths in these completely different religions, as I read in Plato and others that wrote B.C., I knew that many of the beliefs of religious people are the 'myths' of religion (Joseph Campbell The Masks of God and his PBS interview with Moyers on Religious Myths (can't think of the name of the book) is fascinating on this topic), and it would take an unusual religion for me to be able to subcribe to it absolutely. If I were a political leader, or a youth teacher, or had children of my own, who knows what I would do! Probably 'join' a religion in a 'Machiavellian' way.

While I believe that agnostics and atheists are the most 'logical' in their reasoning, and I admire their honesty, spiritual matters require 'proof' that is non-material and is personal, and can't be proven by scientific methods or logical reasoning. So, while I'm not religious in the classical sense, and do not support a 'religion' of any kind as the State Religion, I don't think God should be taken out of the equation entirely either. Religious freedom automatically includes the freedom to be agnostic or atheistic, as these are also religions.

A conservative might argue that it is because of his fear of immorality and lawlessness that might result in the absence of acknowledgement of the existence of God; I would argue that I believe that it is true and as truth should be respected and sought after. To seek after truth means you don't yet know the truth, which is precisely what most religions don't allow; they claim to know the only interpretation of the truth! (And IMHO, so many of them are wrong! LOL!)

There are several groups/forums at DU that you might want to check out (ex. Seekers of Alternative Paths, and others) Maybe you might want to cross post this in one of these other forums also. I think it would draw quite a bit of comment.

[Emit]

36. Fascinating, WiseButAngrySara!

First, is the Bill Moyers/Joseph Campbell series you referred to The Power of Myths (and its companion book -- of which I have -- that came out at the same time)?

I've always had an intense interest in religion (and, more recently, politics) but not necessarily from a wannabe convert's position. I've never read the Bible in its entirety, for example, nor do I think I could suffer through it at this point in my busy life, although I own various copies, including the one I first received as a young child from my grandmother, who took me to church regularly -- Southern Baptist. (After church, though, I was more intent with sitting on the steps of the black neighbors' church, which was just around the corner from my grandma's home, as their jubilant music and gospel singing really drew me in. I'd literally get chills at the back of my neck with some of their music and songs.) I consider myself more of an outsider looking in, I suppose, and not necessarily wanting to join in...yet, perhaps.

I see your points clearly, and I can see how we are very similar in this regard. I have a dual major in Psychology and Art, and almost took a minor in Philosophy.

Also, this comment you made here: "If I were a political leader, or a youth teacher, or had children of my own, who knows what I would do! Probably 'join' a religion in a 'Machiavellian' way."

It's been a topic of discussion between my SO and I for years. We have three kids, a teenager and two younger ones. We expose them to various churches, mostly by allowing them to visit with friends and family, sometimes with us or sometimes by themselves with these friends or family; or, on occasion, taking them to the Unitarian Universalist Fellowship during the holidays, for example. It's been a source of frustration for me because I do want them to have some basic understanding from a religion, but my SO is fervently atheist and is much bothered by anything having to do with organized religion. I am much more open-minded to it all, and seek spiritual concepts, for both myself and my kids, which are at the heart of life, IMHO.

[WiseButAngrySara]

11. Here's the post I spoke about above....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=1913343

Christians United for Israel: New Christian Zionism Lobby Hopes to Rival AIPAC

We take a look at a new recently established group called Christians United for Israel - an evangelical organization that believes supporting expansionist policies of the Israeli government is: "a biblical imperative." We speak with investigative journalist Max Blumenthal who reports they lobbied the Bush administration to adopt a confrontational posture toward Iran, refuse aid to the Palestinians and give Israel a free hand in its attack on Lebanon.

Fmr. White House Counsel John Dean on Conservatives Without Conscience

We speak with former Nixon White House counsel John Dean about his new book, "Conservatives Without Conscience." In it, he warns that many of today's Republican and conservative leaders are: "conservatives without conscience who are capable of plunging this nation into disasters the likes of which we have never known."

[lectrobyte]

17. Very interesting. What do you make of * supposedly reading The Stranger

during his vacation? That just seemed like a really odd thing to hear on the news.

[Emit]

29. It was

and it is an odd choice of books for Bush. I wonder if it was on his required reading list? Albert Camus is an intriguing historical figure -- existentialist, absurdist, political activist and resister against the elitist establishment, rejector of totalitarianism...a pied-noir who sympathized with Algerian Muslims, yet rejected Algerian Muslim nationalism -- pretty heavy for Bush.

Maybe he's been told to try to get into the mind of the opposition?

As far as the specific book, though, as I recall, in The Stranger, more emphasis was placed on the main character's refusal in the end to seek Christian forgiveness or to accept God (and his lack of appropriate love or mourning for his mother following her death was central, too), than on the crime of killing an Arab (wasn't his lawyer frustrated that he wouldn't fabricate an excuse for killing an Arab -- something that, at the time, would've been a simple thing to gain the sympathy of the courts?).

For some reason, I am thinking of the movie with Mimi Rogers called The Rapture. Ever seen it?

Anyway, apparently the other books on Bush's summer reading list included "two books on Civil War President Abraham Lincoln..."

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2307529

[lectrobyte]

30. Thanks. The Rapture is one of my favorite movies. The ending

is one of the greatest endings for any movie I can think of, and certain scenes are just stunning.

[KoKo]

19. Bush used "the fruits of their labors" in a speech Tuesday talking about

his "new democracies" emerging in the ME. I thought of the Biblical phrase.."by the fruits of their labors you shall know them."

Obviously Condi and Chimp are sharing the same speech writer. Maybe to help with the deficit? :eyes:

[Maat]

24. Well, actually, they DO use this one guy who is a hardcore fundamentalist.

I'll search for a link. I can't remember his name; the speechwriter was in a documentary on the Religious Hardright I saw on Free Speech TV ("With God on Their Side").

The speechwriter himself appeared to be earnestly fundamentalist; he also appeared, in my humble opinion, to adore the Chimperor.

[lonestarnot]

25. Is there a point that you are trying to make here or are you just sharing?

:shrug:

[Emit]

26. Both! n/t

[lonestarnot]

27. Ok I'll bite. Conda sleeza aka the beaver is talking in code,

and the world is ending due to religion or fullfillment of someone's something.

[Emit]

28. Well, my points weren't as hyperbole

but, one might could take it to that extreme when pondering the possible outcomes. The notion of our secular nation's leaders so overtly mixing religious extremism and politics is of concern for a variety of reasons, especially when said leaders own nuclear weapons.

I find it extremely disturbing that our foreign policy issues in the Middle East may be based on our leaders' religious beliefs, or that religion is being used to stir the masses, or that we can no longer be an honest broker in the Middle East (although, maybe we never really could -- historically, we've pretty much had a hand in screwing up the ME without having to resort to doing it in the name of our leaders' religion) because we have taken our position to a new level of religiosity that seems to give new meaning and allowances for the chaos and destruction we are now exacting over there.

It concerns me enough to share.

[lonestarnot]

32. Yes concerned here too. Church and State do not mix well and should

never be thrown in the same pot as the mixture cooks, as the mixture is volatile and could blow up in one's face.

[lectrobyte]

33. Thanks for sharing this. I used to have a web page saved away

that had a collection of phrases from Bush's speeches that were alleged to be "code words" included for the fundamentalist base. I first thought it was kind of too far out there, but then watching some of the speeches, or reading transcripts, they did seem very unnatural choices of phrasing, even for *. So I think there is something to this, but I'm just not sure where it's headed.

[QuettaKid]

31. EXACTLY ! ! ! !

That was the FIRST thing I thought of when I heard this. The FIRST thing.

[Matariki]

37. So when, exactly, was there a time in history when this wasn't true?

"For nation will fight against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places."

What is WRONG with these people?

[sable302]

38. Great Catch

I'm a minister. I've had to go round and round with people about this stuff lately, so I immediately thought the same thing. What a bunch of hooey. All these fundies in fear of the end of the world, so they use the fear to keep us in line.