PROPHECY—A SCARY BUSINESS!

By Edwin Cooney

His name is Harold Egbert Camping. He’s a native of Colorado now living here in Alameda, California and he’ll be ninety years old this July 19^th. Most of his life has been spent as a civil engineer, but during the past few decades he has dedicated himself to his religious faith.

In 1988, he left the Christian Reform Church believing that it and most other churches were corrupt to the extent that they no longer curried favor with God. His new “temple” (my phrase) is KEAR in nearby San Francisco, the world headquarters of “Christian Family Radio.” From that low power AM station he broadcasts Christian programming 24/7, designed to appeal to people of all ages. This includes a daily talk show format during which he takes calls from callers and responds to their questions. From what little I’ve heard of the broadcast, he’s gentle with callers and concludes even hostile calls with “thank you for sharing!”

Twice now in the last seventeen years (the first time was September 6^th, 1994), he’s predicted the coming of “the Rapture.” According to Dispensationalist Christians, the rapture is when God’s chosen, living and dead, will rise from the earth and the grave and meet in the air with Jesus leaving 97 percent of us behind on this doomed planet. Five months to the day of the rapture, God would destroy the earth.

I must confess that I was drawn to this prediction, not as a believer, but as one who clearly admits that he knows less about the bible and what it’s all about than almost anyone. Furthermore, one of my combined intellectual/spiritual weaknesses is the lack of certainty in my capacity for relational expectations. It’s not that I lack spiritual or moral principles; it’s just that I don’t see myself as having a monopoly of knowledge about truth.

What fascinated and thus drew my attention to Harold Camping’s prediction was his absolute certainty. How could a man risk the reputation of his deepest convictions unless he was certain of their truth and that he was the chosen instrument to deliver that message? Was he perhaps a prophet or was he just a dismayed cranky old man?

As to the details: on Saturday, May 21, 2011 at 6:00 p.m. in every part of the world beginning in New Zealand and Australia, mighty earthquakes would bring about fires, tsunamis, and crushing destruction far beyond anything man has ever experienced. Simultaneously, the Christian dead would rise from their graves (and one would suppose even from their cremation urns) and meet with Jesus. Supposedly, the parts of the world observing this destruction would be helpless to prevent it when the time arrived.

Thus when nothing happened in New Zealand at 11:00 p.m. Alameda, California time that Friday night, it was quite apparent that Mr. Camping’s prophecy had once again gone for naught. Hence, I had the answer to the above inquiry.

Was I surprised? No, but I was relieved. Was I silly to give any credence to his prediction? Oh, probably, but this isn’t the first or last time I’ve been silly! The real question is: what is our fate?

Mr. Camping obviously possesses a lot of money, a talent for organization and the marketing of ideas and beliefs. Disgusted as many other religious factions around the world are with the degradation of our humanist, materialistic and passion-driven ways, Mr. Camping makes a most un-Godly assumption it seems to me. He and many others attribute to God the same impatience and thirst for revenge of the world’s most dictatorial potentates.

I’ve spent a lifetime trying to fathom my relationship with God. I’m still trying. Unlike my atheistic and agnostic friends, I find it impossible to dismiss the beliefs handed down to me by those who instructed me on religious/spiritual matters since the time I was very young. After all, even the most coldly logical authors, screenwriters and producer types regularly ask me to “suspend believability” long enough to sell me their books, music, and movies which are predicated usually on those very same religious-oriented principles. Yet, they’re astonished when I freely invite them to consider the possibility that their creator is a loving God.

Were I to predict the opposite of Mr. Camping’s prophecy, I would be guilty of what I believe to be his misguided mindset. All any one of us is empowered to do is to offer our understanding of what God is all about. What God is likely to do or not to do is strictly God’s business. Hence, for your peace of mind, I invite you to…

Let go of your fears concerning your mortal fate and substitute those fears with an open, honest, loving concern for God’s greatest creation—you and me. Allow that God’s love is just -- not punitive. Finally, allow your worries to be caressed by the knowledge that you are most like God when you love what God created.

One more thing: whatever else they may do, God’s prophets do not run radio stations!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

IN THE FACE OF OUR OWN JUSTICE!

By Edwin Cooney

Ever since October 2006 when I heard Barack Obama assert that we, as Americans, have more in common than we have differences—thus disowning the culture war between Conservatives and Liberals--I’ve been an unqualified and enthusiastic supporter. I still am and certainly expect to be beyond 2012, but there’s a little matter of perspective with which I must grapple.

As I’ve written numerous times in these musings, there are invariably many truths about almost every human activity or event. An event may be destructive, painful and even deadly, while bringing forth prosperity, creativity, courage and even romance. I’ve just described several elements of war.

Along with most Americans, I experienced something approaching joy that Sunday night of May 1st, 2011 when a normal springtime Sunday evening became all about America’s cornering and executing terrorist Osama bin Laden. That it was carried out by the Navy Seals, an elite combat force, under the orders and direction of President Barack Obama was for me exceedingly gratifying.

Four outcomes of this mission filled me with a sense of gratification. First and foremost, Osama Bin Laden can no longer conceive and finance mass death. His execution may make it possible for us to draw down our forces in Afghanistan and other dangerous Middle Eastern hot spots. Vital information was apparently gathered during the Navy Seals raid that could assist us in handling future deadly al-Qaeda activities throughout the world. Finally (and most satisfying to me as an Obama backer), this act goes a long way toward snuffing out that implied charge by many of his political opponents that President Obama would never militarily stand up to America’s enemies.

I thought the president’s address to the nation was appropriately measured in tone. He was obviously gratified with the success of the mission and, most important of all, he made it clear that he was conducting a war against al-Qaeda and not Islam.

A week later, Sunday, May 8th, things were different. The president’s statesmanlike moderation was less apparent. An interview conducted from the White House on Wednesday, May 4th was broadcast by CBS’s 60 Minutes. During this interview, President Obama was all business. He once again expressed pride in the Navy Seals, sympathy for the 9/11 victims and their loved ones and a determination to continue pursuing al-Qaeda. Finally, he reminded Americans that he’d pledged to go after Osama bin Laden during his successful 2008 presidential quest.

At the end of the interview, however, there was, for many, a most uncomfortable presidential assertion. The president made it clear that he lost no sleep over the decision to execute Osama bin Laden, then he emphatically asserted that anyone who would question the elimination of this mass murderer “…needs to have their head examined.”

Many, despite their pleasure with the success of this mission, privately checked with their consciences to determine whether execution without trial wasn’t murder and, with some discomfort, hoped that President Obama might just be wondering the same thing!

I have an additional wonder: can any sovereign nation afford to invade the sovereign territory of another nation? Once such a practice becomes standard international procedure, can we in America legitimately expect to be exempt?

At present, as I understand it, former President Jimmy Carter is probably the only ex-1600 Pennsylvania Avenue occupant who can travel abroad without being subjected to possible physical or legal harassment due to his foreign policy decision activities while in office. Certainly, if an Iranian special force were to invade our airspace and apply their sense of domestic justice on either of the Bushs, Mr. Clinton, or President Obama, millions of Americans would take such an act very personally. I once heard Secretary of State Dean Rusk assert that “America’s too powerful to be infuriated."

President Obama’s decision to execute Bin Laden certainly ranks with several tough historic presidential decisions: Washington’s decision in 1794 to send federal troops to put down the Whiskey Taxpayer's Rebellion in Western Pennsylvania; Lincoln’s decision in 1861 to suspend habeas corpus during the Civil War; President Truman’s 1945 decision to use atomic force on Japan; and President Reagan’s (and now President Obama’s) pursuit of Libya’s Head of State Colonel Gaddafi within Libya’s sovereign borders. The question about Barack Obama’s combination of practical and moral decision-making is whether it is ultimately wise and statesmanlike decision-making!

What was disturbing about President Obama’s 60 Minute interview is that it lacked any sense of humility or of thoughtful reflection. A decision of that magnitude, it seems to me, was an exceedingly grave one.

The execution of Osama bin Laden, because he was an aggressive, determined and even proud international murderer, although potentially setting a dangerous precedent affecting international sovereignty, was indeed justifiable.

Still, Mr. President, shouldn’t pronouncements of legitimate righteous justice be tempered by at least a dash of humble statesman-like reflection?

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY

WHEN THE CHIEF’S THE ISSUE!

By Edwin Cooney

In the 222 plus years of America’s age under our federal system, forty-three men have served as President of the United States. Only 10 of the thirty-three presidents who have sought re-election have been ultimately rejected by the voting public.

That would tend to indicate that President Barack Obama has a better than even chance of re-election so long as he can avoid a major foreign or domestic crisis. Such crises could include an economic downturn ala George H. W. Bush (1992), Americans being held hostage along with “stagflation" and unemployment (Jimmy Carter, 1980), a resented presidential pardon (Gerald Ford, 1976), a major depression (Herbert Clark Hoover, 1932), and a major party split brought on by an ambitious predecessor, Theodore Roosevelt (William Howard Taft, 1912) to name only the twentieth century incumbent presidential losers.

As 2012 approaches, President Obama, even more than the issues themselves, is likely to be the main issue of the upcoming campaign. Thus there comes into question the president’s release of his full Hawaiian birth certificate last week. Why did he release this information now rather than sooner; why didn’t he wait until later, for that matter? Could it be that he increasingly sees himself, as suggested above, the main issue in 2012? He may wish to clear away the unnecessary rubble enabling him to otherwise set the agenda for the next election.

Therein, as I see it, may well lay the president’s 2012 fate. Above, I listed the circumstances that caused Bush, Carter, Ford, Hoover, and Taft to lose their re-election bids.

Of course, every president who seeks re-election puts his reputation on the line. In times of relative domestic calm, incumbent presidents go onto the political hustings with an advantage. However, these are times of uncertainty and, even more, in millions of minds, Barack Obama’s very qualifications to be president remain in doubt. Additionally, because of his father’s African birth and anti-imperialist and pro socialistic political views, President Obama’s genuine patriotism remains a political issue -- despite his solemn vow to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” After all, what’s in it for us if we allow ourselves to trust a man when he takes a solemn oath?

On a daily basis, blogs appear on the internet suggesting that there is “an alien stranger among us.” The president’s attempt to calm anti-American sentiment in the Middle East by acknowledging the perils of their political and cultural struggles has met with considerable skepticism and contempt here at home. His efforts to compromise with conservatives on domestic legislation have been met with almost personal rejection by conservatives and have caused suspicious resentment among much of the president’s original liberal constituency.

Whenever a president becomes the issue, he can lose his political advantage as the incumbent. This was the danger George W. Bush faced in 2004.

Although Bush claimed victory in Iraq in May 2003 on board the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier by personally landing his plane to demonstrate who was in charge, Iraq was actually becoming a hornet’s nest instead of a self-sustaining democracy which was expected to pay its way to freedom with its oil reserve. In 2004, Democrats tried desperately to make GWB the issue and the only issue. The tide only began to turn for President Bush when the Vietnam War record of the Democratic candidate John Kerry was made a “national security issue” by powerful media conservatives.

In 1996, Republicans were all set to make Bill Clinton’s political, domestic and sexual issues the major focus of the campaign when they themselves became the big issue by attempting to shut down the federal government in December 1995. Hence, the youthful president outshone the venerable Bob Dole, turning his purposeful campaign into a mere tryout television rehearsal for the successful Viagra commercial that eventually must have put plenty of money in his pocket.

In 1980, although he’d negotiated a Middle East Peace Treaty, the Panama Canal Treaty (controversial in itself), and deregulated the airlines, trucking and telephone industries to set the scene for healthy competition in the future, Jimmy Carter’s competence was the issue. The world was restless and Carter didn’t appear to have a handle on it. The GOP’s antidote was the more attractive and eloquent Ronald Wilson Reagan.

The challenge facing President Obama at times must seem very daunting. Nevertheless, the more we dispassionately examine any president’s agenda, the more we see that facing daunting choices is a presidential norm.

With all of the issues ahead to trip up President Obama, there may well be a silver thread. His opponents have to pick a candidate (in fact, two candidates) who may well pinch-hit for the “chief” as the main political issue “in that rowdy transition of tumult and circus—the presidential campaign!”

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY