Post # 55 - Obama is not the Antichrist.

Barack Obama is not the Antichrist.

It has surprised me that over the course of the last few weeks, several people have either genuinely or half-jokingly asked me “So, do you think that Obama is the Antichrist?” Well, to that I immediately respond “No, absolutely not”. Every time a new president is elected this question always arises. I can say with a great amount of certainty that if there ever is a human Antichrist, that he will not be a President of the United States. Many people get absolutely ridiculous when speaking about the end of the world or potential Antichrist candidates. I guess it could be helpful to keep a somewhat watchful/cautious eye out, but as far as the Bible is concerned, no one is going to know for sure when the rapture/tribulation is going to happen. There are also many other specific worldwide events that need to occur before the rapture/tribulation occurs (and even then I am not entirely sure that one can know exactly what the rapture/tribulation is/will be). I feel as though dwelling on this issue for any significant amount of time is both mentally taxing and fruitless. Discussion about the end of the world should not be ignored or abandoned all together because we should always keep ourselves informed and prepared for any potential situations/crises, but to keep oneself absorbed in it is, put simply and bluntly, stupid. In conclusion, have no worries my friend, because Barack Obama is not the Antichrist. If he were, I guarantee the world would look much different.

Here is a potential lifeguard-scenario (the lifeguard scenario was used by many as justification for going to war in Iraq). There is a fatally flawed justice system that exists today in supposedly-democratic Iraq. The court system allows for torture-induced confessions of suspects and criminals, and in my eyes an unfair over-prosecution of women. CNN ran a story recently discussing one such case where a 27-year old woman is currently on death row (and has been for over 2 years) for the killings of three relatives. She was forced to sign a blank piece of paper after (or perhaps during) torture and the authorities then filled in writing creating a confession. Therefore they had a “signed confession” and the prosecution/sentencing all took place in one day. The facts of the case, in my opinion, offer very compelling evidence that this woman is actually completely innocent. She does not even have a date of execution, and lives every day wondering if it is her last. I am sure that this is in and of itself emotionally and mentally exhausting. The following is a quote from the article I read on CNN.com:

"I wish there was some kind of response. But the response is totally passive. We've reached a degree of despair," said Yanar Mohammed, founder of the Organization for Women's Freedom in Iraq. "As a human rights organization in Iraq, we find that we need some backup from abroad to put pressure on our government as a first step to stop the executions of these women, some of whom we know are innocent."

In other words, there is a certain injustice occurring in a foreign country where many innocent civilians are being killed. Is it the responsibility of a foreign-power, a country who claims to have “liberty and justice for all”, to intervene in another country’s personal affairs? Does "liberty and justice for all" only pertain to the lucky few who happen to be citizens of the United States? This is a lifeguard-scenario because we are currently watching an injustice happening, AND we have the ability to stop it. The question is, however, should we? My initial answer is absolutely. But, when answering this question one must understand the following facts:

Injustices like these are occurring all over the world, such as in North Korea, China, pretty much the entire continent of Africa etc…

The United States has limited resources (both monetary, political, and with, sadly, domestic interest in the subject). As a result, it is impossible to address every injustice at every corner of the earth.

So, what do we do? First, if we were to intervene somewhere in the world where there is an injustice, especially militarily, there is a great possibility that innocent lives will be lost as a direct result of our intervention (see US invasion/war with Iraq circa 2003). That alone should call an attention to caution on the part of the potential actor (in this case the United States). Second, is there an attainable objective that ends with justice and peace? In other words, is our objective even possible (In many cases, I believe the answer is yes, the only problem would be the cost of reaching that objective).Third, is there an outcry for foreign from the oppressed or from reasonable/reliable sources in the country? Fourth, and I could probably argue that this is the most important issue, will the US be better off as a whole as a result of intervention? In other words are we better off economically/morally/ethically/politically/militarily, or is the general welfare of the union preserved or bettered? These are the questions that should be asked in cases like these.

In the particular case of the death-row prisoners in Iraq, I think it is within our right and reason to send immense diplomatic pressure on the Iraqi government to seriously reevaluate all potential executions. I would personally advocate a permanent moratorium on all executions until the issue with the flawed judicial system is resolved. We could also use a tactic that has recently proven useful for American prisoners abroad, and that is to send an individually powerful/influential politician over to whatever respective country and get a release or response that way (see Bill Clinton in North Korea and Senator Jim Webb in Myanmar).

Person of the Week: Jim Dye, for taking some friends and me out for lunch, being awesome, and providing his mega-sweet house (complete with a piano, hot tub, coffee maker, and sweet beeping noises when doors are opened) on a consistent basis to hang out in.