hiredgun

Um, yes. That's not meant as an indictment of you. But if by some chance you honestly think that the apocalypse is a sound basis for policy (which is what I was referring to there) then as a matter of fact, there isn't room for discussion because we're already at an impasse. To clarify, I don't think that's actually the case.

I can only go on what you actually said, not on what you might have been thinking. What you said (and here, still are saying) was essentially this: Israel is our ally, therefore they deserve our support. That's it, the entire logical chain. It makes no reference to anything outside of itself, certainly not to any actual, concrete American interests. ("Israel is our ally, and it's normal to support our ally." Period. It is as if the status of 'ally', once conferred, is never again subject to any critical examination, nor are any of the actions of said ally. In the interest of 'supporting' that ally, no action of that ally may ever be criticized, and 'ally' status may never be re-evaluated.) Rather, it gives the impression that being an 'ally' is some sort of natural, immutable quality like being 6 feet tall or having brown hair, and that 'support', since it was raised in defense of the group in the article, is unqualified support, as that group advocates. If it means something else, then talking about 'support' in this vague context is as nonsensical as the slogan of 'support our troops', which, while it sounds nice, really doesn't mean anything.

The point is that if you didn't mean unqualified support, then your answer ("Israel is our ally, therefore we support them") doesn't actually say anything, because we haven't gotten into any specifics over what, specifically, we are supporting.

The point is not necessarily that I disagree with your conclusion, but that I think you've given me a one-word slogan (ally!) instead of an argument.

Anyway, we should agree to disagree on that, because rehashing American support for Israel is not really the point of the thread. The point is my worry about another avenue in which faith is being inserted into politics as a substitute for thought.

Seaver and Roachboy, your common point is well taken. I didn't mean to imply in the OP that I actually think that our current policy is determined by this demographic. Still, when large numbers of organized voters believe in something, that belief is likely to be translated into policy, whether or not the people carrying out policy - say, the Bush administration, or any other White House - choose those policies for the same reasons as their fringe supporters.

Whatever it is that our leaders actually believe, I don't want the electoral leverage of a group aiming solely for the apocalypse to be a decisive factor in shaping US policy, which I think is possible as a simple function of electoral politics and not necessarily an ideological alignment.

More broadly, I'm concerned with the idea that 'because God said so' is an increasingly acceptable substitute for political thought. I don't see that attitude as a healthy one for our democracy because it makes certain views all but immune to outside facts. Perhaps though I am being too paranoid that this is actually the case among a growing number of people.