During the obviously unjust war against the Vietnamese people, in which there was an abundance of evidence showing that the Vietnamese people had held their own democratic elections, and neither invited the United States to intervene or invade its land, did the Televangelists speak against this unjust war against the mainly Buddhist people of Vietnam?  Did Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Billy Graham, and other well-known evangelists, or the Pope speak specifically and definitely against the unjust war?  No!  In fact Roman Catholic President Kennedy attempted to institute a permanent Catholic ruler in South Vietnam unsuccessfully.

    Earlier, during the Korean War, did these evangelists speak against this war against the Buddhist people of Korea?  No!  Though the war was supported by the United Nations, all students of the United Nations know that the United Nations is not a democratic institution, that the richer and larger nations have a veto power over the desires of smaller nations.  The United Nations, in its present form, is an International Oligarchy, much like the World Bank, both controlled by moneyed interests such as the industrialists of the United States, Russia, China, and Great Britain.

    In order for the United Nations to be effective, it must have a standing army, air force and navy ready to intervene whenever any people are attacked.  And no nation should be seen as free from being considered an enemy of the United Nations.
 

      And more recently in our history, during the times of protest by college students and people in general throughout the world, protests against the apartheid government of South Africa, did these so-called preachers of God speak against the policy of apartheid slavery? No!  They agreed with the racist policy of the Christian United States and Jewish Israel, who were the two main supporters of the apartheid slavery government of South Africa.  When the protesters of the world called for all support of the apartheid government to cease, the protesters were also implicitly criticizing the corrupt religious establishments of the United States and Israel that supported their government's immoral policies.

    Did any of these preachers, priests, ministers, and rabbis, criticize the U.S. invasions of Granada and Panama, or protest against supporting the Contras in Nicaragua, or criticize any of the imperialist policies of the U.S. government in Central and South America?  No!

    And now, in the obviously unjust war that the United States is waging against Iraq, who has not attacked the U.S., and who, in fact, does not really have any capability of attacking the U.S., are these ministers active in trying to halt what could be the beginning of a world war in which the casualties are certain to be huge?  No!  They are supporting a war in which the rich will get richer, and the poor will lose their lives and remain poor.

   We have all seen that the U. S., in the typical Machiavellian fashion of industrial governments, will demonize the leaderships of whatever countries have oil, or other resources, that the industrialists of the U.S. desire to control.  Whoever controls Afghanistan has access to immense oil reserves in Asia, and whoever controls Iraq has access to its immense oil reserves.  The war against Iraq has absolutely nothing to do with freeing Iraq or Afghanistan from a dictatorship, and everything to do with securing control of oil fields that will bring huge profits to the rich, to immoral individuals like vice president Richard Cheney, who supported the apartheid government of South Africa, and who did not want freedom fighter Nelson Mandela to be released from prison.
 

    The ministers mentioned above, as well as the fundamentalist and orthodox Christian establishment, have supported all U.S. wars, just or unjust, and have adopted the view of the current president Bush, who in his acceptance speech declared he was for his country's policies whether they were moral or immoral, "right or wrong."  Now, any moral preacher, minister, or priest would immediately state that it is imperative for every person who claims to be moral to choose what is right only, and to oppose with all vigor options which are wrong.  However, I have heard of no opposition to Bush's statement that he would support his country "right or wrong" from the religious establishment of the United States.

    That is because they too, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and Billy Graham, are immoral.  Robertson helped raise millions for Rios Monte, the leader of death squads in Guatemala who killed thousands of Guatemalans.  Though it is thought by some that Billy Graham may have been influential in convincing Nixon to withdraw from Vietnam, Graham did not himself publicly oppose the war.

    Moreover, years ago Paul Harvey stated that Billy Graham had become a vegetarian.  If this were true, why did not Graham personally proclaim his vegetarianism to the world?  Because he was afraid of professing his beliefs before an orthodox Christianity entrenched in the unhealthy and immoral diet of carnivorism?  If it were true that Graham had, whether temporarily or permanently, become vegetarian, that would have not only have alleviated the suffering, enslavement, and slaughter of animals, whose bodies and products Graham had been eating; it would perhaps have made fundamentalist Christians aware of the correct interpretation of the cleansing of the temple by Jesus, that it was not simply a human-oriented militance, but a militance explained by Jesus' mission as stated in "Epistle to the Hebrews," a mission Jesus had in common with David, namely, to abolish the animal sacrifices.

    Billy Graham, I infer, did not want to lose the support of fundamentalist carnivorous Christians, however, and did not make any public statements regarding vegetarianism that would have lost him that support, since the orthodox, fundamentalist, and Catholic Christians all accept the nonsensical Pauline notion that Jesus regarded all foods as clean.   Heart, Lung, and Diabetes medical associations, and even the formerly reactionary American Medical Association,  certainly do not agree with the nonsensical notion that cholesterol cannot harm the body.  Jesus most certainly did not regard all foods as clean, as is logically deduced from a correct interpretation of the freeing of the animals in the temple.   Add to these the fact that Jesus constantly quoted prophets who denounced the animal sacrifices, and the fact that the Ebionites are seen as vegetarian in Epiphanius' critique of the Ebionite Gospel as seen in the Panarion.
 
 

    Is Richard Cheney, our current Vice President, a moral man?  Is he on record for defending the rights of humanity, no matter what color?  Far from it!  Instead of condemning the apartheid government of South Africa, he supported it; he voted against boycotting the racist business practices of South Africa!  Moreover, Cheney is on record for not wanting freedom fighter Nelson Mandela to be released from prison! Moreover the cartel with which Cheney is involved has much to gain by securing the oil line in Asia, which will be more easily accomplished by conquering Afghanistan, as well as by conquering Iraq and controlling its oil fields.

   And so, when even the President of the United States has declared that he will support his country right or wrong, which was in fact a declaration of immorality, can we expect that his choice for vice president was any more moral than himself?  Far from it! Richard Cheney's immorality, his support of the apartheid government of South Africa, was well known to Bush, and Bush quite deliberately chose his fellow traveler in immorality to be his running mate.  The elder and younger Bush and Cheney are both part of the oligarchy that rules the United States, and that is in fact trying to rule world policy to support the financial interests of the oligarchy, the elite rich industrialists, who rule the United States as well as the other industrialist nations, including some Muslim nations such as Saudi Arabia.  Sadam Hussein himself was once part of that oligarchy when he warred against Iran, which was then, as it is today, a common enemy of both Hussein and the U. S.
 
 

     At the Nuremberg Trials after W. W. II numerous members of the Nazi leadership who were accused of injustices replied: "Just doing my job following orders."  They were, however, nonetheless tried and executed as war criminals.  They were expected, in the minds of their judges from the United States and Europe, to have been heroically moral when Hitler and his leadership were vicious exterminating not only 6 million Jews, but 6 million more Europeans.  They were expected to have gone against the policy of their government when they determined that Hitler and the other leaders of Germany were involved in numerous evil, vicious, immoral practices.

    In other words, they were not excused of their war crimes because they had adopted the policy of "My country right or wrong."  So they were executed.     And in fact Jewish secret service personnel relentlessly continued to search, and are still searching out, Nazis guilty of war crimes, capturing and executing even aged Nazis whom they find.

    The only problem is that the Jewish state of Israel is now guilty of the same kinds of crimes that were committed by the Nazis, invading Palestine, jailing and killing its dissidents, and continuing to rule it in a state of marshall law, just as the Nazis ruled the people of Germany and the lands that Nazis occupied.

   It seems highly unlikely at this time that the immorality of President Bush will be highlighted by politicians within the U. S., because the majority of Democrats are really not much different than Republicans, except for perhaps members of the Green Party, and rare voices such as that of Dennis Kucinich.  And therefore, the government , the president, vice president, the military, and the industrialists, have a free reign to conduct their immoral policies, just as the Nazis did in Hitler's day.
 

    What is my point?  The same point that has been reiterated numerous times by other critics of Israel?  No.  My point is that the government of Israel, like that of the United States, like Hussein in Iraq, like the Taliban of Afghanistan destroying their Buddhist statues, are all immoral. In other words immoral people are at the helm of each of their governments, and, and this is most relevant: all of these governments claim to have scriptural justifications for their evils.

    In other words, all these governments state that their persecution of other people, and of other creatures, is justified by Yahweh, God the Father, or Allah, who according to the current version of Genesis (1: 26-28, 9: 2-3) purportedly proclaimed that humans were to subdue the earth and have dominion over other creatures.  The orthodoxies of Judaism, Christianity and Islam have all proclaimed the same right to subdue the earth and have dominion over its creatures.   This is because there scriptures have been changed from their original form teaching both vegetarianism and egalitarianism, namely, teaching that there is not to be any form of subjection over other creatures, whether human or non-human.  The objective moral reader understands that if a creature is subjected, subdued, had dominion over (all of these terms are basically synonymous), that there is not harmony but disharmony for these creatures.

     Other chapters of this study have dealt with the fact that the pure remnants of Judaism, Christianity and Islam have challenged their orthodoxies and put forth various forms of evidence that their scriptures have been revised.

   Muhammad himself, for example, very clearly said that in the Final Days Islam would not resemble the Islam he taught, but instead would be like the rubbish of flood waters, that is, scum.  But Muhammad's honesty is not shared by Hussein or the Taliban.  Sadam Hussein had attacked the Kurds and Shias and the nation of Iran, formerly with the blessings of the United States, who had helped Hussein with weaponry and even the means of employing nerve gas warfare, which Hussein inflicted on the Kurds and Shias.  And Hussein was, and still is, a declared enemy of the people of Iran.  Why?  Because there is another war going on within Islam: it is the war between two contradictory religious traditions, between the Sunni Muslims, and the Shias, and other vegetarian sects of Islam, who, most of the time in their history, have just wanted to live harmoniously with nature, without governmental interference, though this was changed in Iran, where Khoemini and his Shia constituents took over the government.
 
 

     The Sunnis of Islam are like the industrialist leadership that exists in all the industrial nations, in the Judeo-Christian leadership that exists in the governments of Europe, the United States, and Israel.  All these traditions assert that they have the right to subdue nature and its creatures through their industries, that nature and its creatures were not meant to be an equal part of creation, but subordinate to human desires.  So too Sunni Muslims assert that humans have been sanctioned by Allah to use other creatures for their own purposes, as numerous scriptures in their Quran tell them.

    To those who really know the Quran, however, there are verses which see all bloodshed as evil and as coming from Iblis, an Arabic word for Satan, and there are verses in what is called the Miraculous Night Journey of Muhammad which see him meeting his spiritual predecessors in different heavens, one of whom is Enoch, who absolutely condemned all bloodshed, whether of humans or other animals, and who condemned--get this--all alteration of creation, such as mining, making weaponry, and cosmetics. Moreover, Surah 6, verse 38, clearly sees all creatures as the cherished family of Allah.  Also, most people are unaware that the preferred diet of Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, and Ali, whom the Shia tradition says was meant to be the legitimate heir of Muhammad, was vegetarian, and that Muhammad himself warned people that flesh foods were hard on their systems.

    To those who understand that vegetarianism and egalitarianism go together historically, which is one of the implicit conclusions of William Harris' The Scientific Basis of Vegetarianism, it is easy to understand how it is among the vegetarian Shias of Iran that women's rights groups are thriving, and not among the carnivorous Sunnis.

    By the very fact that they do not follow the example of their prophet Muhammad, who warned against eating flesh, and whose preferred diet was vegetarian, the Sunnis demonstrate their refusal to follow the highest morality of their prophet.  Though there are many more vegetarian Muslims than there are vegetarian Jews and Christians, the Sunni orthodoxy has political rule in Muslim nations excluding Iran, and therefore are inclined, as the people of both Iraq and the United States, to follow the immoral actions of their political leaders.

    In order to return to the peace of the Final Days, which is the original state of Paradise before the Fall, the world needs to be exorcised of all industrialists, for industrialists by definition support the exploitation of other creatures.  The world also needs to be exorcised of its dominators of other humans, the governments of industrial nations, as well as of its proponents or supporters of domination and bloodshed who wear the robes of the minister, priest, or rabbi.

     There will never be peace on earth if the world is ruled by governments and religions that nonsensically claim an all-compassionate Deity desires its creatures to be killed.  All the world's religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, all originally taught that vegetarianism and egalitarianism were the fundamentals of a peaceful creation.

    To say "My country, right or wrong," whether said by Bush, Cheney, the Nazis, Israel, or Sunni Muslims of the Taliban, is evil.  It is to support immorality under the disguise of patriotism or religious zeal.