No peace for Israel if it means Jesus can't come back

Apparently, Jesus likes war and he's sending his minions to the White House to lobby for its continuance so that he can return to Earth as soon as possible.

The e-mailed meeting summary reveals NSC Near East and North African Affairs director Elliott Abrams sitting down with the Apostolic Congress and massaging their theological concerns. Claiming to be "the Christian Voice in the Nation's Capital," the members vociferously oppose the idea of a Palestinian state. They fear an Israeli withdrawal from Gaza might enable just that, and they object on the grounds that all of Old Testament Israel belongs to the Jews. Until Israel is intact and David's temple rebuilt, they believe, Christ won't come back to earth.
Abrams attempted to assuage their concerns by stating that "the Gaza Strip had no significant Biblical influence such as Joseph's tomb or Rachel's tomb and therefore is a piece of land that can be sacrificed for the cause of peace."

We need to be deeply concerned about the White House's not-so-secret alliance with political groups that want to convert our government to a theocracy. It's not cute, it's not "politics as usual" and it's not harmless. If Bush's people were meeting with Communists to discuss how our government's actions were not injuring the cause of Communism, the outcry would be fierce. This is just as, if not more outrageous, considering our explicit separation of church and state.
These groups not only will accept but are actively encouraging an escalation of violence in the Middle East to fulfill their narrow interpretation of the Bible. If they have influence on the government's policies, then they have blood on their hands. We have all the evidence we need that this brand of theocratic religious posturing results in oceans of bloodshed and grief. Just look at the theocracies of the Middle East. Why is our President even flirting with the idea of turning our reasoned, Western civilization into a backwater theocracy?

Slactivist thinks that it's alarmist to think that these meetings influenced Bush's decision. He's right, of course, and he explains why. However, the very fact that strained and egotistical interpretations of Biblical prophecy has a part, however small, in making foreign policy decisions should be cause for concern.