So, does the "Waiting for the Sky Taxi" essay offend ...

the offended?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/05/03/26_taxi.html

It is the essay on our main page. It contains language that has been deemed offensive (monumentally so) by some on these boards. I think it is a very good essay, if a trifle over-the-top.
When you see the word jebus, it is the jebus of the end-timers we are trying to "out". The fact that this incenses some believers underscores our fears.

The wackos have been able to infiltrate the highest offices of the USA by layering onto the belief system that many of you hold true.

Prevailing religious beliefs encourage their psychosis.

I personally don't care WHAT belief system you have, but when followers begin to push THEIR BRAND of religion onto the sane population (by sane. I mean not of the "nihlistic death cult" scene), when do we cry "foul"?

You believers are going to have to out them.
If a non-believer spouts off, we are branded as sacrilegious.


What say you?

The rapturists who would hasten global destruction to hasten arrival of the "sky taxi" are as crazy as the Rancho Santa Fe cult members who committed mass suicide in the belief that a comet/space aliens would soon sweep them off into the great beyond.

Believe whatever crazy thing you want, but when your actions harm our planet or others in society, then it's time to speak out against such lunacy. In my opinion, these folks should be locked up in rooms with padded walls so they can't hurt anybody, even themselves.

If there is offense, it is in throwing up one's hands and gesturing "phooey" at them. That's really not a very wise thing to do.

I know it's tempting. I've done it, too. Nevertheless, we're going to have to rethink this approach. It really isn't a good one.

The Christian fundamentalist with whom we disagree over gay rights and abortion is also the rural poor white person who is among the most hurt by the recent passage of the bankruptcy reform act and would be among the most hurt if social security were to be privatized. Many of those mocked in that article are WalMart employees who would benefit from better labor laws.

These people are voting Republican on social issues and will continue to do so unless Democrats give them a reason to do otherwise. I'm not proposing that Democrats backpedal on the issues that have hurt us with them. However, mocking their beliefs is not the way to reach out to them.

We need to talk to these people, as strange as that may sound to some here. We can do it, but not if we call them names and impugn their intelligence.

If the Schiavo affair can demonstrate anything to Christian fundamentalists, it is that the Republicans are not really willing or able to impose their will on those of us who don't share their religious beliefs. For them to continue to support the GOP in the hopes of saving our souls is an exercise in futility.

From there, we can agree to disagree with the Christian fundamentalists on religious matters, which belong in the private rather than the public domain in any case. No one is going to pass legislation requiring any woman to get an abortion against her will or requiring artificial life support be removed from someone with convictions to the contrary. We do not threaten their freedom of conscience.

It is also futile for the rural poor to expect the Republican Party to promote legislation in their economic interests. They haven't done so up to now; they have even passed legislation that have hurt them. Democrats have a much better track record in this respect; the New Deal and the Great Society did much to help the rural poor. Democratic proposals to strengthen Social Security and initiate a national health policy will also benefit the rural poor. That is why, in spite of our difference, they should support Democrats over Republicans.

for MAINSTREAM priests or pastors or reverends or whatever to preach some SENSE into the people in Florida?
If they are down there, I haven't seen them. If they are, GREAT!
We have an archbishop in my state, Thomas Gumbleton, that seems to have what it takes. I admire him greatly.

Let them be free to believe what they want. If there is anything they need to be made to understand, it is that a narrowly defined religious dogma, no matter whose it is, is not the proper basis for public policy in a pluralistic, democratic state.

We've lost a lot of these people because we've been condescending toward them. They are adults. Let's respect their choice in a system of belief; no one else needs to accept it. It is a private matter.

Meanwhile, Republican demagogues have played them like pipes. The Republicans can't deliver what they've promised and otherwise have hurt them. We Democrats won't promise them what the Republicans have, but we will promise them something else that they want and we will deliver on it. We have in the past.

You don't bring about unity by being divisive. We need to be able to recognize that all people whose minds are healthy desire peace and stability in their lives. The vast majority of Americans are capable of understanding and grasping principles of social justice, equality, and fairness. There is a national paranoia right now, and people are afraid. Fear does not allow people to think rationally. So we need to reduce the level of fear in America, and it is not realistic to think that goal can be accomplished with self-righteousness, prejudice, or a sense of superiority.

Although I do believe that radicals/extremists must have limits imposed upon their destructive behavior, most folks cling to their religion because it's all they have to inspire them to survive serious difficulties.

The followers shouldn't be demeaned or condemned or "preached" to (as if we don't wanna puke when ANYONE starts preaching at us). I have conversations with common, "super" religious folks here in rural America every single day.

On the other hand, I would gladly stand up to and oppose the Falwells, Randalls, Robertsons et al because they take advantage of others to empower themselves.

So many here at DU believe that if we just learn how to speak their language - or something like that - they'll see how we are right and the pukes are wrong.

Continue in your delusion. It is much bigger than that.

We are inside a Reformation - one of humanity's periodic cleansing of the intellectuals. People prefer the drug of un-reality. It can be molded to people's delusions and need for security. Reality is unyielding - and people don't like that.

This will not stop until enough people have died that they finally run out of steam. Then people will see again how nice life is when everyone just treats others with kindness no matter what color their skin is or what God they follow - and realize we are all in this together.

Until then, you can expect things will get whole lot worse than this.

This will not stop until enough people have died that they finally run out of steam.

So what do you propose? How would you stop them from instituting a "cleansing of the intellectuals"? How do you get some people to accept a unyielding reality when, as you say, they "prefer the drug of un-reality"?

Try to get it right.

Bake

I've been lax with the spell check today.

. . but I am sure it will not come from reasoning with them, or framing things properly or triangulating.

It will only come when liberal leaders get a spine - or when liberals vote for leaders who already have one - and I don't see that happening anytime soon.

But that's the way it's always been. Reality based people never believe that the zealots will do what they always do until they do it - until they see the pellets dropping through the hole or the cluster bomb fluttering toward their home in Fallujah.

If you mean we can't reach the people who are actually demonstrating in front of the hospice, you're probably right. However, the Time Magazine poll showed that even Americans who consider themselves born-again Christians support the decision to remove Mrs. Schiavo's tube.

We should bear in mind also that Jimmy Carter is just as much a born again Christian as Jerry Falwell.

When you strike at what many here would see as the irrational nature of the beliefs of those following Randall Terry and his ilk, even those who might agree with us on some part of this issue feel the slap.

We're losing elections in red states, but in most places not badly. We don't need to pick up whole blocks of their voters; we just need to make some inroads among them. The approach outlined above is a reasonable one to that end. Even if you're right and I'm wrong, we've nothing to lose by trying.

. . they are playing us for suckers. They know we'll try to reason with them . . to convince them that it makes sense to treat everyone with respect and dignity.

They have no intention of treating liberals with respect and dignity. By appealing to their sense of fairness we only make it easier for them to stack the courts with right wing judges that will take decades to recover from.

If RW voters saw us rise up in outrage over this they might understand that we mean business and we are not about to let them take away our rights.

But we won't, we'll try re-framing our arguments believing one day they'll say "Oh I see, the liberals were right about this all along - I think I'll vote for a Godless Democrat next time".

Sorry, won't happen.

But, you know what, Jack Rabbit - I vacillate back and forth on this myself. Catch me tomorrow and I might be on your side of this debate. Today I'm just feeling extra cynical.


:eyes:

. . a great read for a Sunday afternoon.

"The Rapture Exposed" by Barbara Rossing, along with former LBJ speechwriter Grace Halsell's "Forcing God's Hand" pamphlet-size book...all provide more than enough fuel to dispute the dispensationalist's eschatology.

The poor choice of words contained in the editorial probably matches the unintentionally inflammatory actions of the evangelicals.

Possibly some common ground can be found; Jesus loved this world as much as His Heavenly Father, they should all agree, correct ?

bloody Jesus outside the hospice for an example. However, going out of your way to offend them is impolite.

If they object to our turn of phrase when it is not intended to be offensive, but only an attempt at wit, that's their problem. As believers, their job is to police their own behavior, not ours, as long as it's not in-their-face like some of the stuff on the atheist boards, which is where unbelievers feel safe enough to let their hair down and rant.

What bothers me about fundies is the fact that they have a very different view of Jesus that isn't a realistic one. If you look at the pictures of the people outside of the hospice, they are mostly white and so is their Jesus.

If you mention that Jesus was Jewish, many of them won't believe you and will actually get angry with you for saying so. Well, I do know that the early Roman missionaries to the barbarian tribes of Northern Europe superimposed Christian holidays and saints over their religion, which is why we have Easter eggs and bunnies today interspersed with the Ressurrection of Christ, also a myth derived from the legends of the Greek Heracles. I believe their Jesus is a version of the north god Balder who was also killed and will be ressurrected.

The whole Rapture thing is very similar to the Twilight of the Gods or Goetterdammerung as well.

Just not a fundie type.

When I read the first paragraph, I feared it was going to be a typical DU rant against all Christians. And I couldn't help noticing that the author erroneously referred to the Book of "Revelations" (the correct title is singular -- Revelation). Also, the author implied that the "Rapture" comes from Revelation -- it does not.

So I got my critical reading glasses out. But I was pleasantly surprised, further in, that the author correctly noted the founders of dispensationalism, and drew, I think, the correct conclusions about the social forces that helped spawn it.

So after a shaky start, I thought it was a good essay.

Bake

people actually believe jebus is Jesus? If we mean Jesus, we will say Jesus, if we mean jebus, it refers to a sort of anti-Jesus distorted creation of the wingnuts. If people don't get that and are "offended", maybe there is an excessive need for having their perceived sanctity acknowledged that needs to be examined.

I've never been Christian (was raised UU) and while I tried to become one many years ago, I simply could not set aside my basic disbelief in the Bible has "the Word." No matter which way I turned it, I couldn't believe. I watched others who did believe go into an emotional experience that I could not share.

Over the years, I've watched the growth of MegaChurches and have seen many a moment where the believers are in a nearly trancelike state -- one hand raised. The Fundies are tapping into something deep within to produce this emotional experience, time after time. A good part of it comes from a suspension of disbelief for the huge number of controversial teachings in the Bible -- teachings that conflict. When in a spiritual realm or state, there is a suspension of disbelief from all of the rational parts of our lives.

This religious exprience is counter-rational. But, it leaves its mark once someone rejoins the "real world." No one can go through such a profound emotional experience week after week without being changed by it -- changed on how one views the world. If one accepts that this highly emotional religioius experience IS the truth, all of the bricks and mortar of real life has to be set aside as "unimportant."

I'm not sure that it is possible to dissuade anyone of these fundies who go through at least a weekly experience such as this, and many do multiple services every week. It becomes an addiction. And, why wouldn't it? How many non-believers seek a high through ingested means? Trying to achieve the same high of well-being and a sense of joy.

During the last couple of decades there was a lot of discussion about what had happened in times past, the Millineum changeover, the previous Century changeover. Many were expecting a similar explosion of fervancy and it was somewhat surprising that it didn't. The reason may have more to do with a) many Christians accept that the Calendar is off by a few years; and, b) a growing acceptance that manmade dating has little to do with God's. However, this Rapture and/or Dominionist movement DID grow throughout this period.

The only way that the Fundie movement will die is due to time. Time that does not bring about the Rapture. However, I really don't expect that to happen over the next 20 years. I don't believe that there is anything, either rational or emotional that will supplant the religious experience that fundies get everytime they go to church. It doesn't require critical thinking, in fact, it is the opposite of critical thinking.

that they have drunk the religious experience "Kool-Aid" and cannot be brought back. However, I think the real problem is how we get them to mind their own business and stay out of the business of the rest of us who aren't enraptured like they are.

It really is a mind-produced "drug" that changes brain activity. There have been numerous studies conducted on this phenomenon.

Of course, that state can be produced without "religion". However, the "super" religious don't know that,...don't want to know that. They just want to sustain that feeling so as to cope with their own hardships and disappointments and weaknesses.

Sometimes, I think we fail to accept the fact that "religion" is often a tool of survival during hardship,...and that a LOT of Americans suffer a ship-load of hardship.

The language of the essay was right on.

The masses are told that THEIR reward is in the "next life". Your misery here on earth, in the United States, will end when you're raptured up.

So don't try to do anything that might change that (i.e. economically/politically/socially/physically) while you are ALIVE.

or, more succinctly, a nut is a nut is a nut . . . the mindset that underlies Christian (or, more accurately, pseudo-Christian) fundamentalism is EXACTLY the same mindset that underlies Islamic fundamentalism, Jewish fundamentalism, and every other kind of fundamentalism . . . all of these folks are free to believe as they wish, but when their anti-scientific and anti-logic dogma starts influencing world events and threatening the health of the planet, they must be exposed and stopped . . . and ridicule is often the best way to accomplish that . . .

this article was right on and didn't offend me in the least . . . and yes, I'm a "believer" -- in a higher intelligence and/or spiritual plane that some refer to as God . . . if you prefer Nature, or the Universe, or Creation, that's okay with me, too . . .

Can you see any way, specifically, for the churches themselves to speak out against radical fundamentalism?
Should parishioners form new, more liberal churches instead of just walking out of ones that offend them?