"And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels...""The hour is coming--- the rolling up of the sun, the darkening of the stars and the movement of the mountains, the splitting of the sky, and the innundation of the seas... When the tombs are overthrown" and Final Judgment ensues.
These quotations are two examples of apocalyptic vision and the conviction of impending doom with final judgment wherein the rigorously faithful will be exalted to heaven in real time, the better to watch their enemies brought low and punished mightily by the righteous hand of God. The Chosen faithful plan on enjoying every minute of their enemies' torment, which is generally described with great relish and in loving detail, with a peculiarly explicit emphasis on perceived sexual misconduct, which is always lavishly and pruriently presented.
The Book of Revelation by Saint John from the Christian New Testament, source of the first quotation (14.9-14.10), has been the text of choice in almost every culture war since Roman times, and is so used again today. The outside observer may find the imagery bizarre and the prose perfervid, but to the True Believer, the "little book" of John speaks in code to their immortal soul. Thousands of religiously-inclined men and women over the past two millenia have been convinced they have de-coded the words, and many felt compelled to implement their interpretation in a real life effort to prepare the way for Doosmday, from the author John himself (who was probably not actually Saint John the Apostle) to Savonarola to Cotton Mather of the Puritans to David Koresh of the Branch Davidians to Ronald Reagan and Tom DeLay (who is reported to have had a sign on his desk: "This Could Be The Day!"-quoted in "A History of the End of the World," by Jonathan Kirsch, p.247).
The Book of Revelation, as re-interpreted and revitalized with special American touches, is but the latest iteration in a long line of culture wars down the centuries beginning with the Old Testament Book of Daniel in which the defenders of (what they considered to be) traditional mores claim divine intervention to bring about the utter defeat and humiliation of the agents of change, all of whom, without exception, the defenders demonized, believing that every one of those unrighteous sinners deserved the awful punishments to be inflicted. The Chosen True Believers are certain they have been persecuted, whether they have or not, for being steadfast, and the entire Book of Revelation has been called a "revenge fantasy," where the Chosen, through God, turn the tables on their persecutors and exact a terrible, gory vengeance. This is nowhere more obvious than in the famous best-selling "Left Behind" series of fundamentalist potboilers by Tom LaHaye which describe the adventures of everyday Americans caught up in the highly anticipated sequence of events that are expected to occur in "end times," that lead to the terrifying battle of Armageddon, the physical Second Coming of Christ as an earthly king, and the end of time, the end of history... and all these events are coming to pass soon, most likely in our lifetime. One entranced 15-year old reader exclaimed "The best thing about the Left Behind books is the way the non-Christians get their guts pulled out by God." (http://www.talk2acti...) Be warned: the fundamentalists are raising their children in this, their version of reality.
Every bit of this fantasy is believed in exquisite detail by those who profess themselves "born again," and polls tell us they comprise around 40-46% of all Americans. The Book of Revelation is part of the fare of prayer breakfasts and Bible study groups held daily, including in the White House... if you fail to show up at your study group your absence is noted unfavorably, and you shape up or ship out. They are not kidding: they read Revelation as actual physical fact, not as allegory--- an interpretation explicitly forbidden by the early Church fathers including St. Augustine, and not even approved by John himself in the very text of Revelation... it doesn't matter, the fever has struck, the culture war, or, if you prefer, the culture change, has been ignited and rages on, whether you have noticed it or not.
American politics suffered a sea change with the election of Ronald Reagan, when the fundamentalist True Believers entered American politics and put their choice in the White House. It can be said that since the 1980's American foreign and domestic policy have been increasingly guided by the scenarios foretold in The Book of Revelation; it has become a new reality. Reagan chillingly described the Soviet Union as an "evil Empire," and George W. Bush has his own "Axis of Evil," proclaiming "you're either with us or against us"--- both are bursts of Revelatory phraseology whose coded meanings resonated with their fundamentalist base.
The irony is that the fundamentalists who despise the carnality of modern culture have linked up with the purveyors of that carnality, the globalizing mega-corporations, in the Republican political party. Outside observers are flummoxed by this contradiction, and wonder: Who is using Whom? in this strange marriage of political convenience. It is clear that John, in writing Revelation, counseled patience to the early Christians, that is, advising against meddling in politics, implying go seek your justification and the revenge which has been promised by the Lord: it is coming "soon."
Americans have a different tradition, brought to this New World (another Revelatory turn of phrase) by the dour Puritans, no less: to establish the righteous system (utopia=theocracy) here on earth in anticipation of the arrival of End Times--- prepare the way. Deep millenialists, who are a big part of our current fundamentalists, scorn such attitudes, believing there is no time for such fripperies, they just need to save souls because the End is nigh, and they must do nothing to slow its arrival; indeed, the worse things become the better it is for it means the Second Coming is that much closer. The two branches of millenialism unite in the Republican Party. There is no perceived conflict between ranting against the vile Whore of Babylon that is Hollywood or the hateful commerce of business while simultaneously using the money and power of "the other" to hasten that arrival of End Times. If you are already Saved, apparently, you can indulge in some of the temptations without damaging your heavenly credentials... and some of the Saved are very successful businessmen, remember.
The fixation on the imminent arrival of End Times concentrates the attention of the current crop of fundamentalists on Israel and the Middle East in general, since that is where they believe it all comes together, for according to Revelation, first the Israelites must re-establish a Greater Israel, and then Armageddon will occur, all of which turns fundamentalists into temporary Zionists. This meshes conveniently with the business plans of our globalized corporations?--- is it not divine that all that oil lies under the Middle East itself?
Any disaster (like the tsunami or Katrina or 9/11) are received with complacency as more indications of the arrival of End Times. It is not necessary to do a good job in government because, after all, it will soon all be over and Judgment Day is imminent; James Watts, Interior Secretary under Reagan, excused his failures to protect the environment, saying "I do not know how many future generations we can count on before the Lord returns." (Kirsch, p. 226). It has been said that Reagan?s foreign policy was based almost entirely on the text of a 1970 book "The Late Great Planet Earth," by Hal Lindsey, another culture warrior inspired by The Book of Revelation. Senator Inofe,( R., Oklahoma), justified the occupation of Hebron by Israeli forces because the Bible said God gave that land to the Israelites, and "this is not a political battle... it is a contest over whether or not the word of God is true." A fundamentalist President carries the launch codes for America?s nuclear arsenal with him everywhere--- does this give you a comfortable feeling, given his conviction Armageddon is not only inevitable but desirable?
The Book of Revelation is not only a revenge fantasy, it is a text in magical thinking. Like any powerful story it has been interpreted again and again by those of mystical or unstable temperament, mainly by those who almost always fear change, whether it is the changes which brought us the glories of the Renaissance (like Savonarola, who arranged a Bonfire of the Vanities to purge Florence of what he called corruption and decadence) or the scientific and cultural revolutions of today (so resented by the anti-science fundamentalists).
The beliefs persist, despite the fact that the world has repeatedly not "ended on time," but stubbornly continues; the next crop of millenialists simply changes gears, replaces the Soviet Union as the Beast, for example, with "Islamofascists," and resets Doomsday. The difficulty today is that we now indeed have arrived at a point where mankind itself can end human life on the planet through nuclear holocaust, environmental change, or gene-manipulated biologic plague. Can we afford to have as our leaders those who truly believe God is going to descend on us for final Judgment, and we should help along End Times, not hinder them?
The second quotation at the beginning is from the Koran. Christianist fundamentalists have their counterpart in Islamic fundamentalists. They have found each other, and both of them are preaching a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy. Both, frankly, are psychologically dysfunctional. The rest of the human population should not be forced to commit suicide because of their mutual magical thinking. The next installment will discuss the dilemma, and how Democrats might deal with it.
Psychologists/psychiatrists -- weigh in on this one.
I'm not particularly religious, but it seems to me that we don't have the capability to either speed up or slow down end times. God is the decider, isn't he? That doesn't mean I don't think we shouldn't at least try to slow down global warming, etc. God did give us free will, eh?
But free will is something the fundamentalists apparently don't believe they have. They tend to turn to God to help them in hard times instead of trying to help themselves. I'd also be interested in hearing what psychologists and psychiatrists think about the subject.
The thing is, where do we go from here? I plan on tackling that question in a future diary, but my intention is to get a lot of intelligent minds working on the problem. Please help.
And, by the way, I agree there is serious question whether or not these Revelationists are "real" Christians--- the Book of Revelation almost did not make it into the official Bible, and in fact was not in the sacred writings of the Eastern Church for almost 900 years. Church authorities have always regarded it with caution.
And I know someone is going to say that I am wrong because t means that 54-60% don't believe it. The difference is that the group who do share such a strong and destructive belief that they have the ability to act on it while those who don't are far too fragmenteded to come together and stop it. Doesn't mean we shouldn't try...just means that we are really up against it, in a very bad way.
Unfortunately from my point of view, they all have been politicized and have tended to vote in a bloc... until recently, at least. Dissatisfaction with Bush and a beginning split between the more (shall we say) moderate millenialists/fundamentalists and the elite corporatists is beginning to show up. Can some one like, say, a Jim Webb progressive, who understands the culture war but does not kowtow to the corporate powers have a chance of drawing off enough votes to bring Democrats and/or rationalists back into power?
Or does this not frame the question correctly? There is a lot more going on here than just saving the Constitution and replacing the faith-based presidency of Dubya.
The thrust of the most of these "properity" churches seems to be to sanctify the culture of the self. Many of them preach that God wants them to be rich and drive expensive cars, etc. -And that this can happen if they will send money.
Many of these people also have personality disorders such as Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Various personality disorders are common among people who are walking around.You don't have to be institutionalized to have these. These types and addictive personalities tend to gravitate toward these types of churches.
The conspicuous consumption of the mature capitalist society, the often-noted sense of alienation from community apparent in the American life style--- all contribute to, and are evidence of, the propensity to feel picked on and left out, thus justifying the horrific revenge on non-believers which is a centerpiece of fundamentalism.
I want to hear from the psychologists in analyzing the whole Revelationist philosophy. I know long-distance psychoanalysis is shunned, even by inveterate Bush-watchers, but we desperately need to get a handle on the movement before they incinerate the rest of us.
Its a very interesting topic. And I hope to hear more from you on it.
You said: "Something in it appeals strongly to all those who seem to feel alienated or left out, marginalized and ridiculed. And now these people show up to vote, reflecting their hatred of the modern world at the polls. Of all the electorate, they show an alarming desire for authoritariasm."
I think you, if not hitting the nail on the head, are right on track as to who is attracted to this type of blind thinking. I come from the "cult" generation of the 70's and folks I knew who went into a cult had this type of view of their situation in life: disenfranchised, left out, and in your words "marginalized and ridiculed".
I think if the political tenet of "populism" (defend the interests of the common people) could take hold again in this country, it could turn around the populace's view of being disenfranchised and their subsequent seeking refuge in the lunatic right.
This where Democrats could take the lead, showing their populist values through community service and involvement, and reminding people of the necessity of safety-net features such as Social Security and Medicare, etc. that the Democrats have given this country and who fight to hold on to them.
What happens is, the voters are convinced they have no influence on how the elite conducts public affairs, ("no difference between Parties, it's all 'just politics'") but why worry, we've got the latest gadget, the new flat screen TV or so on, and we'll just live our private lives as we choose, waiting until God comes down in fire and punishes all these mother***ers, ha, ha ,ha.
This is exactly how most human beings survived through history, just today it's on a somewhat higher level subsistance-wise. So far, at least. The problem is, then, why did we bother with the Enlightenment and the American Revolution?
It is unfair to lump other religious people in with this very vocal and unthinking minority. They are an embarrassment to all of us, as Americans. Every time they say something outrageous, that's what the world hears about Americans.
The True Believers I have noticed have a paranoia and a tendency to see conspiracies promoting the work of the devil everywhere. If there is a wavering on their part, up pops another fear card from Bush, or some sort of authoritarian macho posturing to reinforce their loyalty, and far too many otherwise reasonable folks respond exactly as programmed. Otherwise, as I said elsewhere, you will find the born-agains to be perfectly normal Americans, helping each other and simply trying to live a decent life. But, tap into that underlying Revalation quirk, and... wow!
I know, we are each of crazy, only in different things. What alarms me is how some craziness plays out in the public square.
My family is solidly Democratic, and probably always will be, because we were very involved in the Civil Rights movement. Had it not been for those with faith, behaving in a way that society considered profoundly irrational, that movement would not have succeeded. Many of the progressive causes over the centuries have been championed by people of faith. These religious people who are politically progressive fortunately did not see politics as off limits to religion. They saw that their deeply held religious faith required them to resist injustice wherever it could be found. They are still out there, though unfortunately they are not as vocal as the Robertson/Falwell bunch. And they're not enabling anybody from that bunch, because the Bible specifically says to beware of false prophets.
The good news is that's a false choice, because people of all religions, or no religion, can participate through the Democratic party. So don't insist on characterizing other's beliefs as superstitious and based on no evidence. "If you maintain religion is not subject to the same analysis and criticism as everything else, then you provide cover for the fundies to operate." Wrong, wrong, and wrong. And by the way, completely irrational.
Reverend Jerry Falwell
Reverend Pat Robertson
Reverend James Dobson
Reverend Ted Haggard
Is it any wonder that these and other hucksters all have Reverend in front of their names? Its because of the respect afforded to this title in our society. If these weren't "men of faith" they wouldn't get away with what they do. As it is, we still can't call a spade a spade. Remember all the accolades showered over Falwell when he died?
"So don't insist on characterizing other's beliefs as superstitious and based on no evidence."
I absolutely insist on it and will from this point forward. Get used to it.
"If you maintain religion is not subject to the same analysis and criticism as everything else, then you provide cover for the fundies to operate. I don't live in a void I live in America, one of the most religious countries in the developed world." [Ironically, this smear against the religious is later followed by a complaint about religious bigotry against atheists.]
Uh, huh. So what effect do you think it will have if your view prevails, and the Democratic party ignores ITS base and insists on incorrectly and unjustifiably lumping all religious people together with the tiny vocal minority of Falwell and Robertson wanna-be's? I guess the theory is that if you're religious, you must be "providing cover" for fundamentalists (although by what means you've never bothered to explain), even though the words and actions and values of these fundamentalists are easily distinguished from those of truly religious people.
Therefore, religious people, ABANDON your religion so that you may be considered rational, and a true Democrat. Hey, nobody's voting for Democrats! Purely from a practical viewpoint, it's not a formula for electoral victory, is it?
More importantly, it's also turning your back on traditional Democratic values, and son, I'm pretty sure I'm in a better position to talk about traditional Democratic values than you are, because it's obvious that I've lived through a lot more than you. By your analysis, Martin Luther King, Jr. should have joined the Republican party, because he wasn't rational and Godless enough to be a Democrat. Got news for you, the Godless ones were on the other side of that struggle, even though they may have claimed otherwise.
So go ahead, keep turning people off with your demand that everyone convert into a supposedly rational atheist in order to be a Democrat. Then add your backwards/upside-down/brought-it-on-yourself charges of religious bigotry. Then follow with your inevitable complaints that no one will vote for these militant atheists. Uh, huh. That's not the majority view, the prevailing view, even a responsible view, and it never will be. And it sure as heck is not rational.
Let me be clear, I don't want candidates I support saying the things I'm saying, I want them to win. I realize how impolitic the things I'm saying are. That's a problem and we need to fix it. I'm not running for office. So, I'll be the one to say what I think needs to be said. My hope is that we can begin a conversation in this country that breaks the taboo against criticizing religion.
I believe I have adequately explained my positions. If 62% of Americans refuse to vote for an atheist, its more that just conservative evangelicals who hold this religiously bigoted view. The prevailing view in America is that "people of faith" are awarded a separate kind of hushed respect that we don't give politicians, scientists, teachers, cooks, etc. etc. etc... If we don't examine religion and religious belief as we would any thing else, then we create a climate where fundamantalist views can prosper and grow. This point is clear to me.
And I don't need to be lectured by you or anyone else about what I can and can't say.
"superstitious belief based on no evidence. [Y]ou provide cover for the fundies to operate."
Those, sir, are smears.
You are saying that merely by being religious, all religious people are aligned with and support the fundamentalists to whom you object. That ignores the prevalence of religious belief, it ignores the clear distinction among religious beliefs, and it ignores simple logic.
You have a right to say whatever you want. You have a right to believe whatever you want. Just don't expect everybody to agree with you, when you go out of your way to irrationally compare all religious people to so-called fundamentalists. And especially, don't expect them to follow you, just as they won't be following the fundamentalists. And don't expect to be beyond criticism and questioning yourself when you challenge what for many people are the decades-long basis of their involvement in the Democratic party.
Thank you.
First of all, yes they are Rovian. But interestingly enough, they are used by Karl Rove, who, himself, is actually an atheist. Startling but true. He once said, "I was not blessed enough to believe," a miserable cop out for his cynicism if I ever heard it.
Having said that, it really is true that the people you are writing about are a small subset of Christianity, and they are a recent phenomena at that. Their brand of apocalyptic Christianity can be traced to John Nelson Darby in the 19th Century.
They do not represent traditional Christian theology.
Indeed, Revelations almost didn't make it into the canon. And even St. Augustine, who believed it should be incoporated into the NT, cautioned that it should be included only with the teaching that it was not to be taken literally.
Biblical scholars, especially modern ones, teach that Revelations was, in fact, not intended to be a description of the future, but was a coded message for the previous Christian communities during a time of great persecution by Roman authorities. The bizarre language was actually coded language.
For example, scholars identify the Beast not as Satan, but as a Roman emperor, probably Nero (though it might also have been Diacletion). The whore of Babylon was the Roman Empire. The predictions of the end of the world with the evildoers being cast into the Lake of Fire and all the other bizarre and bloody images were simply statements of the hope that the Christian communities would be vindicated by the fall of those who were murdering and torturing them.
In our own time, there were New Age cult groups in the 90s that predicted "earth changes" that were nearly as graphically dire. They too were alienated people who felt marginalized. They were seeking justice and vindication.
I'm not sure how you fight an irrational philosophy. Logic doesn't do it. But perhaps making the larger public aware that this is not traditional Christianity will help prevent more people from being duped by this belief.
Anyway, I look forward to more on this topic from you. Keep up the good work!
You lump a list of people together (Savonarola to Cotton Mather of the Puritans to David Koresh of the Branch Davidians to Ronald Reagan and Tom DeLay) as though they all had the same or similar views. The Branch Dividians were a cult with a private revelation with nothing in common with anyone else in your list. Putting all these together is not far from saying a Hindu and a Muslim have the same beliefs. Tom DeLay is a Republican! As most people who read this blog know, Republicans are not the brightest sparks in the fire.
Private interpretation of the Bible has been condemned all through history so when "The Book of Revelation, as re-interpreted and revitalized" that is already very suspect. It is Tim not Tom LaHaye. The "Left Behind" series is written from a Dispensationalist perspective. This is a brand of Christianity that started in the 1840s and does not represent historic Christianity. Prior to the 1840s Western Protestant Christianity followed almost exclusively Reformed Theology. Roman Catholic theology followed much of the same tenants with certain deviations. In America nearly all denominations taught the same basic tenants. Starting in the 1830s and 40s things started to unravel.
The Dispensationalist are the ones with an overly developed sense of the apocalyptic. It is this that is the source of rabid Christian support of Israel. There is a desire to advance the date of the apocalypse. From a Reformed perspective, this is all nonsense. The Dispensationalist have worked out a chronology and timeline to the apocalypse and are determined to see it through. The Bible emphasizes that setting dates can not be done. But that doesn't seem to deter people who just make themselves look foolish and prove that they are false prophets. Everyone wants God to fix things. No one wants an apocalypse. I won't bore you with the theology here. To sum it up, God is going to fix things, but when He is ready and not with any help from us.
George Bush must be one of the most confused people around. This may explain his lack of ability to put together a coherent sentence. He claims to be a born again Christian. The basic social and economic view of Christianity is Communitarianism as made very plain in the book of Acts. The view demonstrated by George Bush is closer to Ayn Rand Objectivism, every man for himself, or putting another title to it, Social Darwinism. Mention Darwin in any context in many churches and there will be boos and hisses. Mention a need for national health insurance and you will get the same reaction. This is real confusing. I forget the details, but recently a right wing Christian lobby hired a fundamental pastor from Texas as a new director. He came in all excited wanting to add the environment, health care, etc. to the agenda. He was quickly shown the door. There are a lot of people like that pastor who are in tune with a Christian Communitarian view.
That is right, Christians all despise the carnality of modern life. But so did First Century Christians. Nothing has changed. In one sense, disasters are a judgement. We live in a sin cursed world so bad things happen. The death rate is one per person. That is bad enough for me. But, the bad things are not a result of anyone's bad behavior. Saying so is disingenuous.
Interpreting The Book of Revelation is not as difficult or obtuse as many would want you to believe. There is a revival of First Century Gnosticism these days where some claim special revelation that only they can understand. That was heresy in the First Century and it still is today. Revelation is written in code, but the decoder book is the Old Testament. For whatever reason, John chose to write his discourse in a way that only a serious Bible student would understand. For example, the reference to the Sun and Moon are from Joseph's dream. That nasty number, 666, does not have a mystical meaning. The number six is used as a symbol of incompleteness or evil in the Old Testament. Hebrew does not have a word like "very" and uses repetition instead, as in holy, holy, holy to mean infinitely holy. So 666 means infinitely evil and nothing more.
How do Democrats deal with this? First by not being patronizing. Republicans may be dimwits, but Christians are not necessarily so dim unless of course they are also Republicans. It would really help to get a little education on just what is meant by the term Christian. As I said above, it is not copyrighted. By understanding Biblical doctrine, you could be persuasive rather than annoying. Thomas Jefferson is claimed to be a deist, but he was Biblically literate and understood Reformed Theology as well as any Puritan preacher. In the last century, politicians did not quote the Bible to make themselves look good, but to be understood. Their audiences would have immediately understood the meaning of the quote in their current context.
Those Puritan preachers were determined to have pure doctrine and pure worship. There was an openness to correction, but the correction had to be accompanied by sound Biblical exposition. I would recommend that you contact The Christian Research Institute, www.equip.org, for well researched, documented, and accurate (to a fault) books on Christianity and most other religions as well. CRI does advocate for an orthodox Christian belief, but they are scrupulously accurate in their descriptions of the alternatives. Most of what you hear on "Christian television" is not orthodox and some of it is dangerous. Most of teaching you hear on Christian radio is orthodox. There must be some sort of metaphysical action here.
My point was that Revelations down the centuries has been interpreted and re-interpreted to suit each new time period, a sort of arsenal of words and terminology as well as theology for all sorts of weird and unsettling fanatics. The length of the article forced me to limit the threads but there is ample evidence (textural, use of language, internal evidence) that Apostle John was not the author of Revelations; in fact, he may well have been a middle-aged converted Jewish man who actually saw the destruction of the Temple by Romans, and whose familiarity with the Jewish theology and recent Jewish history is layered throughout his writing. Early Church Fathers discussed the authorship extensively before finally including it in the New Testament, and Church theologians have treated the book gingerly ever since.
Revelations was only one of innumerable apocalyptic scripts circulating among both Jews and Christians in the early period after Jesus preached (and, indeed, before) and most of them drew heavily on the Book of Daniel. A good short history of the history of apocalyptic writings, and the source of many of my comments, can be found in the book mentioned, "A History of the End of the World" by Jonathan Kirsch, published 2006 by HarperSanFrancisco. I have no doubt many theologians and religious persons of various convictions can quarrel with this book, despite the fact it was heavily researched.
The phenomenum of the politically involved fundamentalists is a significant political thread in the modern United States; many of its implications are truly frightening. I do not mean to lump all Christians or even all self-designated born-again Christians in a single monolithic category. However, I maintain that religion, at least as it inserts itself into politics, can no longer be off limits. It is unfortunate if talking about it annoys some. So be it.
What I want from this community on Raising Kaine is some help here: my post raises some questions about the results of the ever-deeper mixing of a Revealtions-based theology into the government of our republic--- an intermingling that may be rationalized but simply cannot be denied. I personally do NOT believe this is a good thing, and it may in fact be fatal, not just to our Constitution and our republic, but possibly even to the world in general, especially as the phenomenum is running up on a similarly faith-sponsored Islamic militancy--- at the same time our capitalist economic system is undergoing a mutation on a global scale.
My question is: how should we Americans deal with our particular manifestation of this religious excess? And, therefore, how should Democrats deal with it? Yes, it's a touchy subject, but it is no longer off-limits since the religious group has intruded itself very firmly and deliberately into political discourse and has sought (and gained) political power.
I'm curious to know what you consider "dead-end philosophizing". I hope it's not criticizing religion, I thought that's what this discussion was about.
Secular Humanists have languished in this country for 25+ years because they've taken a very "live and let live" attude and have been very careful not to stir the pot. As you point out, in that same time period, we have seen the ascension of Christian Fundamentalism to the highest levels of power. They don't practice "live and let live". I don't know how many Secular Humanist books have ever made the bestseller list, but my guess is: none. Recently we have seen several books on atheism hit the bestseller list by doing what I'm doing. Taking religion head-on and putting it in it's place. Now these authors have taken thier views to the TV and other mainstream media outlets. We are now having a serious conversation about the problems and dangers religion present us.
I am not intending to offend anyone, that's not what this is about. I am, however, fully aware that people will be offended by what I say and think. This is unfortunate, but I see no other way.
That's my very sincere opinion.
Again, talking about the situation is the first step, but where do we go from here? Example: in the alienation and fear of culture shock found among so many on the religious right is there perhaps a way for the progressive message to wean them away from Doomsday and back into practical political and economic change?
The fundamentalists are wrong on RELIGIOUS grounds. And Democratic positions are more in favor of RELIGIOUS views, and have been since at least the 1960s. So don't drive away a traditional Democratic constituency that holds mainstream religious views, and believes strongly in the Bible's message of compassion. Whether you hear about it in the mainstream media or not, they are a large part of the Democratic party's base, and are the answer to your questions above.
It is the Republicans (I was one for much of my life, so I see it clearly) who have utilized the votes of the far right, and encouraged them in their Revelatory delusions, dragging along with them others, some of whom feel alienated and ignored in the culture war, and some of whom who may have uneasy feelings about the extremists but are easily influenced. The basic core True Believer is not going to change; some of those others, can and will if properly motivated, and some will find they do not want to indulge in politics any more at the same level, but will concentrate on their religious life. I leave it to the moderate religious leaders to tackle the religious side of these Revelation cults (for that is what they are, regardless of how big the meg church may)