[extropy-chat] What is worse: hammer and sickle or cross?

[Gennady Ra]

At 05:41 AM 11/8/04 -0800, you  Al Brooks wrote: 

>Get a hold of yourself, Gennady. At one time the cross was worse, but after 
>the purges of 1936-39 the hammer & sickle outdid the cross at murder and 
>mind control. You know that.

>> (And what is worse: hammer and sickle or cross?) 
>>Gennady

Those who rallied under hammer and sickle killed millions of people but 
never dreamed of  Apocalypse and death of billions of infidels as do those 
who rally under one Cross, one God and one President. See the article Jesus 
and Jihad below. Unbelievable, but the best-selling novels for adults in the 
United States, the "Left Behind" series of evangelical thrillers, are the 
books where millions of Americans can delight in juicy details of a bloody 
Second Coming and annihilation of all non-Christians. They literally follow 
the Revelation in their most cherished reveries and, nightmarishly, the 
American President is one of them. How far the Christian ayatollahs, the 
exact counterparts of Islamic species, with the only difference that the 
former are equipped with the Bible as a guidebook, with enormous, absolute 
power in their hands and supertechnologies and might of only remaining 
superpower, are ready to go with afterelection preponderance in 4 million 
and how much may be imposed upon all of us in the real world? How soon will 
nano-Jesus come and what the Dies Irae will he prepare for us? How much fun 
and mind and body control can we expect in chiliastic interval before that? 
Won't the perpetual progress be arrested in the manageable static 
theofascist quasi-Singularity of eternal dystopia? What is worse and more 
dangerous for the future of the civilization: hammer and sickle or cross, 
Cote d'Ivoire with missiles or the Christian ayatollahs with full-fledged 
NBIC, the Bible or Communist Manifesto?

Gennady
Simferopol Crimea Ukraine
========================
Jesus and Jihad
    By Nicholas D. Kristoff
    New York Times

    Saturday 17 July 2004

    If the latest in the "Left Behind" series of evangelical thrillers is to be believed, Jesus will return to Earth, gather non-Christians to his left and toss them into everlasting fire:

    "Jesus merely raised one hand a few inches and a yawning chasm opened in the earth, stretching far and wide enough to swallow all of them. They tumbled in, howling and screeching, but their wailing was soon quashed and all was silent when the earth closed itself again."

    These are the best-selling novels for adults in the United States, and they have sold more than 60 million copies worldwide. The latest is "Glorious Appearing," which has Jesus returning to Earth to wipe all non-Christians from the planet. It's disconcerting to find ethnic cleansing celebrated as the height of piety.

    If a Muslim were to write an Islamic version of "Glorious Appearing" and publish it in Saudi Arabia, jubilantly describing a massacre of millions of non-Muslims by God, we would have a fit. We have quite properly linked the fundamentalist religious tracts of Islam with the intolerance they nurture, and it's time to remove the motes from our own eyes.

    In "Glorious Appearing," Jesus merely speaks and the bodies of the enemy are ripped open. Christians have to drive carefully to avoid "hitting splayed and filleted bodies of men and women and horses."

    "The riders not thrown," the novel continues, "leaped from their horses and tried to control them with the reins, but even as they struggled, their own flesh dissolved, their eyes melted and their tongues disintegrated. . . . Seconds later the same plague afflicted the horses, their flesh and eyes and tongues melting away, leaving grotesque skeletons standing, before they, too, rattled to the pavement."

    One might have thought that Jesus would be more of an animal lover.

    These scenes also raise an eschatological problem: Could devout fundamentalists really enjoy paradise as their friends, relatives and neighbors were heaved into hell?

    As my Times colleague David Kirkpatrick noted in an article, this portrayal of a bloody Second Coming reflects a shift in American portrayals of Jesus, from a gentle Mister Rogers figure to a martial messiah presiding over a sea of blood. Militant Christianity rises to confront Militant Islam.

    This matters in the real world, in the same way that fundamentalist Islamic tracts in Saudi Arabia do. Each form of fundamentalism creates a stark moral division between decent, pious types like oneself - and infidels headed for hell.

    No, I don't think the readers of "Glorious Appearing" will ram planes into buildings. But we did imprison thousands of Muslims here and abroad after 9/11, and ordinary Americans joined in the torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib in part because of a lack of empathy for the prisoners. It's harder to feel empathy for such people if we regard them as infidels and expect Jesus to dissolve their tongues and eyes any day now.

    I had reservations about writing this column because I don't want to mock anyone's religious beliefs, and millions of Americans think "Glorious Appearing" describes God's will. Yet ultimately I think it's a mistake to treat religion as a taboo, either in this country or in Saudi Arabia.

    I often write about religion precisely because faith has a vast impact on society. Since I've praised the work that evangelicals do in the third world (Christian aid groups are being particularly helpful in Sudan, at a time when most of the world has done nothing about the genocide there), I also feel a responsibility to protest intolerance at home.

    Should we really give intolerance a pass if it is rooted in religious faith?

    Many American Christians once read the Bible to mean that African-Americans were cursed as descendants of Noah's son Ham, and were intended by God to be enslaved. In the 19th century, millions of Americans sincerely accepted this Biblical justification for slavery as God's word - but surely it would have been wrong to defer to such racist nonsense simply because speaking out could have been perceived as denigrating some people's religious faith.

    People have the right to believe in a racist God, or a God who throws millions of nonevangelicals into hell. I don't think we should ban books that say that. But we should be embarrassed when our best-selling books gleefully celebrate religious intolerance and violence against infidels.

    That's not what America stands for, and I doubt that it's what God stands for.