How can I get in on this gravy train? I may be a city-dweller, but I daresay I am qualified to handle pets large and small, plus any livestock, in the event of the Rapture.

Yeah, you know what? Fleecing the believers is just as bad when atheists do it as when priests do it. I see no difference between this and some huckster selling snake oil for a disease that doesn’t exist. This is absolutely disgraceful.

Eh. Stealing money by taking advantage of stupid people is still stealing. I don’t want to concern troll anyone, but I think this is giving in to a low impulse.

Maybe, Left Wing Fox, but at this point, I’d just say “caveat emptor”.

I wish I thought of this, this is awesome.

There’s a slight difference- these people aren’t telling them they’re going to hell if they don’t pay up. They’re not encouraging ignorance; if anything, they’re subverting it.

Anyway, I wouldn’t take this too seriously as an attempt to fleece the poor, innocent believers. It seems to be just a more elaborate version of the “in case of rapture, can I have your car?” bumper sticker- I can’t see them actually making money off this.

GREAT catch, Pam!

There are times when pragmatism overrides pure morality, Left_Wing_Fox.  If the fundies don’t shell out $110 each to disingenuous atheists to care for their pets in the event of a Rapture, that money will only go to worse deceivers: Pat Robertson, Bob Jones University, et cetera.  It’s better to minimize the harm.

To my mind, fundies who believe in the Rapture are the worst of the self-righteous, and there can be no worse perversion of Christianity than the notion that it is an exclusive club, and that all non-members deserve the torments of Hell.  Good grief, what kind of bloated sense of moral superiority and entitlement do you have to have, and what kind of anthropocentric God do you have to worship, in order to believe that you are entitled to eternal life in Heaven, but your poor pet isn’t?

Betting that the Rapture won’t happen is a lot better than betting that global warming isn’t happening - which is what the fundies do, and they spend a lot of money to strengthen this delusion and to stop our government from doing anything about global climate change.  Please, let just a little of the fundies’ money go to atheists instead!

This. Is. Brilliant.

This sets up quite the dilemma, doesn’t it? Either they take pay up and ensure that their pets are cared for, proving they’re good believers and good pet owners or.... they don’t pay up making them doubters and irresponsible pet owners. Heh.

Sublime.

I really hope this is a joke, because it’s a GOOD one.  As far as I can tell, this does nothing but expose how ridiculous the idea of rapture is, how its collisions with the real world result in preposterous illogic.

Once again I am reminded of how rich I could be, and how little effort I would need to exert to become so, if only I had no ethics.

I just assured the cats that they live in a Jewish home, so come the rapture I may be persecuted and tried to be converted, but that’s really nothing new to our people and shouldn’t interfere with their wet food schedule.

Even pragmatists have second thoughts.  In my previous posting, I exulted in the poetic justice of atheists making a tidy dollar by offering to care for dogs and cats abandoned by the Rapture.  But now, I’m starting to think about more prosaic justice, specifically our own justice system.

I’m no lawyer, but if you’re an atheist considering joining Bart Centre with an offer to care for “left behind” pets, I think you should make sure that pets are allowed in your apartment and that you have no allergies against them.

I say this not because I believe the Rapture will happen, but because I believe if you offer a service and it is obvious that you never intend to make good on your offer, it could be an actionable offense.  You could get targeted by a successful lawsuit.  Fundies DO sue.  And some of them can afford really nasty lawyers who are fundies themselves.  They would love nothing better than to sue the pants off a bunch of self-declared atheists.

There are times when pragmatism overrides pure morality, Left_Wing_Fox.

I keep hearing that argument from the folks on the side of war and torture. It’s bullshit. Morality is logical and pragmatic. Torture is not merely immoral, but it’s less effective than gathering information that traditional rapport-based police interrogation techniques. Not only is war immoral, but it’s ineffective at imposing a functional. Not only is prosecuting scammers moral, but it allows us to maintain a functioning market.

How is this _ANY_ different than me trying to sell $110 magnetic bracelets to prevent Morgellons Syndrome? Or Selling you the magic $110 diet to ease the symptoms of Chronic Lyme Disease? Neither of those are recognized diseases either, so you’ll never get them. But I could probably sell a lot of snake oil on the gulllible people who believe that. And there are plenty of liberals who do, including some folks I happen to respect otherwise.

If this is satire then fine. Bad taste hurt no-one, who cares, it’s free speech, ignore me. But cheering this type of scam on is the same sort of tribalism substituting itself for a moral framework that we expect from the authoritarian right and Wall Street. I have no sympathy for fellow atheists using these snake-oil tactics.

*Not only is war immoral, but it’s ineffective at imposing a functional civil society in it’s wake if the fundimetal issues are unsolved.

Sorry, should really start previewing my posts.

They say up-front they don’t believe in the Rapture. As long as everyone involved can actually care for the pets in case of Rapture, I think it’s not a scam, but a silly insurance policy, and an attempt at jolting critical thinking.

Furthermore, the Rapture believers? Aren’t going to let any nasty atheist touch their pets.

“How is this _ANY_ different than me trying to sell $110 magnetic bracelets to prevent Morgellons Syndrome?”

1) buy this magnetic bracelet, secret wisdom of the ancients, see all the testomonials of how it prevents Morgellons Syndrome, yours for only $110

2) this magnetic bracelet I have wont do you a damn bit of good, its all bullshit and youre a fool for believing in it, but if you want to buy from me anyway, the price is 110 bucks

not the same thing at all

Not only is war immoral, but it’s ineffective at imposing a functional civil society in it’s wake if the fundimetal issues are unsolved.

Wow, that’s one hell of a loophole there, ain’t it?  Because one when comes up with a counterexample, well all you have to say something about the fundamentals and move the goalposts.

For the record, Japan and West Germany seemed to have a functional civil society after they were conquered and such imposed on them.  And if war is immoral (all the time?), then you have by implication taken the position that good can come out of immoral behaviour.  Unless you consider the end of slavery in the US a bad thing.

I think this is what they call an Idiot Tax.

It also feel like an inversion of that joke that even priests look both ways before crossing the road or have insurance. I guess its possible that the world might soon find out how many people really really believe jeebus is going to kidnap them and their loved ones.

I dont really disagree with your overall point, but

“then you have by implication taken the position that good can come out of immoral behaviour”

the above is not an absurd position to take

the statements:
1) War is a bad thing. 
2) Even “Good Wars” are bad,
3) they may even be the least bad alternative, but they are still bad

Are not contradictions

When I first heard about the kinds of idiotic low-budget, high-margin crap that Wall Street brokers and other people with orders of magnitude more money than good sense buy (NoKa chocolates come to mind, as does anything that Sharper Image ("yesterday’s technology at tomorrow’s bleeding edge prices") sold), it occurred to me that there’s a huge market for that sort of thing, and one could get rich just parasiting gullible rich idiots.

But then a thought occurred to me: there are plenty of people who are going to assume that these things are higher-quality than most, and will want them even though they can’t reasonably afford them. You can’t run a business like that and warn off people who don’t deserve to be scammed or you’ll blow the gaffe. That, fundamentally, is the ethical issue that this particular business embodies—not every rapture believer is a fire-breathing wingnut. Some are just along for the ride.

I wouldn’t mind it as a joke website, but actually putting a payment button on there?  Uh, no, sorry, that crosses the line from parody into fraud.  The fact that there are some people out there crazy or stupid enough to pay you for a useless service doesn’t mean that you should take their money.

How would you feel if you found out that your right-wing grandmother with late-stage dementia had paid them $110 to take care of her dog in case she really does get raptured?  I have a feeling it won’t feel quite as righteous when it turns out to be your own impaired family members who fall for it.

Mnemosyne, I think I would feel like a pretty bad granddaughter if my late-stage dementia grandmother couldn’t afford to lose the $110 and clearly had no one in our family looking out for her. 

As other posters have noted, I would also be pretty upset if she gave $110 to the RNC or an anti-choice group.  Also, I would think that she needed a family member to look after her a bit better if she purchased $110 worth of Girl Scout cookies, magazine subscriptions, or lottery tickets.  I don’t think that any of these asking for money (even for worthless products/ideologies) is immoral or fraudulent.

And what better way to celebrate the Rapture (and the accompanying loss of a group of people who make the world more unpleasant) than by converting a new puppy to atheism?

I think this is what they call an Idiot Tax.

This.

I wouldn’t feel one iota of guilt for taking money off these people, who are not only blithering idiots but who actively look forward to watching the rest of us burn as Jeezus rapchaz them up into teh hebbunz.

Mnemosyne:

How would you feel if you found out that your right-wing grandmother with late-stage dementia had paid them $110 to take care of her dog in case she really does get raptured?

If I had had a right-wing grandmother, I doubt she and I would have spoken to one another once I became a thinking adult. I’m not particularly moved by the idea that because I share DNA with someone, that means I should be loyal to them even if they’re attempting to undercut my well-being by political means. It’d be up to any children she hadn’t alienated to protect her from this scheme. If she’d driven ‘em all away...aw, too bad, so sad. Bed, made, lie.

Oh, and I should add, there’s a shitload of overlap between fundie xtians and people who think that pets are disposable, because gaawwwrrrrd gave man dominion over the animals, animals don’t have “souls,” and treating animals kindly instead of showing ‘em who’s boss by running them over or torturing them would violate their precious cosmic hierarchy. The states most afflicted with animal cruelty are also the states with the highest numbers of babble-thumpers.

So I kinda doubt there’d be a huge demand for this.

Hmm, last night’s post got eaten somewhere along the line. Lemme try that again.

My problem is that this is similar to the “Quack Miranda” used by alternative medicine peddlers: “This product is not intended to treat or cure diseases, and has not been tested by the FDA for safety of effectiveness.” While the intent is to warn consumers that the product is useless, it’s being marketed to people swimming in an anti-science and anti-government culture. To those who buy these products, most see it as the way the companies protect themselves from Big Pharma and Big Govt, instead of protecting them from the consumers.

Well, these guys are a little more explicit about their “Quack Miranda”, but it’s still aimed at a group of people steeped in the culture of Rapture as fact. If they’re taking that money, then it’s not trying to change that culture, or go after the people abusing the delusional for personal gain: they’re just another parasite preying on the rubes.

Frankly, knowing that some deluded, well-meaning person out there is going to lose their hard-earned money to feel good about something they shouldn’t have felt bad about in the first place doesn’t sit well with me, no matter who does it to them. The fact that it’s an atheist conning them and being cheered on makes me remember why I was so reluctant to admit being an atheist myself: “But I’m RIGHT, so it’s ok” tribalist bullshit is unimpressive no matter what belief system it sits with.

And the reply to Keith M:

For the record, Japan and West Germany seemed to have a functional civil society after they were conquered and such imposed on them.  And if war is immoral (all the time?), then you have by implication taken the position that good can come out of immoral behaviour.  Unless you consider the end of slavery in the US a bad thing.

Good things _can_ come from immoral behavior; the reason they are immoral is because the negative consequences of the action outweigh the good, not because there is no possible good that can come out of them.

Why did the end of slavery in the US require a civil war? Most other nations repealed slavery through legislative processes, not violent uprisings. It cost the United States 650,000 soldiers, and uncounted civilian casualties, murders, and rapes, not to mention the economic and political destabilization in the wake of the war. We’re still living with the consequences of that action in the legacy of racism and southern politics. Had the founding fathers, or early presidents/congressional groups been tougher on pushing for abolition,

WW2 is even worse. The reason we rebuild Japan and Germany after WW2 is because the punishing Treaty of Versailles created the economic conditions and national anger that allowed Hitler to rise from fringe nut-job to political leader. Had we rebuild Germany instead of punishing them after WW1, perhaps WW2 need never have been fought in the first place. That’s 22-25 million soldiers dead, and upwards of 70 Million dead civilians, plus the other casualties of war. Few other wars in our history have been even that clear-cut in achieving their aims.

The cost of war is too damn high. It may be, as jefft452, the least bad alternative, but there are so many other alternatives that could be taken long war becomes a tragic necessity.

As far as I’m concerned, adult, autonomous people are entitled to make choices about where and when they spend their money.  It’s their money.  If you waste your time worrying about people spending money on useless things they don’t need, you seriously won’t have time to worry about much of anything else.

The fact that you and I know that magnetic bracelets don’t do shit and that there is no such thing as the Rapture doesn’t pertain in the slightest.  If as something is labelled and sold as hooey from the start and people still want to buy it, then that’s up to them.  The placebo effect actually does give some people relief, and this Rapture service might give some people emotional relief so that they don’t have to worry about their pets.  Honestly, what’s the harm?

Had the founding fathers, or early presidents/congressional groups been tougher on pushing for abolition,

there would have been more than one country between Mexico and Canada, but only one without slavery.

I’m not trying to pull the obnoxious trolling meme of “finished that for ya”.  But I noticed you left that sentence incomplete. It’s not a simple either/or, and it is dangerous to assume that it ever was.

I’ve posted elsewhere on Pandagon how the compromises of the Constitution and Congressional delegations were the only effective way to fight slaveholders, by keeping them in a Union that they valued. The South would have made their own country at any of these “tougher” points, and then pressuring a foreign country to change is very very different than working to change one’s own, as Britain’s double standards toward foreign slavery during the period proves. Who would invade a sovereign nation just to stop its slavery? It played out much the way it had to, and still is.

...

As for Rapture insurance, Left_Wing_Fox? Money and its loss is a shallow yardstick for morality, let alone ethics. If their licenses are in order, and their claims of readiness are verifiable, then they have a unique and legitimate business. Even an honest one (jefft452 at #18 nails it).

I would be interested to know how they would determine the difference between a genuine miraculous event, and, say mercenaries “disappearing” families of believers. The lawsuit possibilities should be considered, but even those might benefit those whose wish to make believers in the Rapture look foolish.

Yamara: Fair enough on the founding fathers. The general point I was trying to make is that calling the Civil War “good” because it ended slavery ignores the tremendous costs of the war, while ignoring that other nations managed to abolish slavery through legislative means, as opposed to military means.

As for the Rapture insurance, it still feels completely sleazy. I mean, isn’t a big part of the reason we object to irrational delusions is because they make people vulnerable to scam artists and quacks? These guys aren’t trying to change that culture, they’re just trying to make a buck off it and feel morally superior to the rubes. All the justification about “Idiot Tax” and generalizations about “People who believe in the Rapture are bad people who deserve to have their money taken away” sound no different to my ears than any other two-bit scam artist trying to justify their own immorality.

For the record, Japan and West Germany seemed to have a functional civil society after they were conquered and such imposed on them.

I can’t speak for West Germany, but saying Japan has a functional civil society after WWII is a bit of an oversimplification. Japan’s been a one party state for about sixty years, and LDP hegemony has only been ended THIS YEAR. Also, many Liberal Democratic Party politicians were war criminals from WWII who were now considered indispensable in the fight against communism, and supported by the US through CIA funding and sabotage.

This is not to say the occupation did not accomplish anything, as FDR’s New Dealers did a lot of good before the Republican started to roll back many of the changes they implemented (Japanese constitution contains an ERA). Of course, the Japanese did a lot of good in Korea, too, by banning slavery and abolishing the aristocracy that was hoarding all of the wealth and education. Before the comfort women and slaughter, of course.

But to say war leaves a vibrant civil society in its wake is nonsense. Many Japanese commentators believe their democracy is inherently flawed because they never had to fight for it.

Finally overthrowing the LDP is a bit of a hollow victory as well. If you ask many Japanese, there’s no idealism or pressing issues driving the decision at all. It was just a matter of finally getting rid of the LDP, which is only able to cling to power because of its iron grip on the rural districts.

They have done studies, and they have found that the Japanese born before WWII, who came of age under the Emperor System, tend to exchange their vote for pork spent in the district, or because respected members of the community (doctors, mayors) have said that they will vote a certain way, and it would be appropriate to vote in the same way to pay respect. I’m sure the same can be said of many areas of America, but to pretend that we built a democracy is a dangerous presumption: One that leads people to start wars thinking we can do it again.

There also seems to be a fundamental difference between magnetic woo and this.  If I offer you The Secret in lieu of cancer treatment or prayer instead of a blood transfusion then you are forgoing necessary medical care for religious faith.  And, the thing is, we let people do that. 

In this case, true believers are getting piece of mind and it costs them $110.  It is unlikely they are forgoing anything life-saving for this care.  Best case scenario, they discuss this with people they know who laugh at them and their superstitions are challenged. 

And I notice that they are donating a portion of their profits to food banks.

Left Wing Fox—slavery was always abolished through military means.  Pretending otherwise is moronic.  At the end of the day, one group of people told another group of people to give up the slaves or have the government come and take them.

Some slavers were so devoted to the idea of being slavers that they tried to fight wars to keep their slaves.  We call those people “Southerners.” Other people weren’t as attached to the notion, so they could be bought off.  But the dynamic is always the same; people without slaves rammed the reform down the throats of the people with slaves, who fought or did not fight according to their own dispositions.

Stupid, gullible people gave $110 or more to Jerry Falwell in order to feel better about their own mortality. Why shouldn’t they pay $110 to someone who is then actually contractually obligated to provide them a service? Seems to me the pet care service is operating with more honesty than that pile of sulphurous assvomit Jerry Falwell ever did. “We think you’re idiots, but if your fantasies DO come true, since we entered into a legal work agreement and you paid us, we’ll take care of your pets.” vs. “God loves you and he needs you to give me money. Because I said so.” At least the pet service isn’t promising something they can’t guarantee.

Keori: Srsly.

This “We have to be better than they are” shit gets old. It really does.

Would it be immoral to place a bet with a rapture believer on whether the rapture would take place? No services, no nothing. He simply gives you $110 now, and you agree to donate some large sum to a favored cause if it does (including, presumably, him). I don’t think that’s immoral, any more than it would have been to place a bet with a White Sox fan of a similar structure. Where does my argument go wrong, and, if it doesn’t, what’s the relevant distinction between a monetary and a service end to your bet?

Keori: Srsly.

This “We have to be better than they are” shit gets old. It really does.
Comment #36: Nobody in Particular on 10/25 at 01:52 PM

THIS X 1,000,000. There’s a big difference between being a liberal or being a bed wetting liberal.  Also: I’ve never thought fundies gave a rats patoot about animals anyways, so I doubt if this would work.

I don’t think that’s immoral, any more than it would have been to place a bet with a White Sox fan of a similar structure.

Betting for the rapture is more like betting that Bud Selig will schedule an emergency world series tomorrow between the Nationals and the Red Sox “for the good of the game.” There are no odds that should persuade a person to take that bet, so if you find someone willing to make that bet, it is on some level exploitative.

But as others have said, what they are offering here is peace of mind, which is the same thing that magnetic bracelets etc. offer.

How many of those who believe in the Rapture would fear leaving their pets in the care of atheists?
Surely once all the Christians have gone there will be no one to stop the atheists marrying their left-behind pets.

Or having them adopted by homosexuals.

This “We have to be better than they are” shit gets old. It really does.

Agreed to the extent that far too often, liberals have been allowing themselves to get needlessly suckerpunched and bullied around by conservatives when they shouldn’t be.

But there is a genuine value in the belief that “we are better than that”.

Case in point, torture.

Conservatives are quick to justify torture by using examples of what some militant jihadists have done to captured Americans… namely, cutting their heads off on video and putting it up on the Internet.

The conservative response when liberals object to the use of torture is often, “What the fuck?  You’re whining about splashing water on people’s faces when they are cutting our heads off when they have us in captivity?”

Part of the reason why we argue against the use of torture, even though our opponents have been willing to use torture on our captured troops, is that we are supposed to be better than that.

I do think liberals have a tendency to take the whole “we’re better than that” meme to an extreme that winds up hurting our side, but I don’t think it’s a totally invalid belief.

Would our side benefit if one of us were to go blow Randall Terry’s brains out at his church as retribution for the assassination of Dr. Tiller, and publicly state that we did it to prevent him from continuing to terrorize women and doctors?

Would we gain anything from that?

Don’t get me wrong… sometimes those assholes make me so angry that I truly do wish something like that would happen.  Hell, the other day I posted that I hoped that someone would take Rush Limbaugh out.

But really, I’m not sure if we win if we start resorting to their tactics.  Because that isn’t gonna scare them into submission, it’s just gonna rile them up even more.  And they’ll simply retaliate, quickly.

The fact is, we’re just not as good at being bloody eliminationists (in the literal sense) as they are.  And thank discoball, because if we were, and actually followed through with it, this country would devolve into Bosnia mid-1990s in a matter of weeks.

I believe we really do gain something by maintaining a bit of moral highground in all of this.  They are being further marginalized everyday.  That doesn’t mean we should behave like doormats, but it does mean that we should be hesitant to cross some lines that they seem to have no problem crossing.  Namely, acts of bloody mayhem.  Obviously, you have a right to defend yourself if you are in genuine imminent physical danger.  But purely retaliatory eye-for-an-eye bloodshed ain’t gonna fix a damn thing.

There are no odds that should persuade a person to take that bet, so if you find someone willing to make that bet, it is on some level exploitative.

Tree, it may be exploitative in spirit, but as I said previously, if the bet swings in favor of the party placing it, at least in this case the losing party is still under contractual obligation to provide the pet care service. The letter of the law favors the consumer paying the $110 for the guarantee of service should X event occur. There’s absolutely no false advertising going on here, which is more than can be said for the moneychangers scaring these same idiots into handing over cash for a televangelist’s slush fund.

Or, in a nutshell, these people have devoted their lives to turning my country into the Republic of Gilead, and I’m supposed to feel bad for them because they pay money to enter into a legally binding work contract?

Not in this lifetime. And probably not the next one, either.

While we argue back and forth about whether charging Christians for a post-Rapture pet adoption service is immoral, they go out and shoot doctors and pet store protesters. This is why I have no confidence that our side will win anything.

Of course, the Japanese did a lot of good in Korea, too, by banning slavery and abolishing the aristocracy that was hoarding all of the wealth and education.

This statement is problematic on many levels. 

For starters, the Japanese Empire didn’t actually eliminate the Korean aristocracy, but actually subordinated them under the Japanese aristocracy.....a factor in the intermarriage of Japanese aristocrats into the Korean royal family/aristocracy.  In fact, several Korean officials/aristocrats who were infamous for acting to facilitate Japan’s annexation of Korea in 1910 ended up gaining many aristocratic titles and honors under the Japanese peerage system. 

As for the hoarding of all the wealth and education, Japan was only slightly better in this regard as coming from an aristocratic family provided far more advantages for one to gain entrance into better colleges and government/military/industrial positions.  Not too surprising considering many of the top government, military and major industrial corporate leadership positions were dominated by aristocrats and high ranking ex-daimyo/samurai with such dominance only tapering off around the tail end of the Taisho/early Showa periods.  Heck, one college in particular, Gakushūin used to only accept students from aristocratic families at first and only opened their institution to all commoners after WWII.  While Imperial Japan rapidly modernized in many areas, it was certainly nowhere near the more enlightened egalitarian society the argument above that the argument above implies. 

Secondly, this whole argument smacks too much of colonialist apologia that has been practiced too much by European and Japanese colonialist apologists seeking to downplay/eliminate any discussion of the severe negative effects of their respective nations’ colonialist practices.  Not only does this obscure those effects, but doing so with arguments such as the above can easily be taken as making a good case to justify such colonialist practices.  A practice that is more appropriate for a right-wing glorifier/polemicist of colonialism such as those of the Japanese extreme right wing....not a sensible student of Japanese, Korean, or East Asian history.

As far as I’m concerned, adult, autonomous people are entitled to make choices about where and when they spend their money.  It’s their money.  If you waste your time worrying about people spending money on useless things they don’t need, you seriously won’t have time to worry about much of anything else.

Agreed.  If the seller has transparently laid out all the facts out there and the buyer still insists on paying for said good/service, the onus is completely on the buyer IMO. 

In this case, the seller also went beyond his/her duty by saying s(he) doesn’t believe in the Rapture and thus, indirectly attempting to educate the potential buyer about the dubiousness of the enterprise/buyer’s belief system which reinforces the onus on the buyer....

DTG, we’re talking about a pet adoption service that the fundies are free to decline. You’re bringing up strawliberals who would murder Randall Terry or torture prisoners. We already are better than they are, because we don’t do things like that. Wringing our hands over whether it’s mean to charge a few delusional, bigoted idiots for a service that would be rendered if their apocalyptic wet dreams were to come true? GMAFB.

Also, when precisely did “stupid people” become some kind of protected class? That’s political correctness gone haywire.

Or, in a nutshell, these people have devoted their lives to turning my country into the Republic of Gilead, and I’m supposed to feel bad for them because they pay money to enter into a legally binding work contract?

That argument doesn’t sway me. If it’s immoral to do something, it’s immoral to do that thing to the worst person in the world. (Disregarding situational questions, i.e., it is moral to handcuff criminals, not because they’re bad people, but because they are about to punch you in the face).

I guess the question is whether you consider the belief that the rapture will occur as legitimately held. Of course it would be wrong to play tic-tac-toe for a dollar a game against four year olds, or the mentally incapable. But I don’t see anything wrong with playing it against an adult. Although I guess it would rub me wrong if they kept losing, and you kept playing. hmm. I might need to reconsider my position on that.

A practice that is more appropriate for a right-wing glorifier/polemicist of colonialism such as those of the Japanese extreme right wing....not a sensible student of Japanese, Korean, or East Asian history.

I realize I left myself open to misunderstanding. I meant to compare Japan’s improvements of Korea with America’s improvements of Japan in discussing how war makes primitive societies better. Since Japan is widely acknowledged to have been a horror in Asia, I thought it would be more obvious that I wasn’t defending Japanese imperialism. I forget on the internet sarcasm doesn’t exist, especially when there are so many that will defend any atrocity.

No, Japan didn’t eliminate the yangban aristocracy at all. When they were given free hand in Korea, after being China and Russia in wars, however, they did start off with a series of laws such as the abolition of slavery that prove just how awesome war can be in creating an ideal society. But, no the aristocracy was basically used by the Japanese to help run their colonial government.

Anyway, my basic point was that war creates democracy is a dangerous idea, as much as when the Japanese were going to save Koreans from themselves to when Americans were going to reform the Japanese.

I’m exhausted and I’m working, so my brain isn’t firing on all cylinders. Anyway, my point was democracy at the point of a gun = lie.

DTG, we’re talking about a pet adoption service that the fundies are free to decline. You’re bringing up strawliberals who would murder Randall Terry or torture prisoners. We already are better than they are, because we don’t do things like that. Wringing our hands over whether it’s mean to charge a few delusional, bigoted idiots for a service that would be rendered if their apocalyptic wet dreams were to come true? GMAFB.

Also, when precisely did “stupid people” become some kind of protected class? That’s political correctness gone haywire.

Sorry, I should have clarified myself better… on this particular issue, petcare insurance for rapture-believing morons, yeah, I agree the whole “we’re better than that” argument is totally absurd.

I’m with you 100%… as Thomas Tusser once said, “A fool and his money are soon parted”.

I was speaking to much bigger issues, ie advocating violent revenge when someone on our side is the victim of violence.

See, Eri, this is why liberals are stereotyped for being pearl-clutching pansies. Idiot A enters into legally binding contract with Entrepreneur B, Idiot A is still being guaranteed a service in the event that Fantasy 1 happens. Idiot A hands same amount of money over to Soulless Evangelist C on same premise, despite the fact that no guarantee can be made. And you wring your hands over Entrepreneur B’s actions?

Christ on a rotating water cracker, get out of the house more.

“We have to be better than they are” shit gets old. It really does.”
I agree as well.
These people are raising money to ensure that I can’t marry or fight being discriminated at my job. If this takes even a little bit of their money away I say its a win. Screw them.

I wasn’t online yesterday, so I’m late to the party.  But, f#cking awesome.  This is brilliant - I wish I had thought of it!!!

:D

“We have to be better than they are” shit gets old. It really does.”

I don’t agree but I reckon the atheists at the pet store are probably libertarians. Anyone can see that there is something screwy about taking money from people who don’t know any better. Its like getting checks from people on an Alzheimer’s ward. Sure, they signed the checks themselves and at the point of signing they believe that it’s in their interest to sign but they have dementia.

The difference is that its may happen to a bunch of intolerant assholes who may or may not really believe in the rapture. I think the guy who shouts loudest about the rapture is probably the guy who feels the need to confirm his group membership the most rather than the guy who has the most ardent belief in a future where god swoops down and personally brings him to heaven. I think if anyone buys the insurance it will be so they can say that they did so at bible study. The sellers are exploiting insecurity rather than classifiable craziness.

I’d hate to think my fellow liberals would be cold and predatory enough to look at these sad fools and think to themselves “let’s take them for everything they’ve got. Everything” Atheist doesn’t mean liberal. I’d like to think liberals would let them know which way the wind is blowing. In fairness liberals have done so often enough but the conservatives, well they love to pretend to be deaf. Now, if you say you are a liberal and you have no problem exploiting this market the chances are you are a wall street liberal, or if you prefer fiscal conservative. So as a liberal I’ll admit I find one half of the republican party trying to scalp the other amusing but I wouldn’t be doing any scalping myself because that’s not in me. Mostly I’m wondering when the “believers” will admit that they heard the penny drop. If John Hinkle states that God’s true form is a hairless blue unicorn with a burning cross tattoo on its ass because the stain glass window company payed him to, will they reach into their pockets to pay for new stain glass windows?

Dude, are you okay?  Because these people are taking $100 from idiots, not getting them to sign mortgage documents.

hyperbole is a way of life

Pharmakos:

Anyone can see that there is something screwy about taking money from people who don’t know any better.

Uh.

From children? Yeah. From the developmentally disabled? Sure.

From adults who are old enough to know better, have the brain development to know better, but prefer to live in a fantasy world because it’s comfier?

I think Keori said it well at Comment #50.

Keori: Ok, I think you’re ignoring something. (to be fair, I didn’t say it). But here goes: I have moral views on every possible action (or strive to generate them). That means I can express mild disapproval of things that I’m mildly morally uncomfortable with. That doesn’t negate my abhorrence of things that are worse. Case in point: obviously, preachers who claim to believe in the rapture but don’t and use this to exhort money are worse than these “pet in case of rapture” service people could ever be. Does that suffice? The question at hand was the moral status of people who use the fact that someone who is a generally rational, capable adult holds irrational, false beliefs to get money from them. That makes me a bit morally wary. I’m allowed to be uncomfortable with the exploitation of others delusions without being a “pearl-clutching pansy.”

I think people are kind of missing the point. This isn’t “taking money from people who don’t know better.”

It’s providing a service. an EXPLICIT service. A promise of contractual protection in the event of a mass ascension to heaven that the subject believes will happen, and many believe will happen in their lifetime.

This is something I, as a generally kind of neurotic person, can relate to. You can think about things like “if I was hit by a car, what would happen to my family? my pets? my friends? how can I protect them” and have steps in place, like “fluffy will be cared for by my husband” or “my friend from school will look after him until we can find a home.” But if everyone you know might disappear?

it isn’t so much “here’s a service we’re actually providing right now.” it’s “I believe this may happen, and this allievates a concern I would have for the consequences.” It’s assuring them it’s alright for them to own a pet, because they won’t ever be forced to completely abandon that pet in a situation (which they believe irrationally) is far too likely.

Anyone watch House? Recent episode involved a guy who refused to date anyone and didn’t want children because he suspected he would die at 40 and not be there for them. It turned out, due to an absurd, unlikely fluke he was correct about having a condition, but his evidence was “my dad and grandfather both died shortly after they turned 40.” So it could easily be apophenia, and completely irrational and untruthful. Telling him “this is irrational, you will be fine, there is no condition” might solve the situation. But if he isn’t convinced otherwise, you can still assert “look, you can buy life insurance. I’ll volunteer as godfather for any children you have. They’ll be raised right. So live your life.” that extra safety net, knowing even if he died, things would work out, might encourage him to actually live and love.

and we all know that PMDs need to get some living and loving in, so telling them it’s okay, in event of rapture, shit you care about will be taken care of is a perfectly valid reassurance.

Eri,

Please see AdamN’s comment at #51.

I agree with him.

There is nothing illegal about what Rapture pet caretakers are doing. And if it means less money donated to voter campaigns to take away my right to get married, or my right to work without being fired for who I go home to at night, I don’t care if some people are “mildly morally uncomfortable” with it. I’m more than a little “mildly morally uncomfortable” with their church-sponsored continual assault on my basic human rights as a woman and a gay person

Fuck them. If they want to save their money, they can leave their hate-group-masquerading-as-religion. They’ll find that not having someone mandate 10% of your pre-tax income going into a preacher’s personal slush fund leaves a lot more spare change around the house.

I also agree with Seebach’s comment at #43. While you’re wringing your hands and looking down your nose at people doing something perfectly legal, worrying about how worried it makes you feel, those same “poor gullible” fascists are out there killing doctors, bombing clinics, justifying the abuse of women and children, and agitating for gay people to be killed, jailed, deported, quarantined in camps, and stripped of all Constitutional rights.

This is why our side continues to lose: we’re so concerned about being niiiiiiiiiiiiiiice, about reaching out to these shitstains that we forget a critical point - they’ve declared war on us and are willing to do anything to drive this country into the ground.

There’s also something fundamentally different between a prank and a con.  The first is designed to prove a point and puncture a balloon.  The second is designed to hurt people and take their money.  It’s more than a little clear which one this is.

If I had had a right-wing grandmother, I doubt she and I would have spoken to one another once I became a thinking adult. I’m not particularly moved by the idea that because I share DNA with someone, that means I should be loyal to them even if they’re attempting to undercut my well-being by political means. It’d be up to any children she hadn’t alienated to protect her from this scheme. If she’d driven ‘em all away...aw, too bad, so sad. Bed, made, lie.

Wow, dude, bitter much?  I really don’t understand this current fashion for declaring that if your family doesn’t agree with you politically, you should completely cut them out of your life.

Yes, my father listens to Rush Limbaugh every day.  Am I supposed to call him up and say, “Gee, thanks for raising me as a single father after Mom died and for the 40 years of love and support, but we don’t vote the same way and I just can’t be bothered with you anymore”?

Jesus, how cold do you have to be to declare that you can’t even have political differences with your own family members? I’m not talking about family members who have already rejected you or refuse to speak to you right now.  I’m talking about calling up your grandmother and saying, “Grandma, I just found out that you’ve been donating to the RNC and, well, thanks for all of the homemade cookies and the babysitting, but I’m afraid I just can’t speak to you any longer.”

I literally don’t understand that.  It sounds like you’ve joined a fucking cult.  If that’s your grand plan to advance liberal causes, you can count me out.

If I had had a right-wing grandmother, I doubt she and I would have spoken to one another once I became a thinking adult. I’m not particularly moved by the idea that because I share DNA with someone, that means I should be loyal to them even if they’re attempting to undercut my well-being by political means. It’d be up to any children she hadn’t alienated to protect her from this scheme. If she’d driven ‘em all away...aw, too bad, so sad. Bed, made, lie.

Wow, dude, bitter much?  I really don’t understand this current fashion for declaring that if your family doesn’t agree with you politically, you should completely cut them out of your life.

Yes, my father listens to Rush Limbaugh every day.  Am I supposed to call him up and say, “Gee, thanks for raising me as a single father after Mom died and for the 40 years of love and support, but we don’t vote the same way and I just can’t be bothered with you anymore”?

Jesus, how cold do you have to be to declare that you can’t even have political differences with your own family members? I’m not talking about family members who have already rejected you or refuse to speak to you right now.  I’m talking about calling up your grandmother and saying, “Grandma, I just found out that you’ve been donating to the RNC and, well, thanks for all of the homemade cookies and the babysitting, but I’m afraid I just can’t speak to you any longer.”

I literally don’t understand that.  It sounds like you’ve joined a fucking cult.  If that’s your grand plan to advance liberal causes, you can count me out.

Yeah, I’m kinda on the same page as you on this one, Mnem.

My father and my oldest brother are both pretty staunch conservatives, and pretty much only vote for Republicans.  I vehemently disagree with their politics and voting choices, but I generally deal with this by avoiding conversations about politics with either of them, because nothing good ever comes from it.  When politics do come up, usually at my father’s initiation, I change the subject to the Cardinals or the Rams or Mizzou, or some other generally non-controversial subject.  When he continues to press his political dialogue, I usually just smile and nod and pretend to be listening.  Sometimes, I do let myself get sucked in, and we always wind up fighting… we had a pretty big shouting match about Limbaugh’s racism last week, and he kept screaming about a St. Louis Post-Dispatch sportswriter who had printed alleged Limbaugh quotes which hadn’t been thoroughly vetted for accuracy.  It ended with me just walking away and saying “whatever”.

I don’t see my father or brother as “the enemy”, even though I think they are wrong about their beliefs.  I realize there is no absolute maxim that dictates that biological relationships demand loyalty, but I just can’t immediately dismiss my close family members simply because we disagree on politics.  That said, I don’t have as much problem writing off wingnut cousins as I would have writing off my dad.  In spite of his political beliefs, he did a pretty decent job of being my father, and my brother was a pretty decent brother growing up.  And I know that in spite of our differences, the affection we feel towards each other still far outweighs any tension caused by our political differences.  Had either of these people been abusive or cruel to me, I guess I would have an easier time writing them off, but then I wouldn’t really be dismissing them because of their politics, but rather because of their abusiveness.

Politics is important to me, but it isn’t so important that I demand absolute symmetry in political beliefs among those I include in my inner circle.  I definitely have a lot more liberal friends than conservative friends, and I generally avoid people who are extreme wingnuts, but I don’t consider every person who ever votes Republican to be an extreme wingnut, though many of them certainly are.  I won’t be friends with someone who is an obvious racist or misogynist, but I have kept friends who have expressed racially insensitive, sexist, and homophobic viewpoints.  I don’t mean people who regularly or egregiously do these things, just people who haven’t been perfect in their tolerance.

cont’d.

cont’d.

I believe the world to be filled with a lot of gray area.  The real danger in suggesting that everyone who voted for John McCain is the ideological equivalent of David Duke is that you diminish the egregiously offensive nature of David Duke.  You are suggesting that 46% of your fellow citizens are as disgustingly racist as David Duke.  It’s sort of like the hysteria that surrounded David Letterman in which some folks on our side were equating him with actual rapists like Roman Polanski.  It is possible that someone can be a little bit of a misogynist without being the same as the worst case example of misogyny.  And that goes for anything… race, gender, orientation, class.  Expressing a little bit of bigotry or intolerance shouldn’t be ignored or excused, but it also shouldn’t be treated the same thing as being a leader in a bigotry movement.  It’s like arguing that a kid who steals a pack of gum is just as much of a thief as Bernie Madoff.  No, that’s not how the world works.  And if you go around pulling full Godwins telling anyone who has ever expressed an insensitive or privileged viewpoint that they are like Hitler, you are going to drive more people away from your cause than towards it.

I see this happening with some of the expressions of frustration towards Obama’s policies.  I think it is completely fair to call him and his administration out when they are going against the progressive movement, and I’ll be the first to admit that he has been disappointing in many ways.

But when left-leaning people start to literally equate him with George W. Bush in all manners, as if there isn’t a shred of substantive difference between the two on anything, I just have to laugh.  This in’t common, fortunately, but it does happen.  What purpose does this serve?  What good will come of this?  Yeah, criticize the man where it’s warranted, but this notion that he is even capable of magically moving America to a pure progressive utopia by snapping his fingers is a myth, and always has been a myth.  And the reality is, it isn’t about him as much as it’s about the system that we have.  Ralph Nader will NEVER be the President of the United States.  Ever.  And the idea that we’re gonna go from where we were last year to a place where we’re pure progressivism on 100% of everything just one year later is laughable.

Hell, even on healthcare reform, I agree that the public option isn’t anywhere near as good a solution as true universal healthcare.  But to dismiss slow progress as no progress at all is totally counterproductive.  Would you rather we just do nothing at all?  I certainly understand being opposed to taking steps backwards (mandated insurance without public option), but the purists who say “universal healthcare or no change at all” are completely wasting everyone’s time.  We won’t ever get from A to Z without going through B, C, D, E, F, and G first… and the question one should ask isn’t, “why aren’t we at Z yet?” but rather, “have we moved from A to B yet?” And if we have moved from A to B, it’s still better than being stuck back at A, even if we really want to be at Z.

Okay, I was explaining this to my DH today, and I said to him, “Lloyd’s of London insured Betty Brable’s legs for a million dollars. It really wasn’t because the movie studio making that contract was terribly worried about damage to Betty’s legs. It was a stunt, a way of declaring her legs to be incredibly valuable. It was a stunt on Lloyd’s of London’s part, too, because it publicized their willingness to write weird insurance policies.”
That’s what this is: a damn cheap insurance policy that makes a statement on the part of both parties: a gamble each side is proud to claim to be certain of winning. The the Bible-thumpers get to show off their piety, and the atheists parade their disbelief.
As long as both sides are ready to make good should they lose the bet-- just like the Lloyd’s policy was real-- it’s just another goofy form of insurance.

*****
On the subject of relatives and politics, I think a lot of whether you think you should stick by them in spite of it has to do with whether the relatives actually were good to you. I have a great family, but so many of my friends have been so badly emotionally, mentally, physically, and/or sexually abused, I consider no one more obligated to their family members than they believe they are.

Hey, Mnem and DTG, you handle your relatives the way you want, and I’ll handle mine the way I want.

I’m so sick of this bullshit that because it’s faaaaaaambuhhhleeeeee, I’m somehow obliged to keep in touch with them. That sort of attitude guilt-trips too many people into letting toxic relatives walk all over them — including GLBT folks who are abused by their relatives.

Somehow I’m not exactly shocked that you buy into it, Mnem. IIRC you’re yet another self-righteous liberal xtian who gets extremely whiny when other people don’t treat your beliefs with kid gloves.

Keori:

This is why our side continues to lose: we’re so concerned about being niiiiiiiiiiiiiiice, about reaching out to these shitstains that we forget a critical point - they’ve declared war on us and are willing to do anything to drive this country into the ground.

Quoted for truth.

When will some of these pants-wetting idiots start realizing that politics isn’t a fucking self-actualization seminar or a goddamned love-in? The progressive politicians of the early 20th century knew how to take off the gloves when necessary. So did the activists of the time. I suspect that too many progressives these days don’t have the fire to do so because they’ve never known enough want or violence.

/uh-oh, here comes the anecdata about how “I grew up poor and I still think we shouldn’t lower ourselves to their level blah blah blah....”

Hey, Mnem and DTG, you handle your relatives the way you want, and I’ll handle mine the way I want.

Of course.  But I don’t think I was attempting to subvert your right to have whatever relationships you want to have with your family, and if I was, I apologize.

Everybody is free to define whatever parameters for the relationships with their family that they want to have, at least in adulthood.  While I don’t really understand why someone would write their family off strictly because of political differences, I don’t try to stop anyone from doing such things.  At the same time, I would prefer others afford the same respect to those who treat their situation differently, and stop with the self-righteous condescension which seems to imply that those who choose to maintain relationships with conservative relatives are somehow undermining liberal causes.

I’m so sick of this bullshit that because it’s faaaaaaambuhhhleeeeee, I’m somehow obliged to keep in touch with them. That sort of attitude guilt-trips too many people into letting toxic relatives walk all over them — including GLBT folks who are abused by their relatives.

As I stated before, I completely understand why someone would want to detach from family relationships that are/were clearly abusive.  And in the case of LGBT folks whose parents attempted to “cure” their homosexuality, I would certainly consider that abusive behavior, and would completely understand why somebody would walk away from those relationships.  Obviously, situations in which physical, sexual, and verbal abuse occurred would warrant abandoning the relationship as well.  But having a fight over the fiscal policies of conservatives versus liberals?  Not inherently abusive, in my opinion.

On the subject of relatives and politics, I think a lot of whether you think you should stick by them in spite of it has to do with whether the relatives actually were good to you.

Pretty much my stance precisely.  It comes down to whether or not the relationships are abusive.  For me, merely having a difference of opinion on political ideology doesn’t automatically constitute abuse.

I suspect that too many progressives these days don’t have the fire to do so because they’ve never known enough want or violence.

Agreed.  Though that may be a good thing, I don’t know.

I mean, a huge reason why a rich aristocrat like Franklin Roosevelt was so willing to push through the New Deal is because the proles in the cities were just angry and threatening enough that without such a drastic initiative, a genuine communist overthrow of the federal government may have become an actuality.

We ain’t there yet.  Or really, even particularly close, at least in terms of our standard of living.  10% unemployment is pretty god-awful, but it still isn’t anywhere near the toxic situation that is created by 25% unemployment, which is exactly what FDR was dealing with.

And I don’t want to underestimate just how bad the current situation is… I believe that it is certainly the worst in my lifetime, and likely the worst since the Great Depression.  But the amount of actual needs-deprived human suffering among Americans in the Great Recession of 2007-2009 still pales in comparison to the suffering of our Great Depression 1930s counterparts.

Anyway, I think a big part of why the progressive movement doesn’t have the groundswell righteous anger today that it did 70-80 years ago is because things just ain’t as bad today as they were 70-80 years ago.  And unless things get that bad, it’s unlikely that we’re going to have a progressive movement with the same grassroots enthusiasm of that bygone era.  But is that necessarily a bad thing?  I mean, if the tradeoff to get a really solid progressive campaign for America going is that we have to undergo widespread societal suffering with a lot more dead bodies first, is it worth it?  It’s almost like we would have to take a huge step backwards first just to be able to take a huge step forward later.

Er, just to throw my two cents in, I’m guessing that a grandmother right-wing enough to pay for Rapture pet adoption is not exactly going to be accepting of her LGBT grandkid.

”I really don’t understand this current fashion for declaring that if your family doesn’t agree with you politically, you should completely cut them out of your life.”

I’m not speaking from personal experience, my own relatives’ politics tend to line up with mine

But Im guessing that this comes from the period of “conservative correctness” and in-your-face conservatism we’ve been living in since 1980

Aunt Louise knows you are left but still insists on sending you every right-wing chain email she can find, ask her to stop and they still come anyway
Uncle Harry spends Thanksgiving spouting Limbaugh quotes but if you say anything then you are the one ruining the holiday

If you can disagree on equal footing then its just a political disagreement
but if you have relatives who constantly give you “I’m top dog so fuck you” attitude I can understand just not dealing with them

Rebecca: Exactly.

DTG:

At the same time, I would prefer others afford the same respect to those who treat their situation differently, and stop with the self-righteous condescension which seems to imply that those who choose to maintain relationships with conservative relatives are somehow undermining liberal causes.

Quite frankly, I think my comments, while blunt, were a lot less condescending, self-righteous, or defensive than either yours or Mnemosyne’s.

While this is obviously not the universal case, I’d say that if you’re able to maintain relationships with right-wing relatives who are racist, misogynist, and/or homophobic, there just might be some privilege involved. It’s a lot easier to deal with vitriol or voting patterns that aren’t aimed at a group you’re personally in.

Oh, and as for “having a fight over the fiscal policies of conservatives versus liberals"… those policies kill people, too. When wingnuts sneer that homeless people choose their lifestyle and should just die in the streets if they can’t pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, I think about a few people I know who actually have been homeless.

In general, though, my stance is less about shunning people for moral reasons than about not feeling compelled to spend time with people who rub me the wrong way and are generally assholes. Or even people I don’t have much in common with. Life is too short, and, contrary to popular opinion, genetic relatedness doesn’t oblige you to keep up those ties. If you genuinely want to… hey, go to town. But don’t try to guilt-trip me into giving two shits about wingnuts just because I might share some DNA with them.

While this is obviously not the universal case, I’d say that if you’re able to maintain relationships with right-wing relatives who are racist, misogynist, and/or homophobic, there just might be some privilege involved.

That’s the Godwin black-and-white logic that I’m talking about.

Sorry, you can’t say to people, “So, I hear you voted for John McCain.  I guess that means you’re a fan of the Holocaust and want to bring lynchings back.”

I said I have conservative relatives.  YOU assumed that therefore my relatives are racist, misogynist, and homophobic.

To the extent that the current Republican Party and conservative philosophy is more accepting and tolerant of racist, misogynist, and homophobic attitudes, yes, I suppose you could make a case that by supporting Republicans, they are giving a degree of support to racists, misgynists, and homophobes.

And of course that sort of thing bothers me.

At the same time, I don’t know ANYONE on earth that is completely free of racism, misogyny, or homophobic thoughts.  Nobody.  I’ve never met a human being who has never once had a wrong-headed prejudiced attitude in their life.  I’ve met people who have claimed that they haven’t, but there’s a word for those people.  Liars.  I’ve also met people who have claimed to have never told a lie in their entire life.  There’s a word for them, too.  Liars.

And I don’t believe in bundling everybody who has any wrong-headed thinking together into one neat group.  It’s intellectually lazy, and it’s a setup to make enemies with every fallible person on this planet, which would be ALL OF THEM.  Because even Ghandi probably had a few days in his life where he acted like a fucking asshole.

The world is not filled with perfectly righteous and good progressives on one side, and everybody else is a Hitler fan.  Believing that it is precisely the same thing as George W. Bush declaring, “You’re either with us, or you’re with the terrorists.”

This is not a absolute black and white world, and even in instances where we can say one position is right and the other is wrong, we can’t summarily discount all of the other characteristics of a person’s identity.  Martin Luther King, Jr. is widely regarded as one of the greatest civil rights leaders in human history.  He was also considered by many to be fairly misogynist in some ways.  Assuming the charges of MLK’s misogyny are true, should we completely discount everything good and decent that he did, and lump him together with history’s greatest monsters?  I mean, if it’s true that he was a condescending prick to women, doesn’t that make him kinda like Hitler?

I guess we just disagree on this.  I think my perception of the world is just not quite as black and white as yours.

Had the founding fathers, or early presidents/congressional groups been tougher on pushing for abolition,

I’m sorry, would that be the founding fathers and early presidents/congressional groups who were creating a country founded on a successful armed uprising?  American Revolutionary War, or something like that?

DTG, the original context of this argument was about someone’s right-wing grandmother paying for this rapture adoption service. I think we can assume that she is a right-wing Christian and not just a fiscal conservative!

i think many of those claiming this is a scam are doing so because they are viewing it from a purely atheist perspective. basically, there is no god/jesus/higher being, so there will never be a rapture, therefore this is a scam. i do think it’s pretty funny, and don’t see the harm in it. although if the christian bible is true, then the atheists will be too busy running and hiding from satan’s minions to worry about other people’s pets.
personally, i think of the rapture more as humanity destroying itself through its lack of self control/morality/stupidity.

and what ever happened to speaking softly and carrying a big stick?