
There is a Sam Cooke song that is a favorite of mine (A Change Is Gonna Come, track 29 on this album if you haven’t heard it before, and Wiki has a great history of the song as well), and it resonates with me this morning as I read through a number of articles on a shift that is going on in our country — in the fight for the soul of religion and faith and the treatment of "the least of these" in this country.
The WaPo has an article today that tells us that the "religious left is back." I’m here to tell you that it hasn’t left at all – it just hasn’t gotten the press that the strident voices on the religious right has gotten. For quite a while, the religious left has operated on a "Jesus doesn’t need a press secretary" level of operation which, while that may be true, didn’t do much to dispel the myth that the folks who hired one (along with political consultants and PAC hierarchies and everything else that has to do with grabbing power in the secular universe) are the only ones operating in the name of God.
Wrong.
To be honest, I am uncomfortable with the politicization of religion on the left — just as much as the politicization of faith by the right has disgusted me the past few years. Pragmatically, I understand the need to fight back publicly — to dispel the notion that the only issues which trouble people of faith in this country are abortion and homosexuality. (As if.) But faith, for me anyway, has always been in the realm of personal, of private, of actions speaking louder than any hired publicist could. And that has been true for a lot of the folks that I know who are members of one faith or another — Catholic, protestant, Jewish, and so on and so on through the litany of religious beliefs.
But one thing that I have noticed, both in and out of blogdom, is that religious intolerance runs both ways — from the folks on the right, who proclaim that their view of God is the only view and any dissenters be damned (literally) and from the scorn on the left of people of faith who are, all too often, lumped in with the Pat Robertsons and the Jerry Fallwells, even when nothing could be further from their beliefs.
We have a very good shot at taking back both houses of Congress this Fall. But to do so, we all have to start pulling on the ropes together. All of us, in concert, in accordance with those issues that move us — in our hearts and at the ballot box. To get there, we have to start listening to each other, and not just tuning out those things that make some of us uncomfortable or ever-so-slightly angry.
Van Jones had a great article on this subject back in July of 2005, talking about how his faith growing up as an African-American, has been both a source of comfort in his life and of discomfort in his political life.
I literally have had liberals laugh in my face when I told them I was a Christian. For awhile, I felt self-conscious about telling other activists that I preferred not to meet on Sunday mornings, because I wanted to go to church.
It is still commonplace to hear so-called radicals stereotyping all religious people as stupid dupes — and spitting out the word "Christian" as if it were an insult or the name of a disease. I thought progressives were supposed to be the standard-bearers of tolerance and inclusion.
I certainly know the monstrous crimes that have been committed through the ages in the name of religion, or with the blessings of religious people. But I know a few other things about religion, too.
I grew up in the Black churches of the rural south, listening to the stories of my elders. As children, we heard about the good, brave people who had poured their blood out upon the ground so that we could be free. We learned how police officers had clubbed and jailed them. We learned how Klansmen had shot and lynched them. And how the G-men from Washington had just stood by and doodled in their notepads.
We learned of marches and mayhem, freedom songs and funerals. We saw images of billy-clubbed Black women on their hands and knees, searching for their teeth on Mississippi sidewalks — crawling while still clutching their little American flags. We felt pity for the children who spent long nights in frigid jail cells, wearing clothing soaked by fire-hoses, while their bones — broken and untended — began to mend at odd angles.
We saw pictures of Black men, like our fathers, hanging by their necks — their faces twisted, their bodies rigid, their clothes burned off — along with their skin. And we saw photos of carefree killers, sauntering home out of Alabama courtrooms — their faces white and sneering and proud.
We learned how the very best of humanity had faced off with the very worst of humanity — each circling the other under the same summer sun. That epic struggle had elevated southern back roads and backwaters onto the Great World Stage. And the fate of a people — along with the destiny of a nation — hung in the balance, for all to see.
In the end, we children cheered, for the righteous did prevail. More than that, they performed one of the great miracles in human history: They transformed American apartheid into a fledgling democracy, tender and delicate and new.
All progressives today proudly celebrate that achievement — and rightly so. But one key fact seems to escape the notice of today’s activist crowd. The champions of the civil rights struggle didn’t come marching out of shopping centers in South. Or libraries. Or high school gymnasiums.
To face the attack dogs, to face the fire-hoses, to face the billy-clubs, these heroes and she-roes came marching boldly out of church-houses. And they were singing church songs. They set an example of courage and sacrifice that will endure for the ages. And as they did it, they prayed on wooden pews in the name of a Nazarene carpenter named Jesus.
The implications are clear for those who seek today to rescue and redeem U.S. society. The facts are simple and profound: The last time U.S progressives captured the national debate and transformed politics, people of faith were at the center of the movement, not stuck in its closet.
I hope that Mr. Jones will not mind my reproducing such a big quote from his article, but the words flowed so well, and the soul of it spoke so deeply, that to cut any of it out seemed a sin to me. Our nation is, indeed, in need of rescue — and we need every hand on deck to bail before our ship of state sinks, mired in a mess of its own political making.
And the truth of those words rings out at this time of moral crisis in America: faith is not simply a means of achieving poltical victory, to be cynically harnessed for votes and power.
Faith is something that you do, every day, and it is not the property of any single group who claims the flag of Jesus (or whichever diety you want to substitute there). Faith, in my heart at least, is that core of strength that allows you to get up, face the day, and do something good for your fellow man, for the "least of these" who truly need the assistance — the folks who have not, not the folks who have.
I have struggled since the 2004 election to find some reason, any reason, that the poor, rural Americans around me here in WV voted so clearly against their self-interest in such high numbers for George Bush over John Kerry. And time and time again, I come back to the words that a friend of mine who worked by my side on the Kerry campaign said about political activity in her church. She told me that just going to church on Sunday had become difficult — because the Bush supporters, who cloaked themselves in religious righteousness, loudly proclaimed theirs was the only true interpretation of faith. And the folks who disagreed, my friend included, either remained silent or, like my friend, talked themselves hoarse, with the silent folks never coming to their aid in terms of the "values" that she believed were just as important as abortion and homosexuality: care for the poor and the sick; peace over war; honesty; integrity; and so on.
Rabbi Michael Lerner speaks to this subject in an article on BeliefNet, that is well worth the read:
Sure, they will admit that they have material needs, and that they worry about adequate health care, stability in employment, and enough money to give their kids a college education. But even more deeply they want their lives to have meaning–and they respond to candidates who seem to care about values and some sense of transcendent purpose.
Many of these voters have found a "politics of meaning" in the political Right. In the Right wing churches and synagogues these voters are presented with a coherent worldview that speaks to their "meaning needs." Most of these churches and synagogues demonstrate a high level of caring for their members, even if the flip side is a willingness to demean those on the outside. Yet what members experience directly is a level of mutual caring that they rarely find in the rest of the society. And a sense of community that is offered them nowhere else, a community that has as its central theme that life has value because it is connected to some higher meaning than one’s success in the marketplace.
It’s easy to see how this hunger gets manipulated in ways that liberals find offensive and contradictory. The frantic attempts to preserve family by denying gays the right to get married, the talk about being conservatives while meanwhile supporting Bush policies that accelerate the destruction of the environment and do nothing to encourage respect for God’s creation or an ethos of awe and wonder to replace the ethos of turning nature into a commodity, the intense focus on preserving the powerless fetus and a culture of life without a concomitant commitment to medical research (stem cell research/HIV-AIDS), gun control and health-care reform, the claim to care about others and then deny them a living wage and an ecologically sustainable environment-all this is rightly perceived by liberals as a level of inconsistency that makes them dismiss as hypocrites the voters who have been moving to the Right.
Yet liberals, trapped in a long-standing disdain for religion and tone-deaf to the spiritual needs that underlie the move to the Right, have been unable to engage these voters in a serious dialogue. Rightly angry at the way that some religious communities have been mired in authoritarianism, racism, sexism and homophobia, the liberal world has developed such a knee-jerk hostility to religion that it has both marginalized those many people on the Left who actually do have spiritual yearnings and simultaneously refused to acknowledge that many who move to the Right have legitimate complaints about the ethos of selfishness in American life.
I’ve argued until I am exhausted that voters need something to vote for — as much as they need something to vote against. Yesterday, Ned Lamont proved to be a perfect example of just that: voting against Joe Lieberman is too easy a reason for Lamont to have gained the necessary votes to force a primary out of the state democratic convention in Connecticut — Ned is moving things forward, because he is a man in whom the citizens of Connecticut can believe on issues as broad ranging as personal responsibility and integrity, peace, and a model of giving back to a community that has given to you. Not just taking for granted that the community owes you because you did something for it once upon a time, but being willing to earn that respect and that trust every single day by living your values every single day.
Blue collar voters aren’t stupid. Neither are religious voters. And taking a condescending tone with either of them only leads to a reinforcement of the "ivory tower liberal" stereotype which I also think is really so much idiocy. What we need is language that speaks to the hearts of these voters — to the things they hold dear, which, coincidentally, are also the things we hold dear: family, children, safety, pride, our own lives and pursuit of happiness and respect and decency.
But I am leary of politicizing religion even further — I think that most people of faith who have been put off by the machinations of the opportunistic, manipulative power-hungry voices of the far right (see, e.g., Ralph Reed) would be even more disgusted if such a misuse of faith were to emerge from the far left.
What I do see, however, is an oppotunity for the Democratic party to speak to the values that people of faith have always held to be important and sacred duties: peace, respect for all of humankind, lifting up those who need a helping hand, nurturing those who have little or nothing, giving hope where there is currently none, shining a light in the dark places.
This was the Democratic party in which I was raised — perhaps it was a naive view of the world, but it was a wonderful lesson in the might of our souls and the ability to triumph over the darkness of selfishness and meanness. When I am low, when everything seems lost, when I walk through the valley of doubt, I pick up the words of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., the speeches of John Kennedy and Bobby Kennedy (heroes in WV still — you can go to a lot of homes of older Democrats in this state and see a picture of JFK on the wall of the home), the speeches of all those American heroes (and she-roes) that call out for action that speaks to my soul, not just to my intellect.
Words that lift you up and carry you forward, cradling you in the promise of what may be, what is still yet to come — words which give you hope for your future and for your children, and which speak to the heart and soul of what our nation could be, ought to be, can be if we only work a little harder. If we only square up our shoulders to fight the good fight for freedom and equality and liberty, as was promised to all of us in our Declaration of Independence so long ago.
I still have a dream for this nation, and I know a lot of you do as well. Let us work together — instead of picking each other apart — and wherever that well of faith comes from that propels you forward, let’s harness that strength instead of squabbling amongst ourselves and trying to marginalize one faction or another. In order to right this severely listing ship of state, we have to all pull on the oars together — one nation, one people, one faith in our ability to do better and to do right by all.
It’s been a long time coming, but I feel it. A change is gonna come. I have faith in all of our strength to make it happen. Can you feel it? A change is gonna come.
(This photo, by Dorothea Lange in 1936, is such a picture of determination. The mother is a migrant worker, and you can just see that core of strength that her babies are going to have a better life than she has, and the look of gritty determination as a choice over despair as she peers off into the distance away from the camera lens. Lange’s photographs are among my favorites — if you do a search on her work, you’ll be changed forever as you page through each and every print. And if you think this sort of despair disappeared with the Depression, you haven’t spent any time in Appalachia recently.)
PS — Huge thanks to the volunteers who have signed up to help with the Roots Crashing the Gate project. If you are interested in helping with deliveries on the 23rd (or in helping affix the bookplates earlier), contact jay AT ackroyd DOT org. The level of commitment that everyone has shown to making this nation a better place is truly inspirational. Well done, all of you.
Related posts:





Spotlight








Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search

FITZ!
Colbert!
I really like this post, thanks for putting it out there. While I’m not the most religious person and don’t believe that religion should play a major role in politics, I see no problem with Democrats voicing their religious views in a political forum. The Dems were literally crusified by the right in ‘04 and if fighting fire and brimstone with passion and faith works, so be it.
Very interesting post Redd.
I’m a Presbyterian. I was going to the local church for a while- and got acquainted with the Pastor who is a good guy. I talked to him about the issue of politics- and I could tell that it was a painful one for him. This is conservative white southern california. Most of the church members vote gooper. The preacher doesn’t- but he’s not about to throw away his career by trying vainly to lead the goopers off their hell bound train. He said- “maybe you’d be better off in some of the more liberal churches and named a few”. Think he would have been happy to join me in the move- but it doesn’t work that way.
When a congregation turns political- it sets loose demons that may eventually eat it alive.
Reminds me of the Grapes of Wrath… my favorite book.
A change is gonna come, Christy. Beautiful and heartbreaking and heartfelt post. You made me cry with hope. Bless you.
Sorry, bad news from the AP via NYT’s.
Explosion at Kentucky Mine Kills 5 Workers; 1 Survives
Believe it or not, I got an e-mail from our new friend at Kerry’s office with that WaPo article in it. This was my response:
The sad thing, is that we’ve been there all along. The rifts pre-date Roe and go way back even before the Scopes trial. But Roe turned into a cash cow for the fundamentalists and then the Catholics. So they milked it and got LOTS of press and it snowballed. Then they added homophobia to their fund raising and it paid off big time.
The problems with the “religious left” are many sided. We keep trying to reinvent ourselves and do so almost cyclicly. But we generally are nice people and we don’t feed on people’s fear and hate like the right does. We form organizations that are doomed to be footnotes like The Interfaith Alliance. They started up with the mission to be a counter force to the right, but they wouldn’t take a stand on choice or gay rights because they wanted to have a big tent and include the Catholics. I didn’t get involved because I believed then and I still believe that you can’t fight a movement that is based on wedge issues by ignoring the wedge issues.
I am very active in the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice but am also learning the bigger picture. My current involvement with the blogs and the grass roots activists is because the small picture work isn’t working. We do have to be more politically savvy or we will have no agenda to work for as we have seen over the past 4 years (since the thugs took over the Senate along with the House and now the courts). So I am learning the ropes that way.
In my denomination we have tried to be a prophetic voice since the 1830’s speaking out for abolition. We have a long history of speaking out and I like to think I’m a part of that tradition. In this country, the progressive religious voice has been pretty strong since Walter Rauschenbusch started the Social Gospel movement around the turn of the 20th century.
Our voice has seemed subdued since Roe only because the fundamentalists are happy to be loud and shrill and angry and hateful which is what the press wants to write about. They found out that wedge issues are bankable. They played into the guilt and fear of every woman who has had an abortion, legal or not and worked them up into a frenzy in order for them to be “saved.” The guys get worked up for the same reasons plus power over women. They stage a local protest and they get press. We bring 1.15 million people to DC and we get a one day story.
Yes, I am frustrated. That’s why in addition to preaching peace and justice to my congregation, I take the time to get informed and to read and to learn how the system really works so that I can do my part to change it. That’s why I’m going to Vegas next month rather than to my annual denominational convention.
Sorry this was so darned long, gang — its something I’ve been thinking about for a while, and the confluence of political events and articles today (along with a cooperative peanut who allowed momma some real writing time for once on a Saturday) helped things along a bit.
Religion is the root of all evil. Helping people because they’re hungry, homeless, in pain or sick needn’t be a mission done in service of some mythical diety. Mix in Jesus and Allah and all the edicts and rules and pronouncements ascribed to them and you’ve needlessly complicated the rescue. Feed a hungry person, buy them needed medicine. Don’t deliver a sermon while you’re doing it.
Very well said Christy I used to be one of the writers on a Liberal site – I gave up in disgust at the mindless constant sneering at people of faith – it’s that behaviour that drives people into the fundamentalists and extreme right wingers arms.
I agree angie. “Grapes” is an unbelieveable achievement. FWIW, Steinbeck’s third wife published his correspondence. I found them fascinating.
No need to apologize Christy. You are at your best when you have the time to think and write and craft pieces together to make a coherent whole.
Thank you.
Here’s one thing that preachers could say to their congregations:
“Jesus never made a comment about abortion- or about gay marriage. In fact there is not ONE word about either subject in the entire Bible. This is a subject that you will have to decide for yourself- and don’t think that the Bible will guide your judgement- it doesn’t.”
Great and classic photo at the top, of the woman and her two kids. Has special meaning for us Okies. And George Bush once referred to the movie “The Grapes of Wrath” as “that commie movie”. This from the “uniter” and “compassionate conservative”.
Grapes of Wrath WAS a commie book/movie. That was back in the days when socialism was seen as a compelling alternative to the out of control capitalism from the turn of the century… Steinbeck does a pretty good job of depicting why some americans moved toward socialism and how the capitalists kicked the shit out of em when they did.
Now Tom said “Mom, wherever there’s a cop beatin’ a guy
Wherever a hungry newborn baby cries
Where there’s a fight ‘gainst the blood and hatred in the air
Look for me Mom I’ll be there
Wherever there’s somebody fightin’ for a place to stand
Or decent job or a helpin’ hand
Wherever somebody’s strugglin’ to be free
Look in their eyes Mom you’ll see me.”
-The Ghost of Tom Joad by Bruce Springsteen
Christy, this post brought tears to my eyes; I felt like you took so much of what I have been thinking and feeling and expressed it with such grace and eloquence. Thank you.
I do feel a change coming. I left a comment on the previous thread that said as much. That Jean Sara Rohe and Ned Lamont, and so many others, are like a fresh wind beginning to blow through this country.
That feeling you just gave me, where I felt like you were speaking the words that were in my own heart? We need millions of people to feel that from the candidates we run for office, and the only way that feeling happens is if the person who speaks it, believes it. The right words, delivered from need, rather than belief, ring hollow.
Durn, I wish I could stay around for this discussion, but it is the one day a week when Mr. Rev and I get to do our errand running.
Will check back later . . . . durn, durn, durn.
This post makes me extremely angry for several reasons. That Van Jones article is bullshit. By referring to “shopping centers”, is he referring to us secular non-believers? He appears to be. He is saying that “religion” was necessary to organize the civil rights fight. Bullshit. Most of those opposed to the fight were religious as well. Religion was absolutely not necessary at all. Only fellowship and community. Those of us who do not believe in magical men in the sky are sick and tired of being told we are second class citizens and for being blamed for the the crimes committed by believers.
People of faith? Does that mean to say that people without faith have no values? That we are some sort of non-human? This phraseology is disgusting.
Faith is wishful thinking, nothing more. Faith is not a virtue, it’s a vice. Asserting mythology as history is a vice. Logic, reason, science and examining testable theories is the best way to move our species forward.
I strongly support the notion of freedom of religion. The government should not interfere at all. But I’ll be damned if I just sit by idly while I see my country devolve into religious battles between the left and the right.
I’m a Unitarian Universalist. There’s a long history in this country of liberal religious groups deeply involved in social justice–the black churches Jones mentions, the Quakers’ pacifism and CO work, the long tradition of Unitarians who were deeply involved in progressive politics as far back as the 19th century, and so on. My own congregation is involved in local environmental activism, GLBTQ issues, and economic justice–we live in a college town where the university is the major employer and doesn’t provide its food service or custodial workers with a living wages. One member of my congregation has decided to be brave enough to take on our Rep., but unfortunately, it’s Boehner, so there’s not much optimism about his candidacy. Still, in a district that is very red, I’m proud to say someone from my church is standing up as the opposition.
That said, there’s been no unified groundswell on a single issue for the religious left as yet. UUs are ardent supporters of gay marriage, and the UCC’s running those ads pointedly welcoming gays to their congregations, but beyond that I haven’t yet seen a single issue focus as yet on the religious left the way the right organized around their morally bankrupt “family values” crap, or the way the religious left rallied around the civil rights movement. I wonder what would bring out that sort of unity. You’d think it would be torture of prisoners or an anti-war movement.
Any other liberal religious folks here? Any thoughts on how to build some bridges between denominations?
Someone could do a great film by recording sermons given on the fourth of July in a variety of american churches and editing them into a film.
Heard an interview on NPR some time ago with a guy who made a movie by putting a camera in a church and recording without comment the prayers made there by supplicants. Apparenty it made “God won’t ya buy me a Mercedes Benz” sound spiritually mature.
New news on the Fitz front. NY Daily News is confirming the report from the Washington Note that Armitage is becoming a key witness for Fitzgerald.
http://www.nydailynews.com/new…..4152c.html
BlueUU- I go to a Unitarian church sometimes. Strangely enough, the thing is growing so fast that it’s standing room only. Kind of interesting. The “preacher” is a women who fell away from her previous life as a seventh day adventist. People like her a lot. She has to be careful, though, to never mention God or Jesus in her pulpit time- that would cause a rebellion.
de-lurking to say what a great post this is christy, thnak you…….great song too!!!!!!
The unitarian church in this community is a couple of blocks from the organic food store- in a very blue collar part of town. I find the whole scene very interesting- it’s like the sixties all over again- but with older chicks.
Christy, thank you for this thoughtful and heartfelt post.
Janet
Mr. Rove, your retraction is expected any moment now.
Americans don’t like Bush’s policies and they don’t like him.
http://www.realcities.com/mld/…..622000.htm
-GSD
rwcole…#15
“out of control capitalism”. Just like the Bushite corporatism (fascism) of today. Yep. Color me socialist. Or maybe a Democrat. A traditional, workers rights, and very emphatically, non-DLC Demo, that is. Don’t have to tell you rw; your history is correct.
Rob Zuber at 19 — I suppose I don’t understand the level of anger (1) because I don’t think of “faith” as strictly a religious beleif system, but rather as those beliefs, religious or not, which propel each of us forward in our hearts and (2) because I was very careful to say, a number of times, that politicizing religion is not something with which I am comfortable and that, rather, we need to speak the language of those values that we have in common — not take the “onward Christian soldiers” approach that has so tainted the religious right.
BlueUU,
On bridges between denominations. We have an “interfaith coucil” here in which the local churches band together to help with projects like the homeless shelter and building homes for the poor (habitat for humanity).
It’s interesting that the gooper churches seem to have no interest in the council. Those who show up are always the usual suspects- methodists- christian church- unitarians- episcopalians- etc. Not a Baptist in a carload.
The rightwing rode into power by harnessing the dark side of religion — cultural and sexual anxiety. But there is more to religion than that, religious progressives know this.
We don’t have to abandon progressive ideals to be religious, or vice versa. The two are quite compatible, and as Christy points out, religion can provide, for some people at least, a sense of fervor and devotion that keeps them on the path through the darkest days.
I always relied on the songs for guidance. I remember as a child being surrounded by a congregation singing “we will work with each other, we will work side by side, we will guard each man’s dignity and save each man’s pride, and they’ll know we are Christians by our love.” Little children were sitting on their parent’s laps, it still gives me goosebumps to think about it.
Another favorite is “earth shall be fair, and all her people one, nor till that hour shall God’s whole will be done.” Isn’t that manifesto enough? Environmentalism, social welfare, what more do you need?
The religious left is back? Thank God! (p.s. – not snark)
Peggy Noonan is, apparently, prattling on about how that Tom Hanks movie attacks the central tenets of Xianity. I’d be fascinated to know how a movie can undermine the idea that “whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers, that you do unto me”.
I think Noonan nicely illustrates how a lot of American “Christians”, spiritually and politically, function on a fundamentally childish level.
Spiritually: “If I’m a good girl, and keep my knees together, and hate all the right people, the Great White Hair Daddy in the Sky will reward me with an eternity of cookies and ice cream, while the bad people will be spanked and sent to the corner until the end of time.”
Politically: “George Bush will protect me from the bad people, so I just have to keep quiet and do as I’m told”.
Personally, I’m a doubter. I see no evidence of a benign deity, but I can scarcely believe that this wonderful clock was not made by someone. If I’m wrong, and there is some judgment, I’d rather, in defense of my many and repeated sins, be able to point to the things I did to fight hunger and sickness and disastrous climate change, than a log of hours I spent repeating old poems in a pretty building, or throwing (metaphorical) rocks at people some old man in silk robes and gold rings and designer shoes told me were bad people.
There’s an ugly little fact that the goopers have covered up for decades. The early church was clearly socialist- you can read all about it in “acts”. It was also pretty clear that the Bible forbids lending money at interest- and this was the policy of the church for centuries. In other words, the Bible forbids capitalism. OH BOY- whatya gonna do about that?
This is my favorite song Christie, I had to buy the anthology just to get it on the iPod. However, it never fills me with a sense of hope, usually a feeling of foreboding…
I hope that this quote from the WaPo article never comes to pass, but I feel it will – “I can guarantee you that every Democrat running for office in 2006 and 2008 will be quoting the Bible and talking about their most recent experience in church,” Ugh!
For me relgion/faith/God is very personal. I have never found comfort in a church. I am very uncomfortable when political discussion enters into the sanctuary and I also can’t stand it when politicians bring God into the election. To admit the true role of Christ in your life you probably have to admit to more human failures than the electorate can tolerate.
I remember as a child the family gathering around the TV the evening Nixon resigned. Nixon said his final line “…and God bless the United States of America.” My neighbor said something I will never forget, “There he goes bringing God into it.” It was the first time I considered that God’s sole focus was not the United States of America. After that speech I picked up the Woodward & Bernstein books and a politial obsession was born.
Religious doctrine, personal experience, deeply held beliefs, and morals are always in play in the voting booth. Making sense of the contradictions, within yourself, to me is the beauty of democracy.
Christy -
before I dive back in to digest your thoughtful post I want to THANK YOU FOR FRONT PAGING MY CULT ALBUM !
as a long time parishoner of the Church of Sam Cooke I would also heartily recommend getting your hands on a compilation of his work with the Soul Stirrers (that is a 17 year old Cooke on # 30!)
and yeah, isn’t it wonderful that “Change” has had a life of it’s own long after Sam’s tragic passing – was lucky enough to see the also great Curtis Mayfield get up from his piano as a tribute on Sam’s birthday and sing it A Capella -
Great post, Redd.
With regard to “A Change is Gonna Come”, I always liked the Neville Bros. version from “Yellow Moon”. That whole album is good.
One of the most conservative of the current religions- LDS- is HIGHLY socialistic in their internal practices. They fight govt. social programs becasue the have their own and don’t want to pay twice for em.
awesome post Christy,thanks
Christy –
Did you see the WaPo story this am about the Libby filing last night? Libby’s team is arguing that he never saw the annotated Wilson op-ed until the FBI showed it to him, and besides, if Fitz isn’t intending to call Cheney, how will he prove that the handwriting is Cheney’s?
I’ve felt all week that someone in the WH (Ari?) handed over the annotated article to Fitz. I mean, I can’t imagine that Big Dick handed it over, or his little Scoots either.
Anyway, I’m hoping that on this beautiful Saturday you’ll have time to cast your eye over this newest filing and ’splain it to us.
And keep the faith. I’d love to think that the Catholic Church I grew up in and that was hijacked out from under me will one day return to its social justice roots — but I’m not holding my breath.
PS On the Armitage story, isn’t it interesting that the NYDaily News got the leaked INR memo AND is covering this newest wrinkle? I’ve been waiting patiently for it to play out exactly why that memo got “unclassified” and FOIA’d when it did and to whom it did. Someone on another post remarked that it’s a lot like the three blind men and the elephant. And I just keep patting and trying to fit the pieces together.
Nice post but something bothers me…
People who don’t have “faith” still have a core of strength. It’s offensive to constantly have religionists [note: not meaning Christy] accusing those of us who don’t believe their ideas to be lacking in some human aspect.
Religion should be private and personal, and people who aren’t hypocrits and actually live their religion are respectable, but most of the people who claim to be “religious” have never gotten beyond the magical old man/daddy in the sky indoctrinated in them as kids, and they are dupes. They are hypocrits. They are just as dangerous whether they clothe themselves as the Taliban, or the Christian “Right”.
I’m always repulsed by “religious” people, because they usually adopt the rituals and not values of their religions. Yet, I have a pleasant relationship with a catholic priest, with whom I sometimes discuss philosophy and such. Obviously, he’s thought more about being “christian” than many, but I respect his sincere beliefs because he literally practices what he preaches. Unlike the rabid people who scream “Jesus is king of America” at me when I’m passing out literature for civil liberty issues.
Religion should get out of politics. I’d like to see some leaders get up and talk about why it’s dangerous and Un-American to mix the two.
rwcole–
Our church is also growing. It’s nice to have a place to go where I can express my “skeptical spirituality” and have people to talk it out with, as opposed to the bible beaters I work with and teach or the completely atheistic sorts. I myself don’t have a formed, creed-based faith. I think there’s some sort of power, whether it’s an external higher power (the unmoved mover of Aristotle?) or the power of earth as an organic, living being or simply a spiritual humanism, possibly the Jungian collective unconscious. It’s nice to have a place to go and hear and speak about such things. They even let me preach sometimes (half-time minister and half-time lay-led congregation). This is not to say that UUs aren’t close-minded about certain things at times, and since the congregations are independent, they vary so much in tone, but yeah, it’s nice to argue about words like God and church–my group has members who are vehemently opposed to that C word, so our official designation is the Hopedale UU Community! It may seem silly, but these kinds of discussions provide for those who have a sense of there is a dimension of spirit without a willingness to pledge faith to a creed a place to come together and talk about values, ethics, social justice, our place in the universe and so on.
American religion is a lot like american politics and american pop culture- shallow, immature, self centered and hypocritical. Nothing’s changed much since the time of Jesus when he criticized those aspects of contemporary judaism.
I’m trying to compile a YearlyKos Soundtrack for my iPod on Dailykos.com. Change is Going to Come is a great song to add to my mix. Does anyone have any other suggestions?
Too many Christians fetishize the figure on the cross and more or less completely ignore what the living man had to say. All of which would have appalled the observant Jew who practiced the tradition of searching for how to live life as ethically as possible. To too many Christians their faith is more a cult of idol worship, just as the conservatism of many of today’s “conservatives” is more a cult of personality, for Bush and the blowhards on talk radio. Principles and ethics are a distant second (if that) consideration for this type of believer, who’s quite comfortable letting facts be twisted or ignored in the rationales that spew from their preferred voice of authority to maintain the status quo. And it’s all based on fear, not love. Jesus weeps.
Some people need the community of religious expression.
Some eschew mainstream religion and choose to believe in something else or nothing else.
Some people choose to practice their faith privately.
None are wrong, imho.
It is what you do in your life that matters. Your deeds toward yourself, toward others and toward the earth. Your belief in the power of justice and goodness and your acts therefrom.
Thank you, Christy. I very much share the thoughtful views that you expressed. As a young man involved in the Sixties civil rights struggle I was deeply influenced by the sermons of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.. Frankly, I’m a little disappointed at a number of the “cheap shots” taken at religion by several commenters. Religion is not the root of all evil…its the misuse and abuse of religion that can be so destructive.
THE EIGHT BEATITUDES OF JESUS
“Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are they who mourn,
for they shall be comforted.
Blessed are the meek,
for they shall inherit the earth.
Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they shall be satisfied.
Blessed are the merciful,
for they shall obtain mercy.
Blessed are the pure of heart,
for they shall see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they shall be called children of God.
Blessed are they who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.”
Show me ANY member of Bushco’s Republican Guard that follow any of these simple, beautifully stated precepts of Christianity and I’ll eat my hat (if I wore one)! Nowhere here do I see a religious basis for homophobia, xenophobia, bigotry, hatred, endless war, exalting the rich while ignoring the poor, the elderly, the infirm, and the labeling of people of conscience opposed to war as traitors.
Ah, well, eternal damnation here I come.
Isn’t it interesting that the good old WaPo has finally discovered that Christianity in not the property of the loony Southern Baptist right wing.
In the run-up to the criminal attack on Iraq, every major grouping of Christianity (with the exception of those confused Southern Baptists) came out formally against the invasion. I have a neighbor who is a Lutheran preacher. When the ELCA published its opposition to war against Iraq, he took the document and in good Lutheran fashion, nailed it to the church door.
rwcole (25) — dude, they’re the same chicks. We’re all older.
Whoa that is one weird coincidence. See my post at the end of last thread. Saw that WaPo article but wanted to read all the comments before I posted. Now I see Christy has devoted an entire thread to the issue.
My story: Raised in the white, christian, and red part of MI. Saw the hypocrisy way back as a kid and left the church at the same time I left home. It’s been very divisive issue within my family, with me the outspoken opinionated liberal (”turned from god by higher education” or so they believe) who moved far far away to some liberal oasis on the left coast.
Anyways, as the dark days of the Bush war on Iraq (and America) reared it’s ugly head, in increasing frustration I began sending “values-based” emails to my nuclear and extended family asking whatever happened to WWJD? Whatever happened to compassion, concern for the poorest amongst us, for innocent lives no matter their ethnicity, etc.?
For some it just cemented their opinions of me, but for my dad, brother, sister-in-law, and cousin – they saw my points as valid and began to pay more attention. It opened up real dialogue that continues to this day. To be clear these family members are “conservative” individuals -historic GOP voters- yet come election day 2004 the first three voted for Kerry and my cousin (a military vet who hated Clinton) at least didn’t vote for Bush though he couldn’t bring himself to vote for Kerry.
Thanks for this topic Christy! Dialogue is soooo important.
For those who haven’t read it- “Blood of the Lamb” by Peter DeVreis is a great novel chronicaling one man’s spiritual journey in and back out of Christianity. Well worth the read.
Rayne (LOL) yep- you’re right- they’re the same chicks!
In my experience extremests on all sides (Atheists certainly included) have problems accepting the differing views of others as valid. The fact that one particular viewpoint has gotten the lion’s share of press for quite a few years has made it harder for Atheists and Agnostics to differentiate between religion on the left as opposed to the right. One real cure for this is for the left to provide the counter argument to the right, but those of little (or no) faith are likely to feel left out of that debate.
Atheists have never been invited into that debate anyway. They’ve always felt they had to assert themselves into it. I’m sure you can see how that mix turns toxic real fast and how that serves the agenda on the right exclusively.
One interesting thing we ought to remember is that Atheists don’t only support the right. Many were supporting Bush in 2000. I stopped reading the Military Asssociation of Atheists and freethinkers before the election so I’m not sure how those Bush supporters feel they’ve been served since then.
rwcole–
Cincinnati (nearest to where I live) has an interfaith alliance, and my little teensy town has a Churchwomen United group that my minister is very involved in. Far as I know it’s the same deal–the Methodists, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Quakers, UUs and Catholics in town come together, but the Baptists, Pentecostals, et al do not. I know the Cincy group also includes Muslims and Jews and maybe Buddhists. Had I more time to serve, I would be involved with that group. I’m very interested in interfaith alliances. But I’m also on the tenure track and the mother of a teenager and a young adult so my plate is full! Maybe in a year or two when I’m tenured and the kids are gone…
The problem with the religious Left is that it can never speak from one script as does the religious Right.
The very nature of those on the Left is that they exist in a “broad, tall and deep tent” environment. Members of various religious affiliations are loosly bound in a network of complex interactions. Individuals and groups belive and interact with others in a variety of ways.
The religious Right on the other hand (much like its favorite political party) are more likely to have their dogma expressed in a few absolutes. The most simple minded “true-believer” can easily get their arms and their feeble minds around the essence of the Right.
Must the Left do the same to co-exist in today’s world…reduce its thinking and its expression to the mental average? I don’t know the answer, but I strongly believe that the righteous answer will not come from the Right nor from the Left. The answer to governance in America awaits the awakening of that vast middle ground of people currently wavering from the fence. Only when all people in the country are awake and attentive will we overcome the crisis in government of the past five years. Dare I believe that it will happen?
steve duncan,
Man you’ve got to chill.Understand that what the right toutes as religion is’nt,its pure ego,i.e.,i’m right and your wrong.It starts with beliving you know the mind of God and thus become am instrument of his will.The past abuses of religion can be traced to this attitude.Couple that with self intrest-monetary or worldly gain and this perversion of religion becomes a horror show-as we’ve seen of late.
Truly religious or spiritual people have no need to scream and shout, or loudly condem.when you are ready to hear what they have to say,to recive what they have to give,they will be there for you.fire and brimstone and pulpit pounding is for out of balance children pushing their own veiws and calling it “the will of God”.Listen carefully to the quiet ones.Watch for those living what they would teach,living as an example.
The historical record of organized religions is much more in tune with the humanity of the left than with the flint hearted “let them eat cake” mentality of the right.
The great spiritual books of the major religions are a treasure trove for leftist political leaders if they chose to use em- and the copyright has long expired on all of em.
Wow a thread can move on while I bang out a lengthly comment.
tripped the moderation software too I see.
Jesus said to he who would be holy “Give everything you have to the poor and follow me”. He knew when he said it that it was too much- but that was the standard. So is a two percent tax increase to pay for health care to save the lives of the poor too much to ask for?
Professor Ted Lowi, of Cornell University, advocates in a most coherent way why “morality” arguments must be excluded from reasoned constructs in politics and governance: if one argues that it is “moral” to intervene in the dictatorship of Sadam Hussein, for example, then anyone presenting reasons not to invade Iraq is by default “immoral.”
Reasoned arguments and discussions of all of the impacts on people, countries, and governments can be made without framing things as “moral,” which lies in the personal/religious framework, not in the framework of government. Keep religion and the variety of moral constructs embedded in he many religions, and we will all work better together.
OT, but in the last few days your photo has not been showing up at the top of the story. I use Sage on Firefox if that makes any difference…
What a heart wrenching, thoughtful post.you have touched on some things that I keep bottled up inside. Pretty good, making a cynical old bastard like me shed a few tears.I pretty much gave up on the church decades ago, but that does not mean that I can’t be spiritual.Personally, I think one of my best traits is helping other people and being compassionate. Even though I come off as a hard ass. Everyone who knows me, knows what a sensitive, soft touch I really am.
The religious left is essentially being forced back into politics. Most on the religious left think faith is private. And would prefer not to mix in politics.
But when W hears Jesus tell him to torture, spy, start unjust wars, and drop nukes to fufil the prophesy of revelations… well that’s just not cool. To say that’s the meaning of being Christian is simply wrong.
I think religion is a trap for the “netroots.” A few months ago, digby launched a series of articles essentially expressing confusion over how the archbishop of canterbury could support evolution in science class.
Both his articles and the comments generally attacked Christians as “dupes”, “non-thinkers”, etc. Digby and his regular commenters didn’t even realize the archbishop of canterbury lead a _liberal_ denomination. They thought it was a sign of the religious right starting to split.
If you are looking for a great way to prevent the progressives from reasserting their power, attacking other progressives for their faith is a good way to do it. Glad to see Christy post something on the positive efforts of religous progressives.
doug r at 62 — it’s a server propogation issue, which hopefully will sort itself out shortly. When we moved from the old server to the new one, it’s caused a few hiccups in how graphics are viewed.
I am in agreement with this. The Founding Fathers knowingly and deliberately wrote into the Constitution that Religion has no place in our government. They did this despite being of a far more religious society than ours. They did this based on bloody experience. And to allow a group of citizens, no matter how well intentioned, to inject it into politics in the expectation that it will then become part of governmental policy is just plain wrong.
It is bad for our nation.
It is bad for us.
Those who put this forward are wrong no matter what side of the political spectrum they fall on.
This includes the blogosphere.
Christy, thanks for this post.
I was very, very involved in my United Methodist Church, until my pastor preached his annual July 4th sermon a few years ago. He told us it was unpatriotic not to support Bush and his war. I sing in the choir, sit at the front of the church, and my husband and teenaged daughter were in the audience. I would’ve walked out and kept on going, but I didn’t want to embarrass my daughter.
Instead, I decided to stay and show our congregation what a real Christian Democrat looked like. It was hard, just as you mentioned above, because most everyone in the congregation of that church was very vocally pro-Bush. Our county was already Republican (It’s just outside DC)but this “Bush is a saintly man, and this war is a just war, and you need to step in line, woman!” was at a fever pitch, and it was very, very difficult to say, “I am a Democrat.”
I tried. I sent my pastor articles about Bush that totally belied everything Bush was going around in public saying. I knew that he had been a Democrat in the past, so I thought he might be more openminded. He wouldn’t hear of it. We even came to verbal blows one time — a heated argument — because he didn’t believe the things I was telling him about Bush — all true, but he would not even entertain them.
After his stance on Bush and the war that Sunday, I dropped all of my responsibilities at that church. I didn’t find another church, because at the time, I don’t think it would have been any different at any other church around here.
Besides (and this isn’t very Christian), I want to be there to tell him, and others, “I told you so!”
But, times, they are a’changing. I live near DC, and Tim Kaine carried my county last Nov., and a Democrat hadn’t done that in almost 40 years. And, other less reactive people at my church are coming out of the cracks and telling me they’re Democrats, too.
I’m an atheist, and I admit I get the heebie-jeebies whenever I see a cross-pollenation between religion and politics. I can relate to Mr. Zuber’s criticism of the Jones article quoted in the post in that it implied that the civil rights movement was essentially Christian in nature.
Let’s not forget that some of the people who gave their blood and even their lives to advance the cause of civil rights didn’t pray “on wooden pews in the name of a Nazarene carpenter named Jesus.” For example, Goodman and Schwerner, two of the three men famously murdered in Philadelphia, Mississippi for the crime of registering black voters, were secular Jews.
I don’t know — it’s such a tough issue. I believe absolutely that religion should not drive public policy. But I also know it’s true that religion informs the morality and ignites the passion of billions of people on this planet, and to the extent that it can be harnessed for good instead of evil, well, that’s a good thing, as the abolition, suffrage and civil rights movements demonstrated. But the thing that these movements have in common is that they were animated by principles that appeal to people of all religions — and of no religion. There is nothing uniquely Christian about freedom and equality.
One last point: atheists make up approximately 3% of the population in the US. Ergo, the vast majority of liberals who have supposedly alienated mainstream voters must be theists of some stripe. I’m not sure ostentatiously embracing faith will address the real problem.
The NY Daily News story says Armitage was one of the first to tell his story to Fitzgerald, which would rule him out as Woodward’s source.
Thank you Christy for a beautiful and eloquent post that spoke directly to me.
The words of Van Jones made me cry and reminded me, once again, of the enormity of the loss of Martin Luther King, who spoke truth to power, fought on behalf of “the least of these,” yearned for peace and justice, and was persecuted for the sake of righteousness. He did God proud- It is too bad the religious right goes around defaming the name and very existence of God, turning people away from Him because of their hatred. If I didn’t know God and only had the words and actions of the rightist to rely on, I would turn away from Him too.
OT, but can somebody help me? If Lieberman runs as an Independent, everyone is assuming he would sop up all the Republican votes. Is there no Rep candidate for November? Except for the little problem of Ned Lamont, did Lieberman have it all sewed up already?
goddag, mfi! Thanks for your kind words that were passed on by punaise the other nite.
sheesh, what a sucker I am at times…
bridgehome, if Lieberman runs as an indy, he will most surely split the votes of the Democrats, ensuring a Repub win.
While I do agree with the general notion that religion is not exclusively the property of the far right, I’m definitely of the opinion that the left has to be very careful about trying to use religion for political purposes (which, caveats taken into account and all, is essentially what we’re talking about here.)
I’m not a churchgoer, but I do have my own spiritual beliefs. I understand the need many people have for some sort of story to tell themselves so they can get to sleep at night, and so they can have some sense of order and purpose during the day. There’s nothing in the world wrong with that, as long as it doesn’t turn sour and descend into coercion and judgement (and, in some cases, delusions of grandeur resulting in attempts at world domination.)
My feeling on the matter at hand is this: Democrats should not try to hide the fact that they have a religious life… but by that same token, they also ought not try to politicize the fact that they have a religious life. We’ve seen it time and time again… to blatantly wave one’s faith as a political banner is to cheapen that faith, and it also contributes to an overall degenerative effect on the political process itself.
Religion and politics is a dangerous, volatile mixture and always has been. While I don’t think that the left ought to be trying to put people off for being religious, I think they have to be incredibly careful not to cross the line and start putting people ON with showy, overblown political displays of their religious faith.
It’s a tightrope walk that would have given Karl Wallenda himself serious pause.
OfT: Eating their own
May 20, 2006 07:59 AM
Didn’t take long for the jackals to turn on left-wing news site Truthout.org and writer Jason Leopold after a week went by and their “scoop” of an indictment of Bush political guru Karl Rove turned out to be little more than wishful thinking….
Sorry, in 76, I forgot to put the text in quotes. I didn’t write that.
Uh Clem at 74 — thanks — that was exactly what I was getting at with this.
Christy, thanks from the bottom of my heart for sharing these thoughts, feelings, hopes, visions. Here are words from the man who brought me to the civil rights movement, many years ago, which help me pick myself up when confronted with forces of darkness:
“When I despair, I remember that all through history, the way of truth and love has always won. There have been tyrants and murderers, and for a time they seem invincible, but in the end, they always fall. Think of it: always.”
Thanks, again.
ralphinlex
The following – from a letter to the World Council Of Curches by its US delegation – is the authentic voice of the majority of American Christians: it represents not the fundies, but just about all of the heavyweight denominations with the exception of the Roman Catholic Church, and shows how Christian America can approach today’s politics without anger, spite, machination, opportunism, or even Bush-bashing.
Now that represents the kind of Christian passion that earns the respect, not the derision, of “godless liberals”. All we agnostic or atheistic liberals ask in return is that our morality is neither dismissed out of hand nor relegated to some sort of minor moral league simply because we are not committed believers.
Rob Zuber (#19):
You sound like a narrow-minded bigot. Irony prevails…….
OT & heartbreaking: how the US fucked up Iraqi policing : poor planning, incompetent leadership, corporate cronyism, etc http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05…..wanted=all
Ah glad you got them angie.
I trex the trolls from time to time mostly they’ve learnt to stay away. The reader who alerted me is ex USMC I’ve given him the password to that particular blog and am kind of looking forward to the next troll attack his language can get …. salty.
Ummmm one shouldn’t ask a lady her age but would you forgive me if I double checked that you over 18? If you are you may enjoy what I’ve done to Pretzeldent Chimpy it’s on both my blogs just don’t have any liquid in your mouth if you do click the link
I stand guilty of speaking harsh words toward the Christian community, but my objection is not with their beliefs, whether or not I share them.
My problem with the wingnut Christian fundamentalists is precisely the same as my problem with Muslim (or any other) extremists: they are immoral in the extreme by the standards of their own faith.
My problem with the majority who are not extremists is more subtle: I don’t hear any of them speaking out against their corrupt brethren. It’s not just an issue of not getting press — they don’t speak out to me in private, either. At the same time, they were among the first ones after Sep. 11 to scold mainstream Muslims for not speaking out stridently enough against their extremists.
It all reeks of so much hypocrisy I can’t even breathe. That’s the issue — behavior, not belief.
the founders of our republic knew that religion can pose a danger when politicians bring it into their speech, which is why the founders separated church & state when they set up our governmental structure — the founders themselves were creatures of the enlightenment who had little to do with religion even if they may have nominally been members of one sect or another
the suggested cure is similar to the disease — we’ll gain nothing by playing to the sensibilities of religiosity — america is falling behind because it undervalues science & engineering: we’re graduating proportionately far fewer students in those two areas than india & china are, for instance — although it doesn’t necessarily follow that scientists & engineers are less religious, our schools seem to be failing us by encouraging students to enter the more touchy-feely professions that are better suited to religiosity
This is a topic I’ve been working on with other members of Progressive Democrats of America. Progressives have been hammered about their values, and yet it is their values that make them progressives. It’s a fine piece of projection to say we don’t have values on this side of the aisle, when we are the folks who take to heart the Beatitudes, follow the Eightfold Path, mind their karma and dharma, obey Halacha and all other spiritual religious and non-religious texts (yes, non-religious, too; I find Bohm’s work in physics to be spiritually moving).
It is because we also mind the Constitution’s preservation of individuals’ rights to observe or not observe religion that the right projects upon us; because we step out of the way of their observation, they foist theirs upon us and their false frames upon us.
There are >eight universal ethics or values:
-Concern for the well-being of others
-Respect for the autonomy of others
-Trustworthiness & honesty
-Willing compliance with the law (with the exception of civil disobedience)
-Basic justice; being fair
-Refusing to take unfair advantage
-Benevolence: doing good
-Preventing harm
We can accelerate the change we want to see and “reclaim” in public opinion our position as leaders in values if we are willing to talk openly about these values and how they inform our decisions, as well sharing with others how in failing to exercise these values, our current leaders led us to this horrible state.
Further, we must be willing to talk about these values in terms of fixing what is now wrong; how will we employ these values by which we live to restore ourselves and communities to a greater state of wholeness?
Thanks for tackling this issue, Christy. Much of what gets you and Jane riled up and set you on the course of blogging is the very conflict of your values with that of the current administration. Ditto for most of us here in comments. And now we are called to be the change we wish to see.
Shakespeare and the Bible have long been the shared reservoir of literature for western civilization. There is no reason why any articulate politician shouldn’t make use of them. It isn’t clear what percentage of the public is still intimately familiar with either- our illiterate mass literacy has made that less likely- but they can still be powerfully used.
Very moving post. A few comments:
My parents were from Oklahoma during the Dust Bowl. Hearing a teacher of mine call them “Okies” still makes me furious.
Church was an important part of my life, and so was the civil rights movement. They were intertwined. All people are free, should be free, must be free. As an old hymn says, “In Christ there is no East or West, in Him no Greek or Jew…” and no male or female, no black or white.
Christy: Thanks for sharing your struggle, one that many understand very well. The Biblical values of God’s love, justice, peace, personal and community wellbeing, and merciful hope are things that people stood for, many times at great cost and risk. Wherever we find ourselves in relationship to the institutional church, we can’t compromise on those values. Sometimes we are inspirational to the world. Sometimes we are rejected or worse. But those values are not negotiable. And our hope and conviction is that they will carry the day. So we live them.
I agree with Rob Zuber at 19, although what galls me about the Van Jones excerpt isn’t the “shopping centers” remark, but the self-pitying “stuck in its closet” line at the end. The notion that “people of faith” are stuck in any closet in any sector of American society–even in progressive politics–is absurd. Whoever laughed in Jones’s face when he said he was a Christian–assuming it really happened–was rude and obnoxious, yes. But Jones’s indignant defense of being religious is as dishonest in its way as the Fox “war on Christmas.”
Jones seems to be fond of what right-wing fundamentalists so adore: the feeling of persecution, and presumably the compensatory feeling of bravery and heroism (just for being oneself) that it implies. Please. No one is less persecuted in the U.S. than a Christian.
Like Zuber, I’m for religious freedom. I don’t care if people are religous; it’s none of my business and I don’t want it to be my business. But when people flaunt their faith in the public square, in a political context, then they should be held accountable for its implications. The heroism of black leaders during the Civil Rights era is beyond dispute, and they stand as great examples of ways in which religious faith can lead to (or not impede) secular progress.
But it’s fair (if futile) to ask how social progress in the US, or anywhere else, might have fared if millions of people didn’t worship an invisible, idealized figure whose influence has been mainly manifested by “his” absence. What bothers me about religion is that it validates denial, wishful thinking, and magical thinking. It not only validates them, it praises and encourages them.
Which leads me to take issue with something Christy (for whom I have enormous and increasing admiration) says above. “Blue collar voters aren’t stupid. Neither are religious voters.” Not all of them, no. But when the lies and corruption and ineptitude of the president should be plain to every eye, what do you call it when someone in the remaining 29% says, approvingly, of W, “He’s a good Christian man.” He’s not a good man, either Christian or otherwise. If you don’t like the word “stupid,” pick another. Naive? Trusting? Duped? Brainwashed? I’m not committed to “stupid,” but sooner or later you have a right to expect even the most sincere person of faith to exercise their god-damned brain.
Those who advocated the separation of church and state certainly did not imagine that politicians would be constrained from quoting religious thoughts in their speech. THAT would be unamerican IMO.
While I too get the heebie-jeebies from a mix of politics and religion, I am not against using it as a sledgehammer when it can make a valid point. :) The GOP has been damn successful at co-opting the christian religion and though I definitely don’t want the Dems to start sucking up to religion, there is nothing wrong with reminding those stuck in simplistic obedient thinking that there is far more to values then just abortion and gays. Religion should be private, but it’s become ubiquitous with the GOP. Call it a wedge if you like but anything that can level out the playing field (iow, we need more dem-voting christians!) is welcome imo.
Very nice piece, Christy! It spun off so many ideas I have been thinking lately that I am still trying to put them into a coherent singularity. And the Sam Cook tune frequently haunts me (being a musician and all). On the subject of the privacy of religious beliefs, here is what ‘ol Thomas Jefferson said:
“Religion is a subject on which I have ever been most scrupulously reserved. I have considered it as a matter between every man and his Maker in which no other, and far less the public, had a right to intermeddle.” –Thomas Jefferson to Richard Rush, 1813.
And here is the link to a ton of quotes from Tom:
http://etext.virginia.edu/jeff…..ffcont.htm
Please read through this etext collection, folks, you will find some amazing things in there that you can use in discussions.
It’s pretty clear that we could have a woman president sometime soon. And we could have a black president too ( for my part I hope it’s Van Jones). It’s clear, also, that this country’s voters would reject a non-believer for his or her non belief. Whatever happens in the smaller worlds of progressive political activism that’s the big picture.
It’s one thing to speak from the heart about the connection between your religious faith and your social activism. But the profession of Christian faith has become a shibboleth in American politics and that’s not OK. Too often when politicians profess their faith from the speaker’s platform they are not speaking from their hearts about what calls them to stand with the poor and the oppressed they are kissing up to the common intolerance. My experience is that non-believing progressives do not reject or condemn believers (we do disagree with them and should be free to express that disagreement) but object to any tacit or implicit support to the idea that faith equals righteousness. When admitting to non-belief is political suicide believers ought to think carefully about why they are publicly professing their faith and I would hope understand the reasons that others might hear those professions which have become required with some skepticism and concern.
Also, when did progressive non-believers ever disdain or disown or disrespect the southern freedom movement because of its roots in the black church. American progressives embraced that movement and hold Dorothy Day and the Catholic Worker movement in the highest regard, and honor Malcolm X and on and on. Christy I agree with you about the importance of faith (as you’ve defined it) to our work. But only if faith is so broadly defined. But it’s not the believers that are marginalized in our culture and neither the criticism of belief (which is, the other side of professing disbelief) nor the suspicion of public protestation of belief are the cause of the lunatic ‘religious’ rights rejection of our efforts. Look rather to their racism and misogyny and homophobia and jingoism. That’s a beast we should not feed.
Dang. I so agree with what you are saying here – and yet it’s like you’re saying I’m not qualified to talk about the subject.
I don’t think of “faith” as strictly a religious beleif system, but rather as those beliefs, religious or not, which propel each of us forward in our hearts…
NOBODY in the US is going to interpret “faith” to mean anything other than religion. It’s a locked-in code word. So while I appreciate your thoughts here, you have to understand that sometimes you can’t privately redefine a word.
Morality is not religion. Absolutely, our politics and our policies need to proceed from some kind of common moral ground. (And with all due respect to Westward 61, sometimes the opposition is immoral…) That’s what’s been missing from Democrats, it feels to me. They’ve been all about being a cafeteria of goodies, without any sense of what’s important. It thrills me to hear Edwards talk about poverty as a moral issue – that it’s just wrong, wrong, wrong that people in this rich nation are left to live that way, no matter what the circumstanc es.
So why is it that this need seems to always be restricted to conversations about religion?
I know a lot of socialists who would be surprised to hear that “a sense of community that is offered them nowhere else, a community that has as its central theme that life has value because it is connected to some higher meaning than one’s success in the marketplace” is something that “the Left” looks down on, or that only religion can fill this need.
It’s true that the common spaces have fallen apart over the last 50 years – unions, political parties, all kinds of organizations have been atomized by sprawl, economics and television. Likely, for a lot of people, the churches are all that are left standing where they live. And that’s GOOD! That they are still standing, I mean – that at least there’s some place to start.
But we need secular common spaces too. If I had any brilliant ideas about how to do it, I guess I’d be doing it. Maybe things like the Roots Projects are a start. But our politics won’t have a heart until our hearts, and feet and ears and butts, are in our politics.
I don’t need to scorn religious people to make myself feel more morally fit. I’d just like to be treated the same way. Well, someday…
Will read your post and comments more fully as the day progresses, but I had to take a quick moment for a big THANK YOU, Christy, for your thoughts and articulate voice.
As a former Lutheran, I’ve anecdotal experience of the Pharisee heart that can possess too many churches or pastors these days. A “child” of the 60s, I miss the articulate religious left voices of those days.
And I have a dream…that we shall all emerge stronger from these dark days of rightwing religiosity disguised as faith.
Speaking as an athiest, I completely disagree with your conclusion that politicizing religion by the left is the same thing as politicizing it by the right. Unlike the religious right, the religious left does no harm. No one on the left is trying to turn the country into a theocracy and dissolve the wall between church and state; no one on the religious left is trying to stop people from being loving, caring people because they happen to be gay, or make wives slaves of their husbands, or demonize people because they happen not to be Christians. The religious left simply is standing up for moral values–tolerance, helping the poor, peaceful diplomacy rather than war, and so on–that come out of Christianity.
What on earth is wrong with that?!
This caught my 16 year old eye -
“We confront the Catholic Church, other Christian bodies, and the synagogues of America with their silence and cowardice in the face of our country’s crimes. We are convinced that the religious bureaucracy in this country is racist, is an accomplice in this war, and is hostile to the poor.”
The Catonsville Nine
1969
keep waiting for that Berrigan Bros. moment on the religious scene. thought that torture would surely usher in a national dialogue on what are christian values (I want a Torture Sunday!)- but was disappointed. Really don’t know why the majors aren’t saying more – Ideas on this anyone ?
sunny 73 — do you work for the Lieberman campaign? That is nonsense.
steve duncan, okay, how do you explain the fact that secular ideologies manage to achieve all the same evils as religious ones? How about when racism overcomes shared religious beliefs? It’s got nothing to do with religious vs secular, and neither does it have to do with proselytizing. The only thing an “us vs them” mentality needs is an us and a them.
Rob Zuber (and Betty Cracker), for better or worse the churches were the core of the civil rights movement. It may have been economics and WWII that made it possible, but the churches were the foundation on which the rest of it was built. When you say you’ll be damned if you’ll see your country devolve into religious battles between the left and the right, you’re saying you’ll be damned if you let another MLK Jr. into the national spotlight. Bathwater, baby, etc.
Also, faith is a fantasy? Fine. But why do you care? I’m guessing that you don’t feel a need to disabuse people of their sexual fantasies, and spiritual fantasies have the same relationship to evil that sexual fantasies have to sexual assault.
Well said Robbie. My take is that if your faith can’t take questioning then it’s not faith to start off with.
IMO the other point to make is that your founding fathers separated church and state to ensure religious freedom – to set religion free of government.
Sofistic,
Great quote from old Tom. Pretty much sums up my way of thinking on the subject.
Jesus Christ died the execution of sedition. Crucifixion was the form of death used for people who threatened the political status quo. Stoning was used for heresy. Jesus was viewed as a political threat: all people were equal; whores, lepers, children, all had a place in the new covenant. Very threatening to a society based on slavery and life-long servitude. The only instance of Jesus losing his temper was with the money changers in the temple.
I like to trot this out whenever I’m in the presence of a wingnut spewing self-righteousness.
A Citizen (#66):
“Faith is simply wishful thinking”? Now that’s pretty simplistic (to be polite about it). Faith is believing something you can’t “prove” with logic. Logic has very definite limitations. It cannot account for everything we experience. It cannot measure our hopes. It cannot verify anything about what happens after we die or explain, past a certain point, human emotion and behavior……….
Mr. Wonderful @ 89 wrote “sooner or later you have a right to expect even the most sincere person of faith to exercise their god-damned brain.”
That, in a nutshell, is the difference between people of faith on the right and those left. Those on the right view religion/the Bible as a place with Answers (always with a capital A), while those on the left view it as a place to wrestle with questions.
As for why you don’t hear the voices on the left, could it be that you aren’t listening in the right (so to speak) places?
i highly recommend the replay of the wdc book expo, if you didn’t catch the afternoon session. frank rich, arianna, andrew sullivan and pat buchanan.
I too will need to take the time to really read this post in-depth. But THANK YOU for posting this and especially the extended quote from Mr. Jones. His statement that liberals laugh at him when he says he is a Christian is a statement that would have surprised me a year ago. I may not have believed it, since I grew up and currently live in an area where EVERYONE (liberal and conservative) are church going christians.
But over the last year, since reading the comments on many “liberal” and “progressive” blogs that mock and spew forth vitriol against religion — ANY religion — I now believe it. I’m not particularly religious myself, but it has concerned me deeply and I’m very happy to see the subject of religion be discussed here. We cannot afford to alienate the religious left. But more importantly, it’s JUST not right.
I seldom comment, but I’m a regular reader. Keep up the good work.
“I certainly know the monstrous crimes that have been committed through the ages in the name of religion, or with the blessings of religious people. “
THE END!!!!!
The greatest motion picture ever made in this country is The Night of the Hunter (Charles Laughton, 1955) In it we find the true face of religion — a murderous psychopath played by the great Robert Mitchum. There is also Lillian Gish who plays a woman too busy caring for neglected and unwanted children, and standing up to Robert Mitchum to get her Bible quotes right — or even think about being called a Christian. Get the DVD and look at it over and over again.
Christy @77…
Cool. I thought we were more or less on the same page here. Glad to see that that’s the case.
RWCole @90…
In what sense have politicians ever been constrained from quoting religious thoughts in their speeches? Democratic politicians might often think better of going overboard with it, but I hardly think that translates to their being constrained from mentioning their faith.
Count me among those who run a risk of eye sprain from rolling them at the whole “Christians are persecuted in this country” notion. No, not everyone wants to hear about other people’s religion, just like not everyone wants to hear about other people’s dreams or look through other people’s vacation photos.
But that hardly equates with the alleged American “persecution” of Christians that we hear more and more about. When the Watchtower people show up at my front door at first friggin’ light on a Saturday morning and I slam the door in their faces, I ain’t a-persecutin’ ‘em, I’m just pissed because they got me out of bed and I don’t want to hear their spiel on top of it.
And RWCole, I know you didn’t specifically say that Christians were “persecuted”. You just gave me an opening to talk about something related to the topic at hand that’s been bugging me. Just because others aren’t necessarily interested in what I’m interested in doesn’t mean they’re “persecuting” me, and in a nation like ours in which people are predominantly Christian, I think it’s pompous and classless for Christians to go around acting like they’re being persecuted and that there’s a “war” against them simply because there are those of us out here who aren’t willing to crawl under a rock because we don’t happen to be Christian.
Walker Evans, the other great photographer of the Depression. Both Lange and Evans worked for the FSA (Farm Security Administration) documenting the life of farm workers during the 30’s.
http://xroads.virginia.edu/~ug97/fsa/welcome.html
#104,
Family lore has it that when my Catholic mom, after having her seventh child (me), went to talk to her priest about using birth control, he said, “God gave you a brain, you should use it.” I’m still the youngest, forty some years later.
Latest Team Libby and Fitz filings are up at americablog. Summary:
Team Libby: When your client is as guilty as ours is, you need as many documents as you can get your hands on so that you pick your best Hail Mary play.
Fitz: No dice. That’s pretty much the definition of a fishing expedition.
In terms of legal writing, I thought Fitz was brilliant. He gets an A on this go-around. Team Libby gets a C.
Speaking of Godless commies.
Checkout the old USSR house organ Pravda. Looks like the the old “Cold War” is getting ginned-up again.
Thank God. Because once Bush captures Bin Laden, or wax faximile thereof, before the election in 2006, the US is going to need some new enemies again.
http://english.pravda.ru/
-GSD
Aren’t we lucky that the very conflict between liberalism and faith of which you write is enacted here in the comment section? Clearly there are very strong feelings at play, and we can all read why. This is like a petrie dish of religious and non religious tolerance (and non-tolerance).
We few, we happy few — reasonable supporters of FDL— have the chance to address the tensions at play here; to truly understand and resolve them, in microcosm, before we go out to the world and do it for reals. Excellently done!
Now lets get to work.
Radish (#99):
“Rob Zuber (and Betty Cracker), for better or worse the churches were the core of the civil rights movement. It may have been economics and WWII that made it possible, but the churches were the foundation on which the rest of it was built.”
For better or worse, the vast majority of the people in this country are Christians; therefore, it stands to reason that most participants in any mass movement here would be Christians. However, it’s also a fact that Jews and secular humanists were disproportially represented in the civil rights movement. To me, that indicates that there was something about that movement that transcended Christianity. Your mileage may vary.
Mr. Wonderful (#89)
Wonderfully said.
I just watched “Separate but Equal” about Southern segregated public schools, Sidney Poitier and it was Burt Lancaster’s last film. When the children spoke the pledge of Allegiance, they didn’t say “under God” since it was in the early fifties, before it was put in there. Good movie, and made for tv so not as much violence as probably really happened.
“Walker Evans, the other great photographer of the Depression. Both Lange and Evans worked for the FSA (Farm Security Administration) documenting the life of farm workers during the 30’s.”
Had they been on the job in the Bush Mis-Administration, their job would have been to capture pictures that bring to light the glory of God in the works of George W. Bush.
Sad nation.
-GSD
Margot: “Okies” still makes me furious”
As a person born in Oklahoma (as were my ancestors, Cherokee and Irish) and living in the heart of the heart of America, I understand how you feel. I still cringe when I hear those who know nothing about Oklahomans, and spout and hurl demeaning myths and discouraging epithets toward us. I think I can tell, you are quite proud of your Oklahoma roots. And therefore, I am proud of you. Should you ever decide to live here, I and my fellow Oklahomans will wrap our warm and outstreched arms around you. For you are one of us. Thanks for your defense of us Okies, we DO appreciate it!
Praise the Lord Great Post could tell it was from the heart as well as the mind. Was born myself (1 of five ) 11-18-1936 Dad&Mom were wheat farmer’s in (dust bowel eastern Colo. Mom spent the last 30 years her life in a mental instution which I feel was brought about due to the hardness of that time period. Grape’s of Wrath make’s me cry in my heart ever time I watch it but you know what I never fail to watch when surfing the tube. The story to me is about the fact there was a WORKER SERPLUS at the lowest levels of work which is the same thing we have GOING on RIGHT NOW with all the PUDDEN HEAD’S who think they are doing something GREAT by turning a BLIND EYE to the HORAD of ILLEGAL’S. This in my my mind is the very reason we have weak UNION leadership and UNION WORK AND MEMBERSHIP going to HELL in a hand basket. YES the C. CHURCH thinks this is wounderfull it brings to the U.S.A. The great way things happen with PATRON & PEON way of life.
Lifelong UU here (yes, I’m an originalist), born in the 50’s so I’m calling on what I’ve witnessed to say here that a great movement requires, eventually, a great leader. A leader who can rise above the din and in doing so, raises the discourse and debate to a higher, more abstract arena in which true “unity” can flourish.
Example: I take issue with Lerner here, though I admire him for his great work and efforts:
“Lerner, the California-based rabbi who founded the network, said the conference is partly aimed at countering an aversion to religion among secular liberals and “the liberal culture” of the Democratic Party. “I can guarantee you that every Democrat running for office in 2006 and 2008 will be quoting the Bible and talking about their most recent experience in church,” he said.”
What would take real balls, real insight and true moral courage is proclaim one’s belief in the Consitution and founding principles of this nation.
To wit:
“I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute–where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote–where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference–and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.
I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish–where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source–where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials–and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.”
John F. Kennedy, September 12, 1960, address to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association
This is not to say that grassroots efforts aren’t worthwhile and meaningful (i.e. Interfaith Council, etc.). They are. At least I hope there are – otherwise, my time and the time of millions of others has been wasted. And I don’t believe that for a minute.
But I am saying that for a true paradigm shift to occur, it will require a wise and courageous leader to fight against the unreasonsed hate and pervasive fear by rising above it, not plowing headlong into it. The power of the grassroots (one of the powers) is in rooting out such a leader and pushing he/she into the breach.
Kudos to Christy for this article. Kudos to FDL for its incessant “rooting”.
Richard Burt @96…
“Unlike the religious right, the religious left does no harm.”
At the moment, this is true. They are also in the political minority at the moment.
But just try factoring in the money and power that come with being in the political majority. A corrupted religious left could easily turn as dark and destructive as the religious right has. They’d just be aiming at different targets is all.
There are posts at Kos & Myleftnutmeg about rumors that Rape Gurney Joe is going to leave the Democratic party and run as an independent!
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/5/20/13636/6806
http://www.myleftnutmeg.com/frontPage.do
Interesting….. in that Sgt. Schultz accent!
David Ehrenstein @ 107 -
“The true face of religion — a murderous psychopath” – I call Bullshit on your lumping all people of faith into an image like that!
rwcole @ 21, you mention a movie of superficial prayers, but anyone could do a very similar thing with selected off-the-wall comments from Little Green Footballs, dKos, or a thousand other communities and come up with a frightening picture of what “those people” are like.
None of you making comments like this would put up with stereotypes of atheists, blacks, gays, etc. Before mouthing nonsense like this, just try substituting youself into your comments.
Robbie – Agree with you 100%. Well written.
Libby lawyers oppose Cheney notes as evidence
Defense attorneys argue vice president’s ex-aide hadn’t seen document
NBC News
Updated: 44 minutes ago
Attorneys for I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby attacked plans by prosecutors in the CIA leak case to submit a New York Times op-ed containing handwritten notes by Vice President Dick Cheney.
In a court filing late Friday night, Libby’s lawyers argued that their client testified before the grand jury that he did not see this document until it was shown to him by the FBI in November 2003.
The op-ed article by former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, which was published July 6, 2003, argued that the Bush administration “twisted” intelligence “to exaggerate the Iraqi threat” in the run-up to a U.S.-led invasion.
Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald has argued in court filings, that the Cheney’s notes on the op-ed article expressed the concern he had about assertions made by Wilson, which concluded that the Bush administration somehow, “twisted” some intelligence about Iraq’s nuclear weapons program.
Those concerns about the merits of Wilson’s findings, after his trip to Niger, included the notation by the Vice President questioning whether Wilson’s wife had “sent him on a junket.”
Fitzgerald has argued that the op-ed triggered a campaign in the White House to discredit Wilson’s finding which included outing Wilson’s wife, a classified CIA agent, to reporters.
Libby’s attorney’s say the government evidently wants to argue to the jury that “facts that were viewed as important” by the vice president would have been important to Libby too, and that the Cheney’s notes can be used to show what Libby focused on during July 2003.
“These arguments are tantamount to an acknowledgment that the state of mind of witnesses other than Mr. Libby will be important at trial,” Libby’s lawyers write in their 10-page court filing.
Libby’s attorneys also question how Fitzgerald will authenticate the handwritten notes attributed to the Cheney if they do not call him as a witness.
The defense says they are entitled to obtain additional documents concerning what other government officials might have learned about Wilson’s trip, whether they were involved in the subsequent finger pointing among government agencies that resulted from Wilson’s allegations; how they learned Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame, worked at the CIA; whether they thought her employment status was classified; and whether they discussed Wilson’s affiliation with the CIA with officials other than Libby.
Libby’s attorneys write, “The jury will not be able to judge the relative importance of Mr. Wilson’s allegations and the peripheral nature of information about his wife if it does not understand the full factual context that Mr. Libby and others confronted.” …
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12700605/
_____
What do we make of this, Christy, Jane? More desperation tactics?
This is OT…but here is the link to a “must read” article in today’s Guardian (UK) describing what is really happening in Baghdad….
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq…..14,00.html
This kind of information is not available in the American media.
This was an excellent post, with some things that very much needed to be said. There are people on the left — some of them present on this thread — who are uncomfortable with or even hostile to religion. Yet they are here because they share values with the religious among us. In some ways, this thread illustrates a major problem for Democrats, in deciding and articulating what we stand for, not merely what we oppose. I for one want to see “E Pluribus Unum” retake its rightful place as our National Motto. How did we ever let that be discarded in favor of “In God We Trust”? And can we go back to being “One Nation, Indivisible” and just leave it up to each individual to decide whether he or she chooses to be “Under God” or otherwise?
Delurking to thank you, Christy, for a thoughtful and moving post.
Saw a bumper sticker today “God is too big for just one religion.” I might add for one political party, too. (And by ‘God’, I mean that spiritual core that is unique to every one of us, and yet connects us all.)
Sweet baby Jesus! Thank God for MSNBC.
Libby lawyers oppose Cheney notes as evidence
Defense attorneys argue vice president’s ex-aide hadn’t seen document
I see someone at MSNBC got out of bed today to report on these latest filings I posted last evening. Yawn.
Christy what is your take?
Has Jason Leopold commited “falsiness?” Did Truthinessout get played?
Betty C(#114):
You’re obviously refering to the White side of the civil rights movement. Don’t forget the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. Pretty much all religious and, of course, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
I happen to be reading a fascinating book these days that is pertinent here. The Closing Of The Western Mind: The Rise Of Faith And The Fall Of Reason, by Charles Freeman. The entire thrust of the book, as well as the time period addressed, is indicated by the frontispiece:
I don’t recall where I got the recommendation for it but the source seemed credible at the time, and it’s definitely worth the time. After filling in the backstory beginning with the Greeks and Israelites and on through the rise and diversity of the Jesus movement in early and mid Roman times, the author (I think, but haven’t yet got this far in the book) goes on to show how the emerging orthodox (small “o”; i.e. Roman Catholic) church, once given state sanction by Constantine and the emperors who followed him, suppressed not only other flavors of Christian belief but also the tradition of fact-based inquiry that the Romans inherited from the Greeks. Thus the Dark Ages, from which western civilization didn’t begin to emerge, the author contends, until Thomas Aquinas began to rescue Aristotle from oblivion.
As a former (recovering?) Lutheran who now abides somewhere near the boundary between deism and agnosticism, I find these sorts of inquiries into the origins of religiions, of whatever flavor, fascinating. I highly recommend the book, though some may find it threatening.
I have a short diary on the Spiritual Progressive’s event at dKos that was associated with the conference that inspired the Post article. Words cannot express the excellence of the vibe we had down at the White House on Thursday afternoon. There are as many different expressions of the spirit as there are atoms in the universe. I can only hope and pray that more than half of them are positive.
peace,
jim
Close up your tags,
Somebody didn’t close off a bold/italic.
I just did.
That is, I tried. Again.
GSD (#117):
I can see it now:
Wlaker Evans “Still Life With Cod Piece”
125 – I have the filing here, take a look for yourself. http://patrickjfitzgerald.blogspot.com
I type too slowly. Shrink in SF ~114 got here first, said it better than I could.
FWIW, even scientists take certain things on “faith”, i.e. you postulate certain things that you believe to be true (but cannot “prove”) and work your way forward from there, using logic / deductive reasoning. You start out by deciding what it is that you can or will believe.
With all due respect to James E Thompson he’s missing something very important. The Catholic hierarchy in the US is very right wing because they reflect the society in which they grew up and move. Many perhaps even most of them (I’m a Catholic myself) are to my mind as bad as the extreme rightwing protestant / Muslim / Jewish clergy. If you go to South or Central America you see something different more along the lines of the “Catholic Workers” movement, or “Catholic Action” in South America you get the clergy heavily involved in for example land reform. Similarly people are finding out that people grom a hispanic background in the states are very liberal (your terminology not mine – I’d say “social democrat”) when it comes to things like being anti-racist, pro-union etc. You may not like their stance on abortion but don’t assume that they’re single-issue voters either. The other thing is if the dems make the mistake of trying to “harness” the “religious left” they run the risk of being comprehensively rejected – I know a loft of “lefty” clergy in the States. They’ve seen and are horrified by what happens when secularists try to harness religion they’ll fight it and the fight will hurt you more than it will them. It is always a really stupid thing to do to try to harness religion it always blows up badly in the would be users faces. Ally yes … try to harness … seriously bad move.
Good topic. Utterly non-religious myself (as opposed to anti-religious). I just happen to believe that the basic tenets of human decency don’t need organized religion for validation.
Two people whose wisdom, goodness and humanity I respect enormously are local husband and wife Presb. ministers, good friends.
Does anyone follow the Street Prophets spin-off at DKos? Seems like a good meeting place for like-minded folks of the religious center/left.
Fahrender (#131)
My point is that it wasn’t exclusively Christian (since that was the topic under discussion). I thought it went without saying that it wasn’t all (or even mostly) white. But now that you mention it, it wouldn’t surprise me if there were black atheists or other non-Christians involved.
Spiritual Values vs. Religious Belief
We need a whole lot less religion in this world and a whole not more spiritual practice. Spiritual values are universal and not sectarian. They touch the common core of the human heart. They inspire and motivate a progressive politics of inclusion rather than division.
More than ever humankind needs the life of the spirit. When we look at the role of religion in the world we see little of the life of the spirit and too much that brings injury to human beings. It is important to understand the distinction between religion and spirituality, the difference between religious denominations and institutions on one hand, and on the other, the disciplines, traditions, and communities of spiritual practice.
Religion is based on belief and established patterns of moral law, philosophy, and absolute doctrinal truth claims. Religion is a closed system that reinforces separateness from the other. Spirituality is based on praxis and disciplines of attention and will. Spirituality is a discovery, learning mode of reaching into the unknown. Spiritual praxis, whether as an individual or in community, opens to ever deeper conscious communion or connection with the Ultimate and therefore with unitive relational life -alone, in community, and in Creation. Spiritual practice is an open system that seeks connection in unitive life with the other.
Right now humankind is facing the violence and division inspired by fundamentalist religion on every front, Christian, Buddhist, Islam, Hindu, and Judaism. This militant fundamentalism imperils the peace of the world and the viability of the planet. More than ever, we have before us the task of the healing the soul of humankind, the transformation of human consciousness. The alternative may be the destruction of the planet, its ecological systems of life, and all its creatures by destructive forces unleashed by extremist fundamentalist religion. Armed with weapons of mass death and political power throughout the globe, and fired by end-of-world cataclysmic visions of clashing polarities, all of creation stands at great risk from the violence of unhealed, religion-inspired, fear and hatred and disregard for the planet’s ecosystems.
A global interspirituality arising from the mystic spiritual traditions of the world is what will heal the soul of humankind and bring a new progressive politics of universalism. May we all take heart and hope in this mystic vision given to us by the Oglala Sioux medicine man, Black Elk. He received this vision for all ages at the age of nine, before the tragic invasion of the white European:
“Then I was standing on the highest mountain of them all, and round about beneath me was the whole hoop of them all, and round about beneath me was the whole hoop of the world. And while I stood there I saw more than I can tell and I understood more than I saw; for I was seeing in a sacred manner the shapes of all things in the spirit, and the shape of all shapes as they must live together like One Being. And I saw that the sacred hoop of my people was one of many hoops that made one Circle, wide as daylight and as starlight, and in the center grew one mighty flowering tree to shelter all the children of one mother and one father. And I saw that it was holy”
Airportcat @ 127–
I read your “there are people here who are uncomfortable with or even hostile to religion,” and for a second objected, and then felt/thought: Yeah, that’s me. Hostile.
I never used to be, though. I’ve only become hostile during the Chimpy Admin., when the grand hypocrites and self-righteous fundies came out of the woodwork. I’d rather not care–or (if this makes sense) not care that I care. I’d rather it be a private issue best written about (by me, if no one else) in novels or whatever.
What I disagree with is the belief in what Gore Vidal calls “the sky god.” What I’m HOSTILE to is the manipulation of those beliefs, and their believers, by the lying swine and greedy, etc., etc., oh you know what I mean.
Now lets see if it works. PJF you had a strong tag that was not ended.
Should have added this to my #97 above
when the torture story broke – I immediately went to the site linked below (Nat’l Council of Churches)- they of course front paged it,
also found it front paged at the national sites for -
Lutherans
Presbyterians
Lutherans
Episcopalians
United Church of Christ
Unitarians
and all other majors – with the exception of the Baptists and Southern baptists
Did not find anything about it at any of the largest Mega Churches
NCC
Sharon @ 115 – follow the headlines on the front page of the link to see what some Baptist ministers are up to wrt education
Uh,,,Clem (#121)
Can you think of one example, anywhere in the world, at any point in history, where the religious left has “become dark and destructive”?
I can’t.
Peterr–
Bullshit–I was not engaging in stereotyping. I was saying that there are manifestations of religion that are absurd on their face. I would be the last person to suggest that all religion is captured by those adecdotes- but anyone who wants to understand religion should be familiar with them- and of course of the image of the buddhist and his begging bowl.
Sorry, I am all thumbs with that sort of thing, :(
RH NOTES: You know, I will put up with a lot of things, but even a pseudo-parody call to violence is beyond my ability to tolerate. I’m pulling this post. Please refrain from this sort of thing in future. Thank you.
Did that end the italics?
New thread up top
oops sorry trying to close the unclosed element
New thread (with no open tags) … but I’m not finished enjoying this one.
i
Calling dr. trex to cubicle 152
The Dorothea Lange photo brought tears to my eyes. Your post was excellent. And both were so timely just following a fine Utah Phillips concert here in Salt Lake City. Folksinger and storyteller, 71-year old Bruce “Utah” Phillips is a long-time champion of workers and the downtrodden everywhere.
The left need not be afraid of expressing spirituality. But please let’s retain a separation of organized religion and government.
Utah Phillips: “There are no Republican folksingers.”
http://www.slcblues.blogspot.com
Christy,
you rock so fine. i am crying woman.
thank you for this post. this is a keeper, one that i will read to my children.
let’s see, if al wins in 2008 and serves two terms…. you could run in 2012. i’ll campaign for you and could put in sweet time ‘cuz my kids will be off in college.
thank you so much.
Trying all the tags that PJF had that were not ended.
Betty (#142):
You’re right. Bayard Rustin was one of them, I believe.
My thinking is that the Church can be a positive force in political change. A church in Leipzig was a center for the leadership which brought the downfall of communism in the DDR.
We on the Left must recognize that people of faith have a valid place in the accomplishment of what we are seeking. It’s not only the right way to do things but we will not succeed without them. It’s all about respect and inclusion.
FYI to Patrick J. Fitzgerald on tags, if you have a beginning tag, then you need to end it.
Just think of it as shutting the gate on the way out. Need to keep all the things inside the tags so they do not leak out.
Fahrender 162 “It’s all about respect and inclusion.” Couldn’t agree more, and we don’t mind that you’re an Oregonian, it’s ok with us. E Pluribus Unum!
Jane #99
For the record, I despise Lieberman. Lamont is the only politician I have ever sent money to directly outside my state.
What would happen if Lieberman ran as an Indy? Would he not siphon off enough dem votes to allow the Repub to slip in? It is not as if we can count on every single dem to vote for Lamont should he be the candidate, tho that would be wonderful. Lieberman must still have some support. Is this point not the very reason why we are suspicious and upset that he has not said he would not run as an indy?
I’m about as non-religious as you can get (I like to say there are toaster ovens more devout than I am). But as one who venerates MLK and RFK to this day, and who studied the activist movements of the 60’s, I have an observation to make about religion in political activism.
Contrasting Civil Rights-era Christian religious leaders with today’s theocons comes down to something quite simple, really: the role Jesus plays in both groups.
To the progressive Christians, Jesus’ words and philosophy are the motivating and guiding factors.
To the theocons, Jesus ain’t nothin but a Get Out of Jail Free card. They practice a peculiar “Jesusless” Christianity. They ignore the Beattitudes and the Sermon on the Mount in favor of Old Testament blood-&-revenge theology.
Even as non-religious as I am, I understand the need to have a unifying philosophy to guide a progressive movement. Another thing I like to say, specifically about Catholicism, is that when it’s bad, there are few things on Earth that are worse – but when it’s good, there are few things better.
It has to do, I think, with the empowering effect of believing in divine guidance and divine grace. The 1950s-60s era Civil Rights activists knew they were putting themselves in extreme risk of their lives – and went ahead with their activism anyway. If they were beaten, if they died, they knew they were suffering and dying for a greater good. That gave them the courage to go forward.
I’ve seen nothing secular to equal that. I didn’t see anything like it in the Marxist-Leninism that derailed the Left in the late 1960’s. I certainly don’t see anything like it in the stone-souled narcissist blood-hungry Christianity of today’s RIght.
katymine, you are the the tagmaser of the FDL universe!!!
“It’s all about respect and inclusion”
That really captures a core progressive value. It’s the self-righteousness on the religious right that I find off-putting.
Oh jeez, Hot topic.
Christy, I love you, and I respect your good-heartedness. And, I understand (I think) and respect your faith. I too have faith (Unitarian).
BUT.
I think “peace making” at this point in the struggle is extremely dangerous.
It is in our nature to “play nice”
It is in our nature to “make up”
BUT
That’s what let’s “them” regain power and make things worse, time and time again.
I agree faith can be a wonderful part of our lives. I agree people need a guiding principle and a higher calling.
BUT
I will keep fighting until the institutions that have brought us here (theology, conservatism, etc.) Are completely discredited and buried.
Otherwise, they just “re-brand” and reappear. Herpes. Cancer.
To guote the “dixie chicks”, I’m not ready to make nice.
Fahrender (#162)
We on the Left must recognize that people of faith have a valid place in the accomplishment of what we are seeking. It’s not only the right way to do things but we will not succeed without them. It’s all about respect and inclusion.
Amen to that! :^)
Well that’s why I call ‘em pharisees Ed did you learn Big Jim Larkin’s battle cry during the great strike in school the same as I did?
“You’ll crucify Christ no more in this town.”
Note to non-Irish readers: For the record Larkin was a trade union leader in Ireland early last century he founded what to mind is still the best Irish trade union around he as a syndicalist and an atheist which didn’t stop him getting it exactly right with that particular slogan . The priests and the bosses both hated his guts, the ordinary people knew truth when they heard it :-)
Wonderful thread Christy. Thank you so much.
Since it’s about time for another EPU to open up and swallow everyone, I’d just like to say that I agree with what Betty Cracker, Rob Zuber, and Mr. Wonderful have written here. I’m concerned about any politicization of religion. I certainly understand that people will use their religious beliefs to guide their political views, but I think that it’s important for believers to understand that the reverse is also true. Not surprisingly, I’m also an atheist.
I, too, get nervous when people who belong to the majority religion in this country start talking about “coming out of the closet”. Maybe it takes a little courage to face bigoted non-believers, but I’m afraid we all have to have that much courage occasionally, or we’ll never speak our minds when it truly matters. That sort of rhetoric reminds me of the religious right’s persecution complex more than it does the ideals of liberalism.
Speaking of the civil rights and abolitionist movements, I remember reading that slave owners also considered themselves to be good Christians. No doubt they gave an appropriate tithe and went to church whenever possible. Most had no problem reconciling their religious beliefs with their occupation. Many racists believe they’re good Christians as well. They seem to have as much belief in that as the Christian civil rights workers.
People’s religious beliefs don’t matter to me. The people matter – what they say and do is what’s important. What you get out of your religion, if you have one, is far more of a reflection of who you are than what the name of that religion is.
So please, if you want to make a point about what your religion says about an issue, OK. Just remember that it’s not about your religion. It’s about the issue. If you do that then we can all get along.
Every world scripture contains the same spiritual lessons. If you honestly practice any one of the world’s religions, the results are mercy, humility, peace, wisdom and insight.
As much effort as you put into practicing your religion, so will your personal results be. Same as practicing karate, piano, paragraph construction, ballroom dancing, or public speaking.
It’s the practice, practice, practice that leads to lasting personal improvement. Whereas reading and reciting ‘Karate for Dummies’ won’t help you out on the street.
The more you work at your chosen religion, the deeper and more wonderful the results within you are. It is a pilgrimage that can consume and enrich your entire life.
The fundamentalist approach to any world religion is just to join up. That’s it. Just join up with the Sect that’s Supremely Right, and you’re all done. For life. No more work, no more practice. Just go hit your neighbors over the head with your black Book.
After all, you’re supremely right. You’ve arrived. You’re all done. You can read and recite Jesus for Dummies.
The Christian Right in America follows this folly, of faith instead of practice.
The Christian Left in America are the far more numerous. Pilgrims who continue to put spiritual examples and lessons they admire into practice, for the inner rewards it brings them.
What possible conversation can such a pilgrim have with someone who has sat down on the spiritual path, and announced that they are saved, and are all done with practicing?
One is a student of living. The other is a dropout, a deserter, a dud.
Great photo!
I’d always thought I’d seen Catherine Keener somewhere before. Now I know why she looks so familiar.
Very good post too. I am an atheist but realize full well (because I think the capacity for belief is likely a genetic trait) that my lack of belief will always be a minority phenomenon. Nevertheless, I feel very comfortable doing charitable works and funding charitable causes alongside faith organizations. The key is to work together to promote positive human vales and to resist negative human values like exclusion and xenophobia.
damn, epu’d again.
i hadn’t read through the comments before posting earlier.
dogma and intransigience are the things that really bother me about religion and especially fundamentalism. but it is our right to believe whatever we choose, and we just have to be tolerant. to rob zuber @19 and atheist @ 41, you sound like those you disdain – dogmatic and intransigient.
i’m not religious, don’t believe in god, but i see divinity all around me. the workings of the universe are that.
it’s unfortunate that words like faith and hope are “hot” and carry loaded meaning. because as an atheist i have both faith and hope but not in an ecumenically or in a religious sense. i understood your usage christy.
the reaction to this post, so reminded me of the chapter in crashing the gate about single issue voters and how we get caught up in our own issues and can’t somehow get it together to put our differences aside to work together. christy, you said it here:
“and wherever that well of faith comes from that propels you forward, let’s harness that strength instead of squabbling amongst ourselves and trying to marginalize one faction or another. In order to right this severely listing ship of state, we have to all pull on the oars together — one nation, one people, one faith in our ability to do better and to do right by all.”
good post, but there’s a big gorilla and an elephant hanging out in the back that no one is looking at. gay rights and abortion are no compromise issues for both sides. how do we rectify this?
to me, god talk is inappropriate in mixed company and should be in politics as well. it’s too devisive and the potential for needless disputes between like minded people too high. further, i think our “big tent” requires that we politely avoid the topic rather than embrace it…
amen cujo359 @173 … oops, sorry.
You know, I don’t think Christy or anyone else who is of a left religious bent here in these comments is arguing for politicizing religion, or maybe even for religionizing politics…nonetheless, here’s my take. I live and work in an area that’s conservative and right-Christian, and one argument they tend to win with more moderate Christians is the idea that the left stands for nothing. Patently false, but they make the point, and since as others have noted we’re not as unified in message, we do appear that way.
Side note to all Unitarians–how many times has someone told you that as a UU you are “allowed to believe anything?” My congregation’s taken up the UUA’s “elevator speeches” call–how would you explain what you believe in a short speech? It’s been interesting to hear what people have to say.
I don’t think anyone’s arguing for some left-wing fundamentalism. But whether it’s religious or secular, we need to make clear to the middle-ground folks that we stand for something, that we are people of ethics or faith or whatever term you like, that there is a moral ground to progressivism. Progressives know this, but the right has dominated that argument with their loud sanctimony. We need to do a better job of making the point. Right, Christy?
(Hope I don’t get EPU’d…it’s a beautiful, non-rainy day and I had some annauls to plant while the sun shines!)
Christy,
Thank you for the honest, personal, moving post, though I too agree with the excellent comments by Robbie at 94–”it’s not the believers that are marginalized in our culture.” I grew up a non-believer in a non-believing family, so I know. The anger in Steve Duncan’s early post probably reflects the bitter taste of years of rejection. You have to hide your non-belief from most people in this country if you want any chance of influencing them on other issues. And it makes me angry when people assume that religious faith is somehow necessary for a person to have strong moral values regarding our common humanity and our world.
I admit that I do share (privately) some of the sense of intellectual superiority that, when expressed as Steve Duncan does, drives believers crazy and gets them feeling all defensive and persecuted. But I also know that life can be very hard, and we all need whatever good things help get us through each night and up again each morning to do the best we can trying to make a positive difference in the world. So I’m grateful for the fact that so many good people have been strengthened by their faiths to do great things.
Oops, in my post at 180, I meant to refer to the anger of Rob Zuber at #19 and NOT Steve Duncan (because at the moment I can’t remember what Steve Duncan said.) Sorry.
Frank @ 69
Thank you for pointing out why Armitage couldn’t have been Woodward’s source.
I hadn’t made the connection with when Armitage came forward.
Ooops. in 182 above, I meant Harry, not Frank.
Christy, I am a native West Virginian and I understand so well what you are saying. I was raised in the Methodist Church, converted to Catholicism, became an Episcopalian, and even tried Wicca and Druidry, hoping to find a place where my spirituality “fit”. The religion of my youth made me who am I and suffuses every part of my being. When I fight for the homeless, the environment, peace, or justice, it is because of my Christian upbringing.
But as a gay man I have been unable to reconcile any Christian church with my very existence. The Methodist, Presbyterian, and Espiscopal churches whirl round and round over the issue of homosexuality because their members do not share a single belief about it.
Pardon me for being cautious when it comes to progressive/left-leaning Christians and their place in the politics of the Democratic party. Many of the people I have loved and respected most in life, who would’ve gladly lain down their lives for the freedom for Blacks or the poor have no qualms with demonizing me and my kind. And some who attend those bible-beating fundie churches would die defending my right to exist as a social equal.
There is much discussion that needs to take place between the “people of faith” and those of us standing on the outside before trust can be established and we can work toward the common good. I’m afraid that I have to agree with some of the posters above that Christians posturing as victims or the persecuted ANYWHERE in today’s America rings very hollow to me.
Between the churches’ tax-exempt status, owndership of property, the deeply-rooted biblical influences in our literature and culture and, yes, legal system, it is hard for me to empathize with any Christian who claims to be excluded for his/her beliefs.
I am willing to talk and listen but I need to hear words of comfort, apology, solidarity, etc. Very few liberal/progressive Christians seem willing to speak for me and my rights as the Republicans attempt to codify my second-class status into the US Constitution.
It is hard for me to not feel hostile when the plaint is that Christians are victims when there are over 200 churches/synagogues in my small city and not a single gay organization/bar/social venue.
I will defend religious freedom because it is the right thing to do, whether I find it personally fulfilling or not. I really don’t believe and I seriously don’t know that the coin, when flipped, guarantees that the “faithful” will stand up for me against the bigots and the zealots who wish me dead or in prison because of their “faith”. It is already illegal for me to marry, adopt, and serve in the military.
Not many churches are out there on the front lines marching against this injustice. Race does not seem to make liberals/progressives as squeamish as sexuality.
There have been no great marches for gays that have brought together the people of faith, have there? A few brave souls attend the marches but they are WAY out of the mainstream. Yet I have met allies within the church who stand beside me at great personal risk. I wish I could believe it was more widespread.
I am glad that we can begin to discuss this publicly, so thanks for making this post. If we are to work together in a coalition then we need to have this talk. Peace….
MY GOD….
…does not wear jewels or furs or weapons.
…does not live in what the poor would call a castle.
…does not drive a chariot.
…does not plunder the earth.
…does not pillage any people.
…does not abandon anyone.
…does not ignore the least among us.
…does not steal.
…does not lie.
…does not take advantage.
…does not harm.
…does not take innocent life.
…does not torture.
…does not wage war.
MY GOD….
…is kind.
…is modest in all ways.
…is embracing.
…is pure, and generous, of spirit.
…is true to self and others.
…helps the least among us.
…turns the other cheek.
…is unafraid in life or death.
…rejects violence.
…shuns war.
…loves peace.
…loves all creatures.
…is wise.
…is merciful.
…is just.
Read ‘A little help from our friends’ # 81 from yesterday.
‘Good’ is frequently chosen by religion and government based on artificially sanctioned external criteria and conspicuously beneficial principles.
These beneficial principles are based on collective appreciation of the benefit of gracious choice. They are valid.
Good is also frequently set against notions of bad for purposes of setting advantages of good over bad with artificial rather than natural consequences. Validity may be suspect.
Governance that only further consolidates and protects advantage for an empowered few at the expense of the collective electorate is ungracious and will reap consequences. This lesson of history is demonstrated time and again when leaders fail to notice the similarities in circumstances: One does not disenfranchise a people in their own land without inviting consequences to one’s self in one’s own land.
Gracious choices are easy enough to understand and appreciate. We have relegated the use of the word to hostesses, missing the potential for appreciating the wonder of how Life functions; “Do unto others ONLY as you would have them do unto you,” guarantees GRACIOUS behavior that may not be ‘good’ according to the criteria set by ungracious religions or governments. Many people are not clear on this. That is why I keep bringing it up. What mankind is seeking is the peace and benefit of gracious governance. Making choices that belie this understanding invites the consequences that shape the human drama. Might it be time to explore the celebration of progress through gracious choices? This is a secular understanding of spirituality that binds no one to any particular belief system. The killer is that this is all stuff we already know, we just play with ways of getting around it and observe ‘unintended’. Think again, no consequence is unintended for the oberver.
Fahrender @148…
“Can you think of one example, anywhere in the world, at any point in history, where the religious left has “become dark and destructive”?
I can’t.”
Well, seeing as how “religious right” and “religious left” are modern political constructs, I’m not sure that this is a particularly solid question to be asking.
Generally, yes… when religion gets heavily mixed in with the prodominant political force in a society, it turns ugly. I don’t think it really matters what the particular political agenda attached to it is, or how good the initial intentions may or may not be. Whenever you’re talking about religiously-based politics on that level, somebody’s getting screwed.
As I said before, it’s very easy to paint the religious left as being a benevolent force right now, because they don’t have enough active political power to draw in the corrupting elements that the religious right drew to them long ago. Reverse the poles on that situation, though, and put the religious left up near the top of the political food chain, and you’ll see just as much pettiness and darkness as what we currently see with the religious right. It might not be aimed at us, but it’ll damned sure be aimed at somebody.
That’s why I say, this is a hell of a tightrope walk we’re looking at here in terms of involving the “religious left” politically without pushing it so hard that it becomes very much what we’re currently trying to stand up against.
Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire and in this circumstance it seems fire and brimstone.
The fact is there a whole lot of liberal Christians and the left can learn a lesson or two from the right. The conservatives courted the religious right and they have slaughtered us at the polls. While some of us may not be comfortable with the religious left courting their voters, we have to understand that this is an effort of fighting fire with fire.
The netroots is one avenue to court voters, the religious left is another.
CaseyL wrote:
It was a pretty secular Marxist-Leninist crowd that fought fascism in Spain. Their losses easily matched those of American civil rights workers. They too knew that if they suffered, if they died, they were suffering and dying for a greater good. And as I non-believer who was part of the American civil rights movement (and was beaten by the Klan in Mississippi) I ask you to not write me and the many who were like me out of history. I was not motivated by believing in divine guidance and divine grace. And the idea that people who are not so motivated are less likely to act, even at great risk, for justice is just wrong.
Apologies:
I don’t know how to do the block quote thing. What’s missing from the above note (189) is from CaseyL and should read:
It has to do, I think, with the empowering effect of believing in divine guidance and divine grace. The 1950s-60s era Civil Rights activists knew they were putting themselves in extreme risk of their lives – and went ahead with their activism anyway. If they were beaten, if they died, they knew they were suffering and dying for a greater good. That gave them the courage to go forward.
I’ve seen nothing secular to equal that. I didn’t see anything like it in the Marxist-Leninism that derailed the Left in the late 1960’s. I certainly don’t see anything like it in the stone-souled narcissist blood-hungry Christianity of today’s RIght.
Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire and in this circumstance it seems fire and brimstone.
liberal realist @188…
No offense, but I think we’ve had more than enough of religiously-based scorched-earth political movements in this country to last a few lifetimes. In this case, “fighting fire with fire” is only going to get us more fire.
There has to be more to the “religious left” than simply getting Democrats elected by the same means that the religious right has used all these years. If not, then there’s really no point… we’d just be keeping the same basic attitudes in place, only with more elected officials having a (D) after their name than an (R).
Becoming part of the religious right with a few alterations is the last thing I’m interested in, and I can say with a great deal of confidence that most religious liberals I know want nothing to do with anything like that either.
As Bernie Ward (radio talk show host in SF) says, “They check their brains at the door (of the fundie church) and pick up their crayons.” And Bernie was an ordained Roman Catholic priest. But then he got out, got married and had kids.
I am second to NO ONE in having gone to church as a child — we even went on vacation. And I must say about these freaky fake Chistians: HOW can they go to church so often and know VERY little about Jesus Christ?
I will say one thing: Jesus himself said, “When you worship or pray, do it in a closet — not out in the open, showing off.” Then why do the fundies do just this? Beats me. But this is why (among other things) I call them fake Christians.
Keep it to yourself. Mind your own business. Let it go. This applies to self-righteous religious types as much as it applies to self-righteous anti-religious folks. In the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas (considered heretical by mainstream Christians) Jesus said, “If you do not bring forth what is within you, what you do not bring forth will destroy you.” Whatever that is, whether it’s your faith or secularism bring it forth and get on with the business of kicking some conservative ass. This is a fruitless argument. Show some respect for others’ opinions and let them be.
What everybody misses in the whole debate is the two great commandments: Love
God with all your heart, and, love your neighbor as yourself. If we all followed this simple ideology, the world would be a great place to live. Unfortunately, the righties tend to forget the second part of the great commandments.
I am 100% certain that politics and religion should remain as separate as possible, or we risk being divided in this country. Even John Adams thought so eventually. Evangelicals like Robertson owe their well being to the Jeffersonian model. It’s amazing they forget that. I’ve seen enough evidence of deconsecrated 18th c. churches in New England, to believe that other denominations like Methodists and evangelicals had a hard time back then *because* of non-secular local gov.My two cents and viva Jefferson.
While I can’t say I’m a Christian, I also have this to add. There are some basic tenets we can all abide by and get along in private by– like swapping recipes. But what I really hate is the way the religious authoritarianism has taken over and trumpeted itself as The Christianity that believes in one version, the King James bible and that’s it.
Where I grew up mostly, CT, the major denominations tend to be Episcopalian, Catholic and Congregationalist–very different in many ways. And many here are very religious in their way of carrying themselves, even if not practicing. CT is also a blue state where 75% of Catholics believe that rape victims should have standard medical treatment, e.g. day after pills, to help victims the best they can to get over the trauma.
I think secularism keeps people civil. I once heard Howard Dean was pretty religious. Don’t know if it’s true. But I was struck by the way he stated he doesn’t “wear religion on his sleeve.” That is how a lot of people feel. There is private/& public. Ann Coulter is a disingenuous traitor to suggest otherwise. & she is from CT.
Great post. The mention of Sam Cooke reminded me, in light of your excellent recent post about the West Wing series finale, I just had to point out that that wonderful Sam Cooke song was played during one of my fav West Wing scenes, when the Prez tells the First Lady that the MS is coming back. James Taylor sang it. Really powerful.
http://www.westwingepguide.com…..ACIGC.html
I also think secularism is a way for the government to say I’m ok, you’re ok, without getting into the nitty gritty of liturgy, which ChimpCo is so ill-equipped to do. Too often from this side of the country, it looks like they take G**’s name in vein. It looks bad to us “puritans.”& unlucky to boot.
Hierarchy yes, perhaps MarkofIreland (140).But I have to defend my numerous coworkers, friends, cousins who are in fact, Catholic. (I’ve got quite a mixed extended family) Quite a few of whom are women who get up very morning and go to church. & Why is it always women? Conservative in habits and appearance, but the majority are the kind of “lib-ruls” that would make Falwell froth in the mouth. Feminists all of them!
Christy:
I do not believe in a religious right or left. Where and what you worship is your business, and none of mine. And who I am, (religiously) is none of your busienss. I quote from a recent Senator “You put your hand on the bible and swore to support the constution. You did not put your hand on the constitution and swear to support the bible.” I voted for Kennedy. He was a good man. I’d probably vote for any number of good women (NOT HILLARY). We are all in this together. You, me, and all the rest of us. That you are religious, and I’m an unbelieving Jew is totally beside the point. We are all in this together. It is our country. It is not important to me that “God created the heavens and the earth in six days….” and so on. It is much more important to me, and to you that “We hold these truths self-evident…..” and “…power obtains from the people.” Don’t fight on Sunday. But remember, as everything else you write, demonstrates, that we are fighting against a political evil, no matter who we are.
Your post has certainly hit a chord, due to the number of comments.
While raised a Christian, I have become more of a questioning agnostic, you know, questioning of dogmas, due to my study of religion, and exposure to other cultures. I firmly believe a system of belief should not be imposed on anybody, especially for political reasons. Most belief systems have a good moral grounding, and can benefit the society on the whole, though the history of religious intolerance is certainly horrible.
I currently live in a 50:50 Christian/Muslim society, one of the few SSA counties not in obvious strife. Toleration here is kinda of a miracle, but here, everyone wants to go to heaven, but nobody wants to die. And one of the benefits is that we have twice as many religious holidays as other countries. I now want to find a country to live in that honors Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu and Buddist Holidays.
Most of the people I work with are Christians, but respect the beliefs of Muslims. One of my neighbors is a Muslim, and he is a polygomist. Frankly, I don’t know how he can manage more than one wife, but the wives are not complaining.
Thanks for the Sam Cooke reference. I did not know the history of this song before. I first heard the song at a high school dance, performed by an unknown band called Three Dog Night, in 1969.
Lot’s of people from OK on this thread. I, too, am from OK. I never minded the “Okie” tag, in fact, when my family moved to NH, my brother and I were proud to be called “Okie”. But then, I didn’t grow up at a time when being an “Okie” meant you could get turned away at the CA border, or that you could get the crap beaten out of you, or worse.
What I did face, though, was the assumption that because of my origin, and my accent, that I had to be ignorant. Because of this prejudice, I was put into classes appropriate for someone they knew just had to stupid.
My excellent grades, and high scores on standardized tests were regarded, I guess, as proof I was only smart compared to the stupid people of the south (I always felt it was due more to prejudice towards the south rather than OK.)
Now that I got that out of my system, on to the point of this thread.
In my mind, it doesn’t matter what your religious or spiritual belief are. It doesn’t matter because whatever is true, is true. So, what we believe really doesn’t matter.
What does matter is how we treat ourselves, others, and the rest of creation.
I am uncomfortable with public religious expression because of Matthew 6:5-7. It’s a private matter between each of us and everything else, whether you believe everything else is God, or just everything else.
If you believe in God, do you really think God’s feelings would be so hurt by someone not believing, that revenge would be necessary?
Could God command us to do unto others as we would have them do unto you, and follow up with “Of course, this doesn’t apply to me, do as I say, not as I do?”
Then there’s the matter of “WWJD”.
Well, one thing he wouldn’t have done is gone to war in Iraq, he’d have rather been nailed to a cross.
Late to this one, but you know what?
I really get a bug up my you know what when religious people complain about the way non-believers treat them, like having people with different views blasting you about anything is unusual.
I don’t think people of faith have even a glimmer of what it’s like to deal with 1/100000000000 the kind of ugliness that non-religious people get, day in and day out, in this country, especially from the so-called religious, even the “nice” ones. The religious foist their views and their disdain on us in so many ways, and more often than not without even realizing that they do it.
I’ve had “nice” religious people say when I said I was an atheist that I couldn’t really believe what I believed, and not raise their voice or be nasty about it. They were merely dismissive of my beliefs, like I don’t even know my own mind. How patronizing is that?
Have they ever lost jobs over their beliefs, and known that it was futile to seek reparation for it, because, well, I’m an atheist, so I’m automatically a liar in a court of law, and that so-called religious person who puts his hand on his precious Bible to tell the truth then blatantly lies that he fired me because I wasn’t doing my job right is automatically the honest one a jury will believe?
Do you think I could get elected to public office, as an avowed atheist?
Think any “nice” religious people would ever vote for me, no matter how wonderful a platform I had, how much in line it would be with their beliefs, how diligently I would serve them?
Think again.
Or how about this little gem, right here from the comments:
What everybody misses in the whole debate is the two great commandments: Love God with all your heart, and, love your neighbor as yourself. If we all followed this simple ideology, the world would be a great place to live.
Everybody? All? We’re not part of the debate, I take it, since an exhortation was there to love a deity that non-believers do not even believe in? How about taking out that loving God part and leaving only the love your neighbor as yourself bit? That would have included non-believers in the debate, rather than dismissing them out of hand, or, worse, implying that the world would be better off without people who couldn’t love God.
This is what I mean about the incredibly insidious ways that religious people treat non-believers like they don’t matter, like they don’t even deserve to be here, without realizing it.
You reap what you sow, believers. If you want respect from non-believers, you have to earn it. Believers certainly have much further to go than non-believers in proving they do deserve it. You’ve insulted, repressed, tortured and even killed a whole hell of a lot more of us than we have you, for a lot longer.
Believe me, LJ/Aquaria, as a fellow atheist, and one who lives in a part of the country where “which church do you attend?” is considered a perfectly acceptable way to begin a conversation with a total stranger, I feel your pain.
You are right — we are maginalized and patronized by people who should know better. Sometimes it’s almost worse when it’s done unconsciously. At least we know where we stand with the Tim LeHaye crowd.
But there are Christians (and people of other religions, of course) who respect our beliefs and support our issues. And we will get exactly nowhere politically without them.
I believe the separation of church and state should be absolute, but I’m fuzzier on the appropriateness of faith-based appeals to people’s conscience to drive political change. Given the very real role religion has played in social justice movements, its power as an agent for good is as undeniable as its power to do evil.
Bottom line for me is, it’s okay as long as all people of good will are welcome in the movement. I can’t deny that the proximity of religion to politics will always give me the willies, even when it’s the good guys. But for reasons I will apparently never fathom, religion is at the core of the identity of most of our fellow inhabitants of this planet. The trick is to harness that force in the service of good rather than evil.
LJ/Aquaria. I think I am with you, even if I arrive at it differently. To me it is such a private matter what I believe whether I’m agnostic, atheist or extremely religious, that I bristle at faith-based appeals. I know other people in CT do as well. In fact, it’s a general rule not to discuss details except under certain conditions among the like-minded. Somehow I got into this conversation with someone when talking of Falwell types recently and she pointed out the local sentiment before I did. It seems like people like Ann Coulter take advantage of our reticence to talk of religion or spirituality to try and neuter us politically and invite people to make stereotypes and assumptions.
In visiting a part of the country where people openly ask others about religious affiliations, the little hairs sometimes stood on the back of my neck, at this and other related stuff. First off, IMHO many in the New England do not want to even say the names of the divine out loud or assume they know the will of the divine. It may not be considered blasphemous today, but it certainly gives one a little bit of the superstitious willies when it’s pasted across a billboard.
Sometimes I can hardly even laugh at this aspect of ChimpCo, because it nauseates me. And yet, these fundies think they are the cornerstones of religion when they can’t even understand the various sensitivities and sensibilities of other denominations, much less other spirituality, philosophies or religions.
I have no sympathy for those who feel “persecuted” because they want to talk J*su at the printer or coffee maker and noone else does. First off, people like that have a hard time even understanding that some people don’t read the King James Bible. Ugh don’t get me started. The lack of sensitivity is sometimes appalling.
Religion does not make for a civil society. Secularity does. Noone can convince me with any little anecdote that it is otherwise. It would take a dissertation or two or three or four before I might concede some points.
And last rant, I promise. Joseph Lieberman has betrayed his background on this issue as well. He wins the defamation prize by saying one can’t be moral with religion– or something like that. Well Joe, most people have a sense of ethics, public, private, professional or otherwise. As far as I am concerned, a politician cannot get off scott-free wearing religion as a badge, but have no sense of ethics or morality whatsoever.
And thank you, sincerely, Christy for opening this debate, because we all need to put two cents in for what its worth. We can smell this coming on the political horizon.
Correctoin: Joe said one can’t be moral *without* religion.
Brava!
The above (comment 210) is meant to be a trackback. It is a long disagreement with Christy’s post. The title links to it. I’m glad she opened this topic, however. It needs discussion.
Robbie at #189:
The resistance to the Fascists in Spain was not largely Leninist-Marxist, at least at the grassroots level. It was a coalition of anarchists (the CNT), socialists (the UGT), and decentralist nationalists. As the civil progressed, however, business owners in the non-fascist-controlled areas threw their lot in with Stalin’s agents, and managed to roll back much of the Social Revolution.
A good intro to the time period is Antony Beevor’s book The Spanish Civil War.