Just about every human being on the face of the planet meets your definition of ‘religious’. Atheists, people who maintain that religion is the opiate of the masses, agnostics and cynics all wrestle with the question of what to say to someone who has just held her mother’s hand as her mother died and wonder about the origins of the cosmos and our place within it. Sure, by the standard of your definition you’re on pretty safe ground in saying that the left is religious. But your definition is not the common or dictionary definition and the TheoCons will most certainly not be impressed by it or moved to a sense of spiritual kinship or shared values because you point out that all people who maintain a sense of wonder are in some broad sense religious too.

It does little good to say we endorse separation of church and state if we then allow the theocrats to move the frame of civic discussion so that it comes to be about what the bible says or what God wants in matters of public policy. Engage them in personal dialogue in your role as a pastor or as another Christian or as a religious person if you like. But the more the public discussion becomes couched in your common ‘language’ (which is not a language but a context of shared religious belief) the more people who believe differently are excluded. To the extent that they can make that ‘language’ socially required they move this country towards theocracy. When you deny the left is non-religious you, in effect, apologize for or paper over or downplay the fact that our political decision-making is secular and we’re proud of it and determined to keep it that way.

The theocratic right is consciously trying to erode people’s sense of the importance of secular government. We have a responsibility to resist their effort to make civic discussions about what God wants and insist that public policy is properly determined by what society’s members want and need.

All the best,
Robbie

How’d you guess I’d be back?

Thanks for your thoughtful voice, and your careful reading of the post. I don’t think we’re as far apart as you suggest, in part because of some inartful phrasing on my part.

I’m not trying to say to the TheoCons “O yes we are Christian on the left, too.” When I read through the hundreds of comments on the Sorrow thread, the sheer religiousness of the thoughts came across to me. Some, as I said, were explicitly religious in language, quoting a sacred text of some kind and offered “prayers” (more than a few explicitly non-Christian ones, BTW), while others offered thoughts that — to my mind — were religious in nature but not so obviously tied to an explicit or easily identified belief system.

I suppose that to bring our thoughts closer, we need a common definition of what it means to be religious. To me, it incudes (but is not limited to) asking questions and seeking enlightenment about the origins of the cosmos and our place within it; our relationships to others – family, neighbors, strangers, and enemies; our relationships to those in need – the poor, the ill, the outcast; our relationship to the past and to the future; our hopes and dreams and our fears and doubts. Bringing it from the general to the very specific: What does one say to someone who held her mother’s hand as her mother died? That’s a religious question in my book.

By that standard, I think I’m on relatively safe ground is saying that I believe the left IS religious. (Not everyone within it, just as not everyone on the right is religious – but close enough to being true for a general discussion like this, I hope.)

When the Religious Right says “the left is irreligious,” it’s code language. They’re saying that everyone on the left is self-centered and doesn’t give a damn about anything but their own pleasure. They’re saying the left hates anyone who prays. They’re saying the left doesn’t acknowledge anything greater than themselves. They’re saying the left is out to destroy anyone who believes in God.

When you move to your last point about how we structure society, there we are absolutely on the same side. See my comments @ 126 about the Constitution and religion. No one is safe in their beliefs if government gets involved.

I am mystified, quite frankly, at those TheoCon pastors who want prayer in school. Why are they trying to make schools into churches? Aren’t the churches capable of being churches without government sanction and support?

The whole “secular society” thing and the Consititutional issues deserve a whole thread (or ten!) of its own. Perhaps we’ll try that down the road . . .

“Not much footwashing in Wa, DC these days.” (code for: those selfish assholes)

“We’re hearing a lot of false prophets” (code for: I’m finally clueing in that Bu$hCo are Very Bad News and I won’t believe them again)

So I think that some politicians, including Clinton, really ‘got’ that dialect. It’s part of Mark Twain, threaded through Lincoln’s speeches, and part of the American vernacular.

A different conversation in the week revealed a newly married couple whose private code is that of movies (lines from Casablanca, from Star Wars) that they use as their private code. They’re not church-goers, but they view American politics right now as Godfather Goes to DC.

The other thing that intrigues me is the sense that my evangelical contacts associate “Hollywood” (ie, porn, selfishness, self-indulgence) solely with the left. Never with the right. The thunderous Old Testament is very real to them, and one told me very soberly and seriously that the Bible predicts “the world will end in fire.” He fears nukes and global warming.

The secular couple associates “Hollywood” with a lot of good things, and they don’t just stick to Westerns. Their conversation is witty with allusions to movies.

The left shouldn’t accept being cast as the party of porn, profligacy, and selfishness. The right very successfully made the left APPEAR intolerant over the whole ‘destroying Christmas’ brouhaha, but I will admit that I really treasure my memories of being in a Christmas play at public school… and I think today’s kids need some kind of experience like that.

I think that as the corruption of the Republicans is exposed, people feel very lost and confused. They’re really seeing that they were fooled, but is there an alternative that makes sense to them, and that will accept their deeply religious views? If so, how does that synch with setting policy?

This is very, very complicated but also timely. I see quite a few people who have never, ever been so upset about government, the news, the media, the economy, their safety, honesty… these are people that I’ve known 40 years, who are deeply religious, and terribly frustrated about not seeing good solutions.

Their religious faith is at the center of their lives; politics a distant fifth. But I’ve never seen such worry, discontent, and genuine dismay about how selfish, mean, corrupt, incompetent, and sleazy US politics has become.

I think a little respectful conversation and good listening would go a long way these days. Because I’m just amazed at what I’ve seen the past week… it’s really a quiet, incredible frustration.

Peter writes: “One of the Religious Right’s biggest pitches to their crowd is that the Left isn’t religious – or at least not religious in the proper way. Insofar as progressives let that go unchallenged, it’s a big tactical win for the TheoCon leadership.”

I suppose that depends on the nature of the challenge we put forward but basically I disagree with what Peter seems to be suggesting here. The left isn’t religious. Many of us are, of course, but I’m not and I hope you don’t want to exclude me or relegate me to honorary status. Peter and many, maybe even most others on the left, on the other hand are religious and there’s not a reason in the world for you not to say so and to say how your religious values move you to your political positions. But that’s different from saying the left is religious. If we go down that road then we’ll have delivered a crucial tactical win to the TheoCon leadership. We will have allowed them to frame the debate on their terms. And we will have conceded the heart of the debate.

What if they said that the Left is a bunch of queers? Our response can not be ‘no we’re not; we’re as straight as you are %u2013 in fact you’re the real fags’. If their language is intolerance we don’t ‘have to do better at speaking a common language with them.’ We have to confront their intolerance. But so many of us fell comfortably into responding to Ann Coulter’s charge that we we’re godless by saying ‘ no we’re not; Ann Coulter is the Godless one’.

The question of what constitutes godlessness is a knotty one and not the ground upon which we ought to frame society’s political discussions. I was just reading the book of Joshua and it can certainly make a person wonder why anyone thinks the ‘God of the Bible’ has any problem at all with rampant bloody genocide. Pol Pot had nothing on ‘good ol’ Joshua at the battle of Jericho’. The theocratic, homophobic, uptight, authoritarian, hate addicted, fear fueled, war mongering TheoCons are not going to be caught without appropriate bible passages to back up their dreadful desires and plans. You can try to change their minds if you like but you’re never going to have them outbibled.

What we need to challenge about the theocratic right’s charges of Godlessness is the appropriateness not the truth or falsity of the charge. We need to defend the principal of secular government which is to say the principle that while any of us may be guided by our religious faith and while our religious leaders and institutions might act from religious principles public policy is guided by the will of the people acting within constitutional limits and not by the will of God as interpreted by God only knows who. If your religion forbids you to eat pork or have sex with someone of the same gender or use birth control then don’t do those things. But don’t try to force me to adhere to your religion. That keeps society peaceful and workable. Secular society is the antidote to religious conflict. The theocratic right is not afraid of religious conflict. The theocratic right is not afraid of religious war.

We can not put the left forward as Christian although many of it’s members are. Nor is the left religious although many of us are. Or irreligious. It is a group of people who are characterized by a general political direction and have come to that tendency by a wide variety of beliefs and circumstances. If the theocrats say that no one on the left is religious; correct them %u2013 that should be easy. But if they say that ‘the left’ isn’t religious we have to agree. That may not play well among theocrats but we’re stuck defending the importance of secular society. There are many things the right wing can say that can’t be answered by a simple sound bite or even by speaking their language. We are stuck with having a more complicated position. Think of it, if you like, as just another cross we have to bear.

Make no mistake. Secular society is under attack from the right. The bizarre and entirely bogus effort to ‘protect’ American society against those who were waging a ‘war on Christmas’ is just one piece of evidence that shows that that attack is well thought out, well organized and understood by the right as being strategically important. The American tradition of freedom of religion protected by a secular political sphere is an obstacle to American Autocracy. They are working to undermine it. Please let’s not fall into their traps.

I would be happy to continue this dialog, over e-mail. Please feel free to contact me at andkar@sbcglobal.net.

I have recently spent time with branches of extended family, and we have had conversations that broached topics that we have NEVER discussed before — ever.

Notable comment from family members, mostly evangelicals: “Not a lot of foot-washing happening in Washington, DC these days.” That’s a powerful, profound comment given their worldview and these are the very same people who voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004.

I break them down into two subgroups:

1. Those for whom religion has been a deep source of strength through illness, bad economic conditions, and other difficulties beyond their personal control. For these members of my family, the Bible has been a “deep well from which to drink” for wisdom and guidance. Biblical language and stories offer them a deep source of strength, hope, and guidance about how to live their lives. These are among my favorite relatives, and they conduct their affairs wisely. These are the smart ones, who can organize any project, think through all the details, and tend to be viewed as leaders. They keep calendars, write lists, organize their garage tools, and function productively. These are also the relatives who vote for library and school bonds, even after their own kids are grown b/c they believe it’s their responsibility to contribute to community.

2. Then there is the second group. Overall, I’d describe them as less bright, less able to deal with ambiguity of any kind. They tend to be fairly disorganized, can’t seem to toss out the extra items in their houses, can’t tolerate ambiguity. These are the family members that I walk on eggshells with… I’ve thought about this a fair amount, and one thing that I’ve noted in this group is that they seem to have much more difficult creating plans, organizing tasks… they need external structures to help them function. And evangelical religion seems to fill that need for them. In a very rapidly shifting world, these folks are looking for certainty and their code word for ‘certainty’ = “Bible.” They seek out wingnut radio b/c they aren’t well able to prioritize, plan, organize, execute on their own. Lots of ADHD, a fair amount of substance abuse in this group, and writing a complex business letter is beyond their skills. I suspect that they are not able to form internal cognitive structures on their own, so they rely on outside sources (O’Reilly, Hannity) b/c they are constantly seeking to confirm and solidify a very precarious set of ideas. Their world has shifted radically in 40 years — and they don’t have the temperaments, the smarts, the social skills, the education to roll with the pace of change. This is the group that 40 years ago was pretty harmless, but who are now using evangelical religion as a framework that justifies their own purpose, meaning, and actions. They’re scary.

The first group is able to use religion in much the same way as plants use sunlight; it helps them grow, it provides nourishment. They’re always going to land on their feet and their faith helps them make those shifts and also provides needed refreshment. The second group uses religion like a cudgel, like a weapon. The second group is far more threatened by social and economic changes, and they are looking for ‘weapons’ against a world that they perceive as increasingly dangerous.

Yet even the second group is disgusted with Bush/Cheney, and deeply distrustful of politics today.

I hope that my observations underscore why I think your thread is so very important and needs more discussion in coming months.

I find FDL to be that sort of site, the mix of striving toward tackling the big issues, while keeping the birds fed, and getting the little ones to nap, the mix of the great and the very small concerns. If we humans do that, I think that’s what makes us feel the Creator must do the same. I’m an agnostic, because I know I don’t know, but I still feel as if I love God, and I do thank God often, and pray each day. Because, what the hell. Why not?

Peterr, thanks for starting this conversation – and thanks to all the FDLers who have kept it civil and respectful.

Some random thoughts: my own religious background is varied, as I was raised an atheist, became a fundamentalist as a young person, and then gradually developed a more progressive view of spirituality. So I am sympathetic to views on all sides of this debate.

I do think that religion will continue to exist so long as human beings continue to ask questions about the metaphysical and the spiritual. The things we value, that give life its meaning and joy, are spiritual in the broad sense of that word: love, friendship, loyalty, honesty, courage, humor. FDL, this community we all share and value, is in that sense a very spiritual place.

So I think spirituality is an intrinsic human quality, and something to be celebrated rather than feared. Religion, in the organized sense, is a bit trickier because it overlaps with tribalism – another human trait that serves useful purposes, but also taps into some of our darker impulses. Religion at its best is a tribal affiliation that lets us “spur one another on to love and good deeds,” reinforcing shared values that work for the common good; at its worst, it is a vehicle for the base manipulations of the power-hungry.

We choose to affiliate ourselves in all sorts of ways: sports, hobbies, sexual practices, food, music, politics, religion, blogs. And as zeppo points out @193, our potential for violence manifests itself in many of our “tribal” interactions. I’m not a historian, but it seems to me that many, if not most/all, of our religious wars have had religion as an excuse, rather than a reason. In other words, demagogues who have ulterior motives – usually having to do with land, money, and/or power – have manipulated religion to tap into those darker tribal impulses that still survive in our lizard brains. Which, to me, is more an indictment of the darker side of human nature than of religion per se, and has little or nothing to do with the idealism that seeks to promote and inspire the “better angels” of human nature and potential.

There have been a lot of great comments about how to (try to) talk to a TheoCon. Respect, listening, finding shared values. The challenge, especially for those who have no shared religious perspective to use as a point of connection, is to see past their religion without eliding it, to see their shared humanity despite the attitudes that are so troubling and even enraging. Not easy, but worth it if it lets them, in turn, see our humanity, because that will defuse their fear just a little bit.

And I do think fear is a key here. Someone a few threads back (john in sacramento?) posted a link to a discussion of FDR’s Four Freedoms. I’ve been thinking about them, and (if you’ll pardon my psychologizing for a moment) it seems to me they can be usefully connected to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Freedom from Want and Freedom from Fear are lower-level, survival needs; if they are in question, then Freedom of Speech and Freedom of [from] Worship, which are higher-level needs, are going to go by the wayside.

And that is what we are seeing happen. Because of the manipulation of fear by the post- 9/11 demagogues of the Cheney administration, and because of the economic tsunami wrought by Bushco’s disastrous policies, large numbers of Americans are not experiencing those first two freedoms. And if the Maladministration comes demagoguing along and says that scary brown people with strange religious beliefs need to be subjugated, and everyone’s freedom of speech has to be limited or denied, in order to meet those first two needs – well, we’ve all seen the results.

Which is where we progressives come in. We can talk to people at the level of their felt needs, their need to be free from fear and want. We can offer them hope, the antidote to fear; we can offer them a path to greater prosperity. We can say, with John Edwards, that we can and will end poverty in the United States. And if we offer people hope, and a way out of fear and poverty, they will be much less likely to listen to the demagogues, and be less willing to sacrifice those second two freedoms.

None of us has to be spiritual or religious to have those conversations. We can, in fact, have conversations that may profoundly affect the viewpoints of a TheoCon without ever mentioning religion. For those who are comfortable speaking the language of faith, starting with the felt needs to be free from fear and want can be a way in to more explicit discussions that gently nudge TheoCons away from extremist viewpoints.

Sorry for writing such a tome, but this was such a good and important discussion, and because of my own background these are issues I’ve thought about a great deal. If you made it all the way through this, many thanks.

I’m the designated black sheep in my family. Raised fundy–my parents helped found a church in California that functioned as a reaction to Southern Baptists and Presbyterians, who were ‘too liberal.’

My whole world was defined by fundamental christianity. Every day, every thought, everything I read, and every friendship I had was constrained by it. It’s tough to think for yourself when your social and familial salvation depends on getting your ideas and emotions Right.

But I walked away. Married a unitarian, left the state, eventually left the family for a long while. Even went to grad school, a first for anybody in my family–and they figure I’ve lost my faith to leftwing intellectualism. Sigh.

My folks and my sister are still fundy; I’m not sure what I am in religious terms, but I so know even though I understand the language of fundamentalism all too well, I still have one hell of a time talking with my family. Even after letting go of the pain they caused me, I don’t know how to break into their thinking.

Like Old Broad, I see my folks reach their 80s and I wonder how I’ll deal with them as they die. I understand their fear, I do; I’ve been there. But the fear is bigger than any love I can offer.

Thanks, Peterr, for bringing this up. If not now, when? If not us, who?