Welcome to the FDL Book Salon on Robert Jones’ new book, Progressive and Religious: How Christian Jewish, Muslim, and Buddhist Leaders Are Moving Beyond the Culture Wars and Transforming American Public Life. It’s a really interesting and engaging read, and offers some valuable insights into how politically progressive religious people find the source of their progressive values in their religious traditions.
Because we are in the throes of the presidential campaign, peoples’ minds (including my own) tend to be calibrated toward well-known and highly politicized religious movements like the religious right, which emerged with the expressed purpose of influencing elections, or the less easily defined religious center/left, which seems to seek to influence candidates’ and parties’ positions on issues but hasn’t organized, as the right has, as a reliable voting bloc for either party. Recalibrate your thinking for this discussion, though: it has nothing to do with electoral politics, and everything to do with community organizing.
Robby opens the book with interviews of Jewish leaders, and the central concept they lay out — that of tikkun olam, or repairing the world — is a guiding principle even for most secular Jews (and Jews, both religious and secular, tend to be politically progressive). God made the world imperfect, messy, broken, and it’s our job to fix it. That principle informs the imperative to help the poor not just as an act of charity, but to question authority, raise hell, and transform society. It is, as Rabbi Eric Yoffie, the president of the Union for Reform Judaism, tells Robby, “establishing the conditions for justice.”
It’s not a huge leap from that concept to the underlying principles of Christianity, of course, but that central element of Jesus’ teachings has been so warped by judgmental, condemnatory fundamentalism and the political rise of the religious right that many people don’t associate it with our country’s majority religion. I know I promised not to talk about the election, but Sarah Palin’s RNC speech was emblematic of religious right disdain for the social justice Jesus. As was pointed out by many after her speech, Jesus was a community organizer, but you might forget that if you listen to the religious right too long. In those circles, Jesus’ teachings on poverty have been eclipsed by a handful of bible verses that have been twisted to condemn homosexuality.
Alleviating poverty by radicalizing social, economic, and political institutions is central to the social action of the Christian leaders in Robby’s book, as well as the Jewish ones. I was struck by the discussion in the book of the “extravagant welcome” these Christian thinkers find in Jesus’ teachings, and the imperative of welcoming all to an “open table.” (Similar concept in Judaism is how it is a mitzvah, a blessing, to welcome guests into your home.) But the “extravagant welcome” is not just into one’s literal home, it’s about, again, transforming the world to subvert the conditions and institutions in which inequality — of wealth, of opportunity, of education — persists.
While poverty is at the fore of these activists’ teachings, they extend that “extravagant welcome” to people marginalized and shunned by the religious right. In John 3:16, the verse cited by religious right activists to emphasize the imperative of salvation (“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believed in him should not perish, but have everlasting life”) these activists find “whosoever” to include everyone, and especially the LGBTQ people the religious right has condemned to hell.
The holistic theme of transforming the world, of course, runs through all three Abrahamic traditions, and Robby’s interviews with Muslim leaders reflect this view as well. Muslims in America must combat terrible stereotypes about not only their religion but themselves, and as a tiny minority — less than one percent — of the American public, that is surely daunting. Yet for the leaders profiled in the book, the principles of justice, goodness, and beauty are central to their teaching, as well as the imperative of ijtihad, or the independent thinking required to link centuries-old traditions to democracy and human rights. In denouncing the extremism of some Muslims, progressive Muslims say, in language that would resonate with Christians and Jews, “that what you do to my fellow human beings, you do to me.”
Robby also briefly explores American Buddhism, which, unlike the other religious traditions, is not based on monotheism and sacred texts. I have to admit to a paltry understanding of this religion, but Robby’s exploration of “Engaged Buddhism,” or the “interbeing” of all things, was a nice primer.
Many people think of religion as a set of principles, rules, or ceremonies, or possibly a way of connecting to a community with a shared place or tradition. But Jones’ book casts it as something else, as well: a philosophy for social change that challenges authority, and that is often elegant and revelatory, even for secular allies.
Related posts:
- FDL Book Salon Welcomes Robert Wright: The Evolution of God
- FDL Book Salon Welcomes Seth Jones, In The Graveyard of Empires
- FDL Book Salon Welcomes Robert H. Frank, The Economic Naturalist’s Field Guide: Common Sense Principles for Troubled Times
- FDL Book Salon Welcomes Matthew Kerbel, Netroots: Online Progressives and the Transformation of American Politics
- FDL Book Salon Welcomes Hillary Rettig, The Lifelong Activist: How to Change the World Without Losing Your Way





Spotlight







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

Robby, Welcome to the Lake.
Sarah, Thank you for Hosting today’s Book Salon.
Thanks for having me. And thanks, Sarah, for such a solid introduction to the book and to the discussion.
Hi everyone, thanks for the opportunity to host. Robby, can we kick things off with a brief discussion of your definition of progressive in this book. You discuss poverty, the environment, gay rights, religious pluralism, and a lot of other issues in the book. How would you define or describe your subjects’ activism (as opposed to their ideology) as progressive?
Hi friends, I must confess I’m only about 1/3 of the way through the book. Robby, what surprised you most over the course of the 90+ interviews you conducted while writing P&R?
Hi Dan!
Sarah and Robby, welcome to FDL!
I have not had the opportunity to read the book but how do we reconcile a Joe “Short Ride” Lieberman and all the other neo-cons with the Jewish progressive tradition?
Of course, I’m also old enough to have fond memories of the Berrigan Brothers and many of the anti-war left of the ’60s/’70s as examples of Christians attempting to follow the teaching of Jesus.
I started off the book with a clear understanding that I was looking for “the other religious America,” one that had not radically truncated religion to be about just a few litmus test issues. The areas of concern in which these leaders were active included broad commitments to social justice, democratic pluralism, and equality of all people.
You may also be getting at another important distinction in the book. “Progressive” applies to their political and social outlook and not necessarily to their theological outlook. Many leaders had quite traditional theological commitments that lead them to very progressive poltiical engagement.
Interesting. So you’re saying that a more traditionalist view of the bible is actually more compatible with progressive politics than with conservative politics? Can you give an example?
Thanks, glad to be here! The best response vis-a-vis the neo-cons who claim religious foundations is to say that they represent only one strand of a broad religious tradition. And in the last few years, many have lost credibility because they have bent the tradition so far toward a partisan and politically ideological that is has hit the breaking point.
With regard to Judaism, I found there one of the strongest progressive strains of any of the traditions I treated in the book. Progressive Judaism is alive and well.
I would say you can’t reconcile Lieberman’s neoconservatism with Judaism!
Sure, one of the most powerful and the most cited verses I heard across the interviews with Jews, Christians, and Muslims, was the citation of Genesis 1 and 2–the account of God creating all human beings in God’s image. Now that passage has been used in many mischievous ways, for example, to justify patriarchal gender relationships. But there is a more straightforward, you could even say literal, reading of that passage that undergirds the unity of all humanity that speaks against any form of discrimination.
Robby, a question that continually ran through my mind as I read the book is how the legacy of Martin Luther King is perceived/distorted today. Both the left and the right claim him as a great champion of civil rights, of course, but when he was alive he was considered a scary radical. But I wouldn’t consider any of the people you interviewed to be outspoken radicals speaking truth to power in the same way that King did. Is that sort of radicalism dead, in your view, or are there people out there who fit that mold?
How would they reconcile that with a secular view of human rights/ equality?
Hi, Dan, good to hear from you. One of the biggest surprises was both the energy and the activism going on. Sociologist Robert Wuthnow had characterized liberal Protestants over the last 20 years as “the quiet hand of God.” But that is changing, really over just the last few years. For example, in places like the heartland in Ohio, a group called We Believe Ohio has been making a real difference and becoming more visible on justice and common good issues in Ohio.
Can you cite some examples of We Believe’s work?
There were a large range of people in the book, including more radical voices. For example, Father John Dear, a peace activist, has been arrested for civil disobedience more times than one can count, and was even arrested for taking a hammer to a fighter jet once–something out of the radical prophetic tradition. However, when he talks about what undergirds his work and urgency in his actions, he talks about Jesus, saying that the main thing he can conclude definitively about Jesus is that Jesus was nonviolent.
We Believe Ohio sprung up nearly overnight as a response to Rod Parsley’s patriot pastor’s group. Sarah, I know you know that story. While WBO didn’t have the budget or the bombastic headline grabber like Parsley, they have been steadily lobbying on justice issues. They were an instrumental force in supporting the increase in the minimum wage in Ohio and have working on issues like public education, a real mess in Ohio. They have changed the expectation at the Ohio statehouse from what legislative aids expect from religiously motivated constituents. From culture wars to common good.
Welcome Robert, and thanks Sarah.
What do you think about the decision of McCain/Obama to “empower” Rick Warren over, say, the more extreme fundamentalists who have been driving the debate over religion and politics?
We Believe is also working on payday lending and clean campaigning right now.
Of course religious people were behind many of the great social justice movements like abolition and civil rights. One of the most pressing issues facing us today — I mean, literally, today — is the economic crisis. Given the policy complexity of this current debacle, do you think religious movements have a role to play in addressing it?
One other thing about King. He was interestingly the most-cited person in all of my interviews–from Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism. The vast majority of leaders in the book saw themselves in his legacy, work that meant precisely speaking truth to power, reviving a real prophetic critique of the shortcomings of our nation, challenging their own religious institutions when they fail to welcome everyone, including LGBT persons, etc.
The question of where evangelicals fit into the progressive religious landscape is an important one. Basically about 1/5 of evangelicals are progressive, about 1/3 are moderates, and about 1/2 are conservative. The leaders I concentrated on in the book fit the progressive and left side of the moderate mold. Warren is certainly emblematic (though not the only representative) of a newly emerging evangelical center that is declaring its independence from the right.
That seems to be one of the major areas where the “prosperity gospel” folks on the right fall down, i.e., if you’re poor or struggling, it’s all your own fault.
I guess I was more interested in the fact that both candidates tried to declare their independence from the right. I guess if the extremists hate both candidates (as they do in this case, although they’re trying to suffer McCain) it didn’t really occur to them that they might get together and cut them out of the loop.
Of course they can’t completely, but until Palin came in we heard precious little from them.
I’ll disagree with Robby here — a lot of folks classify Warren as a centrist but he’s admitted his views aren’t different from James Dobson, only his rhetoric is. He’s a solid conservative.
I like the notion from your subtitle “moving beyond the culture wars and transforming American Public life.” It suggests a political move in the image of Ghandi, who subverted the British emphasis on power and warfare by non-violently opposing it and ultimately making the use of military power by the British in India politically impossible. In your book I see Progressives who let the religious right screech and shout with images of warfare and power while the leaders you describe operate in deeper ways to subvert the whole debate.
There’s also the famous “render unto Caesar” passage in the Book of Matthew in the New Testament. People who have actually read their Bible take that passage and the earlier passage in Matthew about not praying in public to understand that the secular and spiritual worlds are not always intended to intersect. (Though Christianity is built on proselytizing, Jesus seems to have taken a dim view of forcing religion upon people.)
This is a great question, Sarah, one I’ve been thinking about. The complexity of this issue is mind-boggling, whether one is religious or not. I think what progressive religious voices have to offer are principles. For example, with this much money and power on the table, the biblical idea of attending to the vulnerable in society (the widow, the orphan, etc.) and “the least of these” would demand that any bailouts not just save the rich and follow some trickle down theory but attend specifically to the middle and lower classes.
I’m with Sarah on this one, too. Warren looks more acceptable than Falwell, Robertson, or Dobson — but he’s as strongly conservative as they are. The difference is that Warren is willing to submerge/cloak some of his conservative views, in order to be seen by the wider world in a kinder light.
Warren is fighting a battle with the old guard, and that’s his trump card.
On the religion front, last night Keith Olberman had a story on Countdown about Sarah Palin’s “minister” who made his religious “bones” by chasing a “witch” out of her village in Kenya. Now there’s some religion. All I could conjure up mentally (as I’m sure many others did) was the scene from “Holy Grail” about the witch… even KO made reference to it.
When I hear stories like that, I have to give the whole organized religion “thing” as pass, despite the good men and women who employ their faith and try and do some good in this miserable world. Cynical? Yes. I support the work of religious leaders in the Peace and Justice movement, but I have a hard time reconciling their beliefs in a mythical hairy thunder (or whatever) to what I know about the world. The closing sentence of the post
gives me hope that perhaps others see religion as an agent of change, but it seems to me more an agent of the Status Quo and always will be.
All that being said, I might have to get the book to get a new perspective perhaps.
Recalibrate your thinking for this discussion.
As much as there are a few critical thinkers in the commentoshere, and some are here, that’s a high bar to hold. But, I’m not questioning your right to pose that option. There are some critical, high minded thinkers here.
What anyone here, you are me or anyone at Claremont or Fuller Seminaries, think about empowering Rick Davis seems to be a rather MOOT issues. For reasons I will not go in to.
I’d prefer to further discus the holistic and transformative themes pointed out.
I’ve been drawn to this site hoping for an honest discussion of such. I’ve mentioned these things many times, but it seems people here mostly would rather go in different directions, so I embrace an opportunity for this.
This is off the topic a bit from Robby’s book, but McCain was trying very hard to simultaneously appear moderate to the public while behind the scenes sucking up to the religious right. Ultimately, he caved to them by picking Palin because they essentially vetoed him picking someone who was pro-choice (Ridge or LIeberman). So Palin was the ultimate suck-up to the religious right.
As for Obama, he’s tried to reach out to a mix of religious people, but has included a lot of right wing figures in his outreach, including, in my view, Warren.
Thanks for this insight, Peter. One of my favorite quotes in the book is from Sister Joan Chittister of the Network of Spritual Progressives. When I asked her about her thoughts about a religious left to oppose the religious right, she said, “I don’t want to be a part of anything in m life that makes those boundaries barriers. I don’t want to be defined as right or left. I want to be defined as a Christian with the world in mind.” She went on to talk about moving into a new world, where progressive religious leaders weren’t just reacting to the Christian Right but were moving beyond those divides and bringing people together.
Well, as has been pretty obvious from the discussion, we have veered into election territory, although that’s not covered at all in the book. That’s all.
I like this question, and it got me wondering: Robert, how did you come up with your list of interviewees in the first place?
Don’t want to get too sidetracked on Warren; the evangelical question is important but they are not the story for the emerging progressive religious movement I’m describing in the book. There I include, for example, Ron Sider, who has been a much more consistent voice holding evangelicals’ feet to the fire on issues of poverty and hunger for decades. What Sider brings is a clearer structural critique of the status quo. He noted, “The New Testament understanding of salvation is not just me and Jesus walking in the garden alone—it’s partly that—but it’s also this new community where there’s economic sharing and slaves and Gentiles and women receive a new dignity.” That’s a word the larger evangelical community still needs to hear.
Indeed! Rod Parsley will burn your credit card bills on his altar tomorrow!
That story was more about culture than religion, the way I see it.
I’ve been visiting this site for a long time and have stood up to many agnostics.
I think religion is personal and not something to be USED. By anyone. On either side of the aisle.
Of course, that’s just me. I happen to pay a lot of attention to the spiritual aspect of life and have become cynical of Blogsites trying to use religion at this point of the game.
I have not read the book, sorry to say. Was Campolo one you interviewed? This has been his arena for sometime.
But not LGBT people. There are a lot of things to admire about Ron Sider, but he thinks there should be a federal constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. So one thing I think we need to be mindful of in these discussions is not giving these religious figures a pass on issues like that, just because they’ve been articulate on other issues.
I just stumbled on the Book Salon today and I’m sorry to say I haven’t read the book yet, either. As a Buddhist, I’m most interested in what was said about Engaged Buddhism. Could you share a little bit about that? Thanks.
RE: “I think religion is personal and not something to be USED. By anyone. On either side of the aisle.”
This is an interesting point, worth flagging. Clearly there is something wrong when religion becomes simply another lever to pull to get people to support a political agenda, right or left. But clearly in the Abrahamic traditions, which all have a strong prophetic strand, religion was never meant to simply be a private expression. There are strong biblical critiques of communal injustice throughout with expectations that religious beliefs matter for these issues.
For too long, progressive leaders have been fairly timid amidst the misuse of religion by the Christian Right. What’s shifting is that progressive religious leaders are tapping their traditions to speak out and act on progressive policies.
I’m not holding my breath for that to happen, it’s a direct contradiction of the worldview of the jeebus-loving wingnut seperatists; christo-fascist nutcases and the rest of the religious right. For them Jesus was an English-speaking Caucasian American Male who bowls and drinks Bud, grills out on Saturday night and believes professional wrestling is real. Their “pastors” do nothing to disabuse them of the notion, and so it goes… Palin is one of them, for whom religion is a tool, not a reality.
Sure, agreed about not giving leaders a pass and pushing them to give an account of their positions and engaging in dialogue to persuade them when we think they’ve got it wrong. But I also don’t want to create a litmus test on the left that disqualifies someone from being a progressive ally because they don’t line up on every issue. (I’d also say this about non-religious progressive leaders).
But in the book, I’m careful to say both that the issue of marriage equality was the issue that created the greatest spread of opinion, especially in Christianity, AND I clearly show leaders who are taking stands for full LGBT equality.
So do you see an opportunity for religious progressives and secular groups that fight for economic equality to join together and demand that Congress do something other than bow to Wall Street? Wouldn’t this be a moment people advocating for the least of these would be waiting for? Do they have something to offer other than principles? Those don’t move the Congress, generally speaking.
Welcome!
I was struck by the discussion in the book “Zen Meets Community Development,” where Robert points to various Buddhists who are taking their Buddhist senses of “letting go” and “mindfulness” in the personal sphere and moving them outward into the community. My take on it was that the people he describes are working to be mindful of the world in which they live, encouraging others to similar mindfulness, and challenging the American ideal acquiring “stuff” (let alone fighting over it, defending it, and battling for more).
I am a Lutheran pastor, and was pleased to see the book go beyond the three Abrahamic faith traditions. Thanks, Robert!
Agreed about litmus test disqualifying someone who might be an ally on another issue. But all I”m saying is because someone is religious there’s sometimes a bit of a tendency to put them on a little bit of a pedestal. If they want to get involved in political issues, they have to be subject to political critiques. But I’ll give this a rest so that you can answer some of the other folks’ questions!
Robert, what did your research reveal about the environmental crisis and how the religious progressives are addressing the issue?
Peter raises a great point — Robby, if you could talk a bit more about some of the interviewees’ critiques of consumerism, if you have a moment.
Hi, Jo. So, a confession relevant to your comment that I have in the book. I myself grew up in what you’re describing as the “jeebus-loving wingnut” group–a Southern Baptist from Mississippi. But it was voices like Sider within evangelicalism, along with other voices like Rosemary Radford Ruether outside evangelicalism, that kept pushing the contradictions forward for me until I had to deal with them. But I also want to say that surely you know that your caricature is just that. And that the religious right by most measures only makes up 15% of the country. That’s why it’s important that we don’t take the culture wars at face value but move to make the progressive case clearly; and these leaders are helping the 8 in 10 Americans who say religion is important ot their lives to connect it to progressive politics.
Within the Nichiren tradition, there is a group called Nipponzan Myohoji, a progressive movement that builds peace pagodas and conducts long peace marches. I believe they are primarily on the east coast. A friend shared a video about them that I found fascinating.
My own sect of Nichiren Shu is one of the most liberal schools within Nichiren Buddhism, but doesn’t seem to get as involved in active work for peace as do the Nipponzan Myohoji.
Thanks, Sarah, good to focus on consumerism. As Peterr points out above, the Buddhist emphasis on non-attachment was very powerful. Alan Senauke, former head of the Buddhist Peace Fellowship, pu tit this way:
“To me the Buddhist precepts boil down to not living your life at the expense of other beings. anyone can be a good person, but do you want to live at the expense of the person in Bangladesh who’s making your shirt?”
this principle of not living at the expense of others was connected to the unity of all humanity–a strong emphasis throughout the interviews. These leaders are not only helping people connect this theologically but also helping them enact it through community organizing at the local level.
Does your book include a list of organizations/denominations that are engaged in progressive/hunger issues?
One of the marks of “engaged Buddhism” is that, like the progressive strands of the Abrahamic traditions, it focuses on structural suffering (dukkha) and solutions aimed at those structures of oppression.
Yes, I agree about the Right’s misuse of religion. And, it’s a wonderful opportunity, but, as Sarah said, it’s evolved into a totally political discussion.
I lift you up on your mission.
Demi, What = “it’s”? The Right? This page?
Can Robby or anyone else here identify any state ballot referenda on economic issues that religious groups are advocating for?
The notion of a Buddhist lobbyist caught me by surprise. I loved the quote from Bill Aiken about his work (p. 162):
As a Christian, I could describe Jesus in the same way. Lobbying seen through this lens is simply community organizing on a grand scale.
One of the largest organizations working on wage issues at the state and federal level is the Let Justice Roll compaign. The name, of course, comes from the biblical prophets, words MLK made ring in American ears. I interviewed Rev. Jennifer Kottler, Director of the campaign, for the book.
Let Justice Roll members work to raise the minimum wage in states such as: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia.
my feeling is that it’s imperative to differentiate between religious Christians and religious Christian extremists. Almost all Protestant denominations and Catholicism, in the US, have moderates and progressives in their ranks. Some denominations are known for the relatively large numbers of their members who lean toward the left (i.e., Presbies, Episcopalians, Unitarians, Lutherans, Congregationalists, etc, etc). My congregant expounds progressive doctrine from the pulpit. Religion and religious extremism are two different things.
Yes, and Lama Surya Das, intentionally echoing the life of Jesus, talked about picking up his meditation cushion and walking–allowing the power and focus of meditation to help people work for justice.
Speaking of mixing up church & state, exPM Blair is now a lecturer in religion at Yale.
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/….._0920.html
Someone asked earlier about how I drew the interview sample. I started with well-known people mentioned in the media and then used a “snow ball sample” approach from there because I wanted an organic map of the progressive religious movement. At the end of each interview, I asked for 3-5 names of other people the interviewee would recommend. I kept interviewing until these circles started to close and I began to hear the same names.
Was Campolo in your group?
Interesting point, Robby. I too lived in the South (East Tennessee) during part of my mis-spent youth, and was constantly bombarded with messages (literally) to come to Prayer groups, Bible-study etc… and that was back in the 70s. I lived in Ohio during the 2004 election where literally 50% of my neighbors were members of the Rod Parseley or similar mega-churches, and the men were “Promise-Keepers”. So maybe I’m a bit too cynical…
I actually believe the 15% number, but perhaps their effective number with a “Media Multiplier” is somewhat greater, I think if people are asked to self-characterize they will more likely fall into the “jeebus-loving wingnut” camp than take the risk of being perceived as a godless athiest like me. (Or worse, be called a Secular Humanist, a phrase akin to “Liberal” thanks to Pat Robertson & Co)
Your comment about making the progressive case is certainly valid, but I wonder if it’s possible in an environment where a culture war like this is even possible. Are we reaching “them” or just talking to ourselves? If these leaders are actually helping 80% of Americans who say faith is important connect their relion to progressive politics we should see Obama in a landslide in November.
Except like most progressives, said leaders probably follow the IRS guidelines and don’t use their pulpits (as they shouldn’t) for that purpose directly, unlike the wingnuts.
It’s = this is, meaning this site, as a place for intelligent conversation.
Welcome to the lake and thank you for this post. Very important. The religious left can do much good.
In answering that, Robby, expand upon who Campolo is, and the role he’s played in Democratic politics, just for some context.
I’ll offer one interesting item here regarding the problem of reconciling an ancient text with modern sensibilities and problems. Harry Knox, of the Human Rights Campaign, put it this way:
“The people that we study now as great thinkers were all revolutionary in their time. They were all radical, they all pushed the limits, they all listened to God first, and then made what they were hearing bump up against the text and bump up against the tradition of the church. And they found that maybe the text and the tradition weren’t big enough to hold what they were hearing from God, and so they said some new things.”
This sense that there was permission for “new truth to break out” was a clear theme across traditions (less of an issue obviously in Buddhism).
Yes, I interviewed Tony Campolo for the book. As many of you know, he’s also been one of the long-time voices of a social conscience among evangelicals. Like Sider, he’s on the faculty of Eastern University. Tony’s also been fairly out front about being a democrat. If you’ll forgive the cut/paste, I’ll include a quote here (one of the strengths of the book I think is that I’ve tried to both tell a coherent narrative and allow the voices of these leaders come through):
“We all know why Jesus came into the world: to declare that the king-
dom of God is at hand. If you want a good description of what the kingdom
looks like, it’s very, very concrete in Isaiah 65. People have decent
houses and jobs. Children do not die in infancy. Old people live out
their lives in health. All of this implies that we’re not going to let eld-
erly people suffer because they can’t afford medicine because the U.S.
governmental pharmaceutical plan is so inadequate. Everybody is
going to have a decent job and get the benefits from those labors.
When children are born, mothers are not going to have to worry
whether their children will grow up to calamity, to become drug push-
ers or gang members. The last verse of that passage, “none shall hurt
the earth anymore,” implies that we’re going to be an environmen-
tally concerned people. So when we pray for the kingdom of God,
we’re praying for all of these things.”
What’s signficant here is connecting very traditional “kingdom of God” language–language that sounds to many like theocratic rumblings–to a very progressive vision.
given that Campolo served on the DNC platform writing committee, did you see any of his vision reflected there?
Thank you for that. Such a good reminder. I look forward to reading your book.
Hi, and thanks. One clarification that I take pains to make in the book is that while the movement I document in the book includes the religious left (an important group), the progressive religious movement is much bigger than that and is a growing left-center movement. Regarding numbers above, while the religious right is only 15% of the country, the religious left is also nearly identical in size, about 14% (see both my own research with the American Values Survey and also John Green/Steve Waldman’s 12 tribes of American politics). So, this broader movement that connects to a majority of religious Americans is important.
However, as was pointed out above, one problem is that the media infrastructure on the right is unmatched on the left–one reason we hear so much more from the right so that they seem like the majority.
So how would you define/classify/describe the “religious left” and why is it different from the center-left movement you describe as progressive?
We are coming to the end of this Book Salon.
Robby, Thank you for stopping by the Lake today and discussing your book.
Sarah, Thank you for Hosting this Book Salon.
Everyone, if you would like to know more about Robby’s book, there is a link above.
Thanks all.
Thanks, Bev, Robby, and everyone else.
Ian upstairs discussing a ‘Poison Pill’ concerning the proposed bail out.
Well, I was not privy to the platform process, but certainly the sense that “Renewing America’s Promise” (the somewhat generic theme of the platform) had specific emphases on issues of poverty and fairness in the tax codes, both areas that focused on the least well off in society. These are obviously not specific to him, but consistent with this vision of what a world ordered by the kingdom of God should look like.
Robby and Sarah thank you for an enlightening discussion.
And Bev, thank you once again for your efforts to bring us such great reading material. The reading list just keeps getting longer and longer and longer and …
Thanks to everyone for the rich discussion. thanks to Bev for hosting and to Sarah for an excellent job moderating.
Thanks for sharing the quote from Bill Aiken. Was he, as a representative of Soka Gakkai, the only Nichiren Buddhist quoted in the book? Or are there others? Unfortunately, when I was a Soka Gakkai member, I was actively discouraged by my leaders from being involved in community work. It’s one of the reasons I walked away.
It’s nice to know that that isn’t the case at all levels and in all areas.
I hope I can pick up a copy of this book soon or see if it is in our local library.
One quick plug: I have created “Progressive Religious Voices” audio podcasts on the book’s website. You can hear these leaders in their own voices at:
http://www.progressiveandreligious.org/podcasts.
Oh, and I’ll be releasing a new podcast every 2 weeks through mid-2009.
Yes, Bill Aiken was the only Nichiren Buddhist interviewed for the book. Interestingly, to my knowledge, he’s the only official full-time Buddhist lobbiest in DC.
Oops, looks like the link picked up the period. This should work better:
http://www.progressiveandreligious.org/podcasts/
Thank you for including the Buddhist perspective in your book. I wasn’t aware that Bill Aiken was a full-time lobbyist, but knew he was a leader in SGI. Now, as well, there is a Soka Gakkai member who is a member of Congress from Georgia, Hank Johnson.
I look forward to reading it, and I will check out your “Progressive Religious Voices” podcasts. Thanks so much for coming here today!