Unveiling a ‘spiritual covenant with America’

May 16, 2006

We haven’t heard much from the burgeoning “[tag]religious left[/tag]” in the context of the midterm elections, but there’s at least one group that hopes to change this — starting tomorrow.

A conference geared to help [tag]Democrats[/tag] infuse [tag]God[/tag] into their politics begins tomorrow at All Souls Unitarian Church in [DC] with the unveiling of a “[tag]spiritual covenant with America[/tag].”

The “Spiritual Activism Conference” aims to equip liberals to operate in a political arena where religion has played a more prominent role since 2000, says Rabbi [tag]Michael Lerner[/tag], founder of the Jewish magazine Tikkun and a chief conference organizer.

“While we support the liberal agenda, we are going to a much deeper level with this spiritual critique,” he said. “We want to bring in a nonutilitarian framework that sees other human beings as embodiments of the sacred.”

After some 1,200 conferees receive copies of the covenant — an alternative to former House Speaker Newt Gingrich’s successful 1994 “Contract With America” that led to a [tag]Republican[/tag] takeover of the House later that year — they are expected to discuss it Thursday in meetings with members of Congress.

This is not, [tag]Lerner[/tag] says, “taking the liberal agenda and sticking on some Bible quotes.” Instead, it’s about putting a liberal ideology in a religious context.

The “covenant” is not yet available, so I don’t know exactly what’s in it or whether the document is any good, but apparently it includes policy tenants (national health care, public campaign financing), and societal goals (members of Congress are urged to “spend part of one day a week feeding hungry people at a shelter or other … hands-on service activity”).

We’ll see how it’s received and whether any Dems take it seriously. Frankly, I’m not sure if a “spiritual covenant with America” is exactly what “spiritual progressives” need to breakthrough and serve as a counterbalance to the religious right. Having said that, I do like the fact that they’re moving the ball forward.

Right now, “religious” is too often a synonym for “conservative.” That won’t change over night, but it’s encouraging to see the “religious left” make a good-[tag]faith[/tag] effort (pun intended) to change the landscape.

May 16, 2006 at 2:56 pm

I would prefer to see a religious coalition that doesn’t advertise itself as liberal or conservative but is just broad-based, reflecting the three major, mainstream religious philosophies of the U.S.–Christianity, Judaism and Islam. True religious tenets based on scripture are invariably liberal anyway. Doing unto others, helping the poor, loving peace and justice etc. (regardless of how some practitioners invariably twist them to other uses). That would show that religion for the majority is not rightwing and hatefully conservative, without setting up a false “whose team are you on?” choice–liberal vs conservative. This would shut the fundies up and show them as the weird minority that they are instead of the voice of religion and morality that they purport to be. It also would be better, politically, if the Christian elements took the lead in speaking for this group to go head-to-head with the Christian fundies. In other words, don’t give them the opening to dismiss this new group as just a bunch of liberals and minorities.

As a liberal Catholic I believe that any spiritual agenda has to consist of putting faith into action. Any so-called religious organization or person or representative that shies away from feeding the hungry and housing the homeless does not speak to or for me. A pre-emptiove war’ or cutting off food stamps for the poor, or denying civil rights to anyone are ideas that are antithetical to to the teachings of Jesus. Who are these people who claim to be the ‘moral majority’?

It is about time the real moral majority spoke up. Osama may have hijacked Islam, but the so-called Religous Right has hijacked Christianity. I would be very interested in seeing the Covenant with America. Every great human rights movement in this country, from abolition of slavery, to women’s sufferage, to the civil rights movement, has grown out of a spiritual awakening.

Jesus was a liberal

Look it up

It is good to see this……there are a TON of religious people who consider themselves liberal….I am like, Gracious. a liberal Catholic and Gracious, you summed it up perfectly!!

Thanks Beth: This is the thing that makes me the angriest about this bunch of thieves in power. How dare they claim the moral high ground! They are all a bunch of pharases. Jesus said it all in Matthew 23. I wish they would read that Bible they love to be seen with.

“A conference geared to help Democrats infuse God into their politics begins tomorrow . . . ”

I’m not sure I’m getting this. Are we just throwing the separation of church and state out the window, then, because we can’t beat the Republicans otherwise, even though their approval ratings are running in the 20s across the board?

The correct response is to get religion the hell out of politics and vice versa, and to point out how the religious right is holding one party, and the government, hostage to their reactionary beliefs that probably 75% of all Americans find repugnant.

The Founders got it right. Can’t anyone understand that or appreciate it?

Or am I completely misreading what’s going on here? I sure hope so.

Annother liberal Catholic here. All I have to add is:

When I look at these so-called “conservative Christians” I see nothing of Christ in them.

Are there any religions that worship the Constitution and the Bill of Rights? Because those are the documents I want my politicians beholden to when they are on the job.

They can do, say, feel, and worship however they want when they’re at home or at their place of worship, but not on the job and not on my dime.

Politics and religion should both come with warning labels indicating the danger when they are mixed.

To Hark:

I think that people of conscience, people of faith, will vote their faith. I agree with you that there should be a separation of church and state. I (and I think most people here) do not believe in a state sanctioned religion. Actually that is exactly what is going on right now in DC and we see some of the fruit of it today: such as congressmen like Delay using religious organizations to funnel money for political causes. The so called faith based innitiative is nothing more that a sham for graft and corruption. Our “founding fathers” ( and mothers) did have it right.

But the Civil Rights movement started in a church and was opposed by government for a long time. We can say the same thing about abolition and sufferage. Fundamental change for the common good is often started by spiritual people against many opponents. It is past time for people of conscience to stand up against facism.

I just believe that the Liebermans and the Falwels have dominated the conversation long enough. It is time for the true people of faith to speak up for humanity. Are we going to be so politically correct that we are not going to endorse universal health care because liberal denominations do also? I for one am glad we are hearing another voice for religion besides the ugly one we ahve been hearing for so long.

Fantastic! The Democratic party needs nothing more than it needs a gaggle of gay, body-pierced, Unitarian Druids holding hands and singing “What’s Going On.” This is sure to do wonders for the party’s image, and for their numbers at the polls. That’ll really convince the shockingly large number of Americans who profess to believe that the Bible is “literally true” to change sides and vote Democrat!

With friends like this, who needs enemies?

I am not a believer, but I think it’s high time that those who claim to be Christian start speaking like Jesus Christ and Francis of Assisi, rather than their exact opposites, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. “Saying truth to power” doesn’t mean kissing the asses of the wealthy and the mighty of this world. It should mean caring for those who are still ill-clothed, ill-housed and ill-fed (in this, the most successful economy in history). It should mean turning to the only party that has ever used those same words, FDR’s Decmoratic Party (not the party of today’s ass-kissing Democratic Senators and Congresspersons – they’re caught up in a system which badly needs to be reformed). It should mean caring for the whole of the natural world, which our modern technology has at last enabled us to irrevocably destory — again, turning to the only pollitical party which has expressed concern for “Earth in the Balance”. I may not be a believer, but I would gladly welcome a sign of life from true Christians. They’ve been silent (even counter productive) for far too long.

hark, I agree with you completely about separation of church and state and actually don’t subscribe to any organized religion myself. My read on this–and it may be incorrect–is that this is not an infringement on that concept.

The fundie religionists in essence made a bargain with the Republicans (a low tax, pro business party) to make Republicans a majority party IF they would support their ultra-right social agenda. This is why true old time Repub conservatives no longer recognize their own party. It was a Devil’s bargain, and now the Repubs live in fear of these rightwing extortionists who have hijacked their party.

This group on the other hand, already identifies with the progressive/liberal agenda of the Democratic party. They are not trying to make a bargain and impose a foreign ideology on the Dems; they are, to the contrary, helping Dems make the case to religious voters (and there are plenty) that the existing Dem liberal philosophy is more in keeping with mainstream religious tenets. Thus, no Taliban factor, no new faction to satisfy–just an affinity group that can help Dems win elections because they already support the program, albeit silently, til now.

As I see this, the group in question is, effectively, the missing link that will connect the message of the Nazarene Carpenter with what many have referred to as “the living, breathing Constitution.” That document—especially in its context of being a “living, breathing” entity—is the thing that the Religious Reich fears the most. It’s like the sunrise hitting a convention of ghouls and vampires: They cringe; they whimper and curse and snarl; they wave their arms violently; they burst into flame and become mere piles of smoldering ash.

The Bible, in its simplest form, is an extremely metaphorical text. A lot of people believe that the part about “coming to the Father through the Son” refers not to adopting the theocratic regimen of Jesus’ time, but rather of walking in his intellectual shadow, and seeking to do as he would have done, faced with the current circumstances of any event. It’s about putting “the least of these my brethren” first and foremost, and gradually lifting from the bottom, rather than pushing off from the top. It’s a No-One-Left-Behind scenario that Kid George and company could never sell—because they couldn’t manage to internalize it for themselves….

The “separation of church and state” has already been effectively thrown out by Rove and company and its proponents in the Congress. Since religion has no official standing in government other than its ceremonial useage, it bothers me considerably that religion figures so prominiently in campaigning.

I think Democrats need to emphasize the secular nature of the Constitution, specifically that both Article Six and the First Amendment strongly suggest that religion has no official role in government and that the government’s view of religion is neutral by design.

The American Taliban can say what they want but they’ll be unable to demonstrate support for their “Christian nation” concept by using the founding documents.

“Jesus was a liberal. Look it up” – 2Manchu

Jesus was an apocalyptist who believed that the Kingdom of God would be established on this Earth (not in Heaven) before the last of his disciples died (in the first century AD), that God would judge all who lived or had died, and would let all who were good and just into the Kingdom to live forever and throw all who were bad or sinful out. Since Jesus imagined that current state of the world to be sinful and full of evil, he believed that anyone who was doing well (rich people) to have obtained that wealth through sin (hence, “It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God”). Thus he taught that people should give their wealth to the poor, attend the sick and visit the lonely, and live a proper and righteous life. Peter and Paul were apocalyptists too.

Read Bart Erhman’s “Mis-quoting Jesus” or “Peter, Paul and Mary Magdeline”.

The problem with Jesus’ teachings of course is that the Kingdom of God did not come in the First century AD, or the first millenium AD either. Nor did it happen one generation after the reestablishment of Isreal (1988) nor after the second millenium either. 2012, now, which is the end of the Mayan calendar (or is that Incan?) might be the end time 😉

So, basically, here we are Christians (I might be being generous here) and we have to live for generations in this ‘sinful’ world. Naturally, the various denominations of Christianity finally came around to the idea of letting their parishoners to actually retain a comfortable livelihood.

Maybe, in a way, none of us can be real Christians, because first century Christianity is based on the expectation that the Kingdom of God would come within Jesus’ natural lifespan. We are all (except maybe the Jehovah’s Witnesses) members of an entirely different religion than the one taught by Peter and Paul, that is organized to continue over the centuries and that only lightly draws from the teachings of Jesus. Such a religion is conservative, greedy for wealth and status, and desirous of bending the political to its will.

Rather like what one sees from Pat Robertson and Jerry Fawell 😉

Regardless of his belief in the date of the arrival of the Kingdom of Heaven (something I doubt someone a couple of thousand years later could write with confidence about, even with a cute book title), his day-to-day attitude and actions were certainly those of a liberal. He hung out with the poor unwashed multitudes, was against the death penalty, treated women with an amazing amount of respect for his time (maybe not as equals to men, seeing as how there were no female apostles, but did more for them than anyone else at the time), and stood up to the entrenched conservative political dogmatics. That and he had radical sandals.

“as how there were no female apostles” – UeberBill

Paul in his letter to the Romans references a female apostle named Junia.

The Anglican church translated that into Junius in the King James’ Bible, but in fact Paul is refering to a woman.

Bart Erhman, “Peter, Paul and Mary Magdeline”. Don’t scoff!

Michael Lerner’s latest book is “The Left Hand of God: Taking Back Our Country from the Religious Right.” I haven’t read it yet, but did see his lecture on Book TV in which he set forth the major ideas. Rather than weakening the wall between church and state, Rabbi Lerner reminds us that a moral life requires that we act in ways that are clearly foreign to the Fallwells, the Robertsons, and their weaselish adherents. You don’t need to claim any formal religion to hope the Covenant with America folks succeed.

Comments are closed.