Sunday Discussion Group

July 2, 2006

We had a fruitful discussion the other day about Sen. Barack Obama’s speech to “Call to Renewal,” but considering that some, including the WaPo’s E. J. Dionne Jr., believe Obama’s remarks “may be the most important pronouncement by a Democrat on faith and politics since John F. Kennedy’s Houston speech in 1960 declaring his independence from the Vatican,” it’s probably worth taking another moment to consider what the senator had to say — and question whether or not his broader points have merit.

The AP account of Obama’s remarks was, upon further reflection, not entirely helpful. It took a few sentences from a 4,600-word speech to suggest that Obama railed against the Democratic Party and liberals everywhere for anti-religion animus.

I’ve read and re-read the speech several times, and while I believe Obama erred in repeating a few too many conservative narratives/myths, it hardly seems reasonable to characterize his remarks as an “attack” on progressives. It was, in many ways, a liberal speech — he defended the separation of church and state, he said a pro-choice policy on reproductive rights is a practical necessity in a pluralistic democracy, and he said a Democratic message that emphasizes lifting up the least fortune is entirely consistent with evangelical Christian values.

Indeed, Obama’s most candid denunciations were directed at conservatives — for trying to base public policy on Scripture, for using faith as a political wedge, for misguided adherence to biblical literalism, and for the movement’s cynical exploitation of people of faith. The AP report overlooked these points altogether.

That said, most of the criticism I’ve seen — from Chris Bowers and Michelle Goldberg, in particular — takes Obama to task, fairly, for repeating “Republican propaganda as fact” and suggesting matter-of-factly that Dems have a religion problem.

With this in mind, here are some points to ponder:

* Does the left have a religion problem?

* If so, what should progressives do about it, if anything?

* Should Dems reach out to evangelicals? Or is outreach a waste of time?

* Can progressive secularists and progressive theists work cooperatively under a Democratic “big tent”? 

Pardon me for writing tangentially to the topic instead of directly, but that last question holds special sway for me because I’m not sure where I fit between the two.

I was born and raised Catholic, I attended Catholic schools until I was eighteen, I know (it appears from experience) more about church history and church doctrine than anyone my age who doesn’t have a religion, theology, or divinity degree and/or isn’t a seminary student. I am comfortable discussing scripture and turning that scripture into the basis for arguments or policy questions if the people I am debating are religious people themselves. Finally, when in conflict, I tend to side with the free exercise clause rather than the establishment clause, which tends to be the mark of the religious, I think.

However, I don’t attend church more than a handful of times a year. Privately, I think about policy questions more in philosophical and economic terms, without a whole lot of thought given to the religious aspect, though I am far more sensitive than most to the implications of our policies on religious people’s desires. And I do think the rights of secular people are in no way inferior to the rights of the religious. Indeed, though religious people may be a majority in this country, tyranny of the majority was something the Constitution’s framers specifically set out to stop.

All that said, that last question is extremely important to me because if someone concludes that secularists and theists cannot coexist, cannot work cooperatively, I don’t know where that would leave me. And I don’t know what good that division would do for the party or for progressive ideals in general.

Is this sort of uncertainty the province of someone who’s twenty-four? Or is it a conundrum more widely felt among liberals than I am presently aware?

  • Dems would do well to rediscover the constitution and re-educate the nation about what it means to be an American.
    Our country is losing its way because our “operating instructions” are not being followed.
    Faith in a Democratic interpretation of the constitution is a big tent with can include us all.

  • I think the basis of any alliance between secularists and theists is the acceptance of the separation of church and state. There was a time when theists saw that principle as an important protection to both government and religion.

  • Given the present demographics of the U.S., any political party that was actively hostile to religious believers would be an extremely marginal one. That said, the tradition of U.S. constitutional democracy is secular, not religious. The founders put in the establishment clause for good reasons, and some of the greatest of historical Presidents (Jefferson, Lincoln) were some flavor of skeptics.

    Today’s radical right has made it an explicit goal to overturn this tradition (though in many cases they do so while pretending that the founders were theocrats). Like nearly all of the right’s cherished notions, this one leads to disaster, not only for us heathen unbelievers, but for the religious as well. Our current theocratic President is one of U.S. history’s worst, and his failure’s effects don’t discriminate by religious ideology.

    To the extent that “the left” (probably better described as the “non-radical right”) has a religion problem, it’s that the successful reactionary attack on the country’s secular tradition has undermined a broad non-theocratic consensus with roots going back to the Enlightenment. Rebuilding this consensus is an essential part of not merely revitalizing the Democratic party, but also of curing the larger political culture of a malignant pathology.

  • jhupp and kali make important points.

    It seems that Republicans who often decry some lack of acculturation among immigrants need to take a course in what it means to be a citizen themselves. Republicans and evangelicals need a remedial class in Citizenship 101.

  • Jhupp,

    That is a wonderful perspective you bring. I agree with it. I practice it too – though I probably will think from a faith perspective more often when pondering political policy or pursuing my local activism activities.

    Can secularists and people of faith work together to bring peace and social justice is the better question (I think both parties, particularly the Rethuglican one, do a poor job of working towards this goal).

    The answer is yes. See Dr. Robert Jensen’s very interesting essay on why a secularist can be a Christian:

    http://alternet.org/story/33236/

    From my own experience in local activism in Pasadena, with Glendale and Pasadena Democracy for America particularly, I’ve encountered many secularists and most agree to respect my faith and are happy to have my enthusiasm towards our common goals.

    Susan Jacoby has a great book out which I hope to read later this summer – “Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism”.

    http://www.susanjacoby.com/

    Between her and the writings of people like

    Marcus Borg

    http://tinyurl.com/fb8rc

    I have found a lot of hope and impetus for continued involvement in my community. Actually speaking of community, Parker Palmer has a fantastic book about acting in community:

    http://tinyurl.com/h78va

    “Company of Strangers : Christians & the Renewal of America’s Public Life”

    It speaks to working with people of differing perspective – exactly what you seem to be asking.

    Regards,

    Patrick Briggs

  • Great commentary and thinking. The only religion problem the left has is that it has ceded the territory to the right. Progressive/liberal/leftist politicians and leaders should have no qualms about speaking about their religious beliefs (or lack thereof), always coupled with the very important pointer that the US is an officially secular country and that while the politician’s beliefs affect his life in many ways he will never seek to legislate his beliefs onto others. Americans need to be reminded repeatedly of the troubles and violence that have rocked “religious” countries in the past and how the US has managed to avoid that through its secular approach. American conservatives need to be reminded repeatedly that Christianity is a religion of choice, not birth–believers make a decision to become Christians. It is categorically impossible for a nation to be Christian, unless every individual in that nation has chosen to be a Christian. Christ sought disciples, not slaves.

  • The Left does not have a religious problem. Many liberals are people of faith.

    We do have a problem balancing the seemingly opposing stances of separation of church and state vs. bringing our faith perspective into our efforts to promote peace and social justice.

    On an individual basis, those of us on the Left who are people of faith have a responsibility to take the Bible seriously (not literally). That means get more grounded in our faith. What follows from this will naturally be stronger sense of WHY we must act in this world to make it a better one for all.

    On an individual basis, those of us on the Left who are secularists have a responsibility to respect the religious among us and reach out to them for help in our community activism. Look at what secularist, Dr. Robert Jensen, is doing for an example – he just might be bringing Christians at his church closer to what it means to be Christian while working for social justice and peace.

    On a more general, What should Democrats do basis, I think we work with organizations like Tikkun and Sojourners to find out. It’s very important that we don’t treat this issue of faith as just one more tool to use for electoral advantage.

    The goal is a better community locally, state-wide and nationally. Peace and social justice and helping all human beings realize their fullest human potential.

    As individuals it’s about being more authentic with our rationale for doing good in this world and respecting those of differing perspectives. Nationally as a party, success follows from acting towards this underlying goal. That’s where our focus should be.

    Regards,

    Patrick

  • One of the things that Obama did in his speech is put forward a different view of Christianity – a progressive view, one that differs from the hate-filled rhetoric of the extreme religious right.

    He said “ In other words, if we don’t reach out to evangelical Christians and other religious Americans and tell them what we stand for, then the Jerry Falwells and Pat Robertsons and Alan Keyeses will continue to hold sway.”

    Also, he said that we can’t make policy decisions simply by saying that “God says . . .”

    To quote from his speech: “If God has spoken, then followers are expected to live up to God’s edicts, regardless of the consequences. To base one’s life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime, but to base our policy making on such commitments would be a dangerous thing.”

    As a nonbeliever, I agree with much of what Obama said. I think he is trying to bridge the gap, (I am not sure one exists) between progressives and progressive Christians. But, more than that he is saying that we should base our policy on current day situations, not on some words written for a society that existed 2,000 years ago.

  • Kail has a excellent point (#2) in that the beliefs and actions of the right increasingly seem to be in conflict with the Constitution. They seem to have forgotten (or purposely disregard) the careful, reasoned thought and compromise that led to the federal framework the States adopted for the common good.

    Many of the issues we face – balance of power, checks and balances, tyranny of the majority, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, warrantless searches, what constitutes treason, and, yes, the role of religion – were among the most fundamental matters the framers struggled with.

    As far as I know, neither “Christ” nor “God” appear anywhere in the Constitution. The Declaration of Independence (which was a declaration, not a framework for government), references only “Nature’s God,” a “creator” and “the divine Providence.” Such omissions and careful wording were not accidental.

    If we’re going to have a national debate on what this country is or should be, we need to re-familiarize ourselves with the fears and dreams of those who conceived the country we all profess to cherish, lest we willingly walk into the traps they sought to avoid.

    It seems to me that religion is an individual matter that candidates and voters need to put in perspective relative to the constitution, and let the chips fall as they may.

    You get witch hunts and wars, when church and state hold hands.” – Joni Mitchell, Tax Free

  • I don’t think the left has a “religion” problem. I believe that liberals are inclusive, and therefore, to identify oneself with a specific religion automatically confines one to being exclusive. That, to me, is what the conservative right wing movement has done … become an exclusive party of Christians. They are trying to make it inclusive of all types of Christians, but Christians, nonetheless.

    Liberals, as with the history of this great country, keep religion out of politics because of the very nature of exclusiveness. It is unfortunate that in today’s political atmosphere, the religous right have made the points of the arguments about “them,” i.e., Christians, vs. “us,” the non-Christians, the less stringent Christians, and the godless.

    It’s too bad that the argument can never be phrased against the backdrop of spirituality instead of religiosity.

    I’m not inclined to “reach out,” as it were. The belief systems of evangelicals is inapposite to liberals.

  • The atheists in the Progressive movement have a religion problem. They attack people of faith as fools and deluded…and they are as venomous and mean spirited as the Dominionists are in attacking liberals. Unfortunately, they are loud and obnoxious too, and they stand out like red flags (or enraged bulls?) among the otherwise heterogeneous progressive multitude. Having been frequently verbally abused (oh yes, abuse on the internet is OK, isn’t it? It is a good replacement for rational discourse) for pointing out that atheism is an irrational and unscientific belief in the self-organizing principle of matter, just as faith in God is irrational and unscientific, I am sometimes a bit frightened of mentioning that I am a person of faith, and I am sure other shy souls are likewise.

    So, yes, the Left does have a perception problem with religious people, and has earned it because it hasn’t taught the secularists and atheists to respect all belief systems, just as they wish theirs to be respected.

  • * Does the left have a religion problem?

    By “religion” I guess we are meant to read “Christianity”. But, of course, religion is a lot more than Christianity. Christianity is one of many religions of which five predominate. That Chrisitianity may have given religion a bad name is not the fault of religion as such.

    In a global, pluralistic society no one, not even Americans, can any longer afford to conflate the human phenomenon of religion with one of its particular manifestations.

    Genuine religion — not politics dressed up as religion — is necessary, like science, for a complete understanding of Life, Death, the Universe and Everything. Without it many fundamental questions upon which our happiness, confidence and success depend cannot be answered. Religion is and always has been essential to human fulfilment.

    Democrats, IMO, should be clear about and emphasise the difference between religion as the ultimate science of human life, and Christianity which, in all its flavors, is still only one version of the religion phenomenon.

  • The problem Democrats have with religion lies only with that large block of evangelicals who vote overwhelmingly Republican. I don’t know what the numbers actually are, but we’re probably in the hole several million votes.

    The only thing Democrats can do, and should do, is stand up for their principles, which they don’t do. They act as if they are ashamed of them. It is ironic that the party that acts like Jesus has the “problem” with religion, while the party that stands for greed, bigotry, selfishness and social darwinism does not. One would think enterprising Democrats would be able to blow the Republicans out of the water, but they just won’t fight.

    Democrats should reach out to evangelicals by explaining in positive terms what they stand for, not by pandering to them. Right now, they allow Republicans to paint them as tax and spenders, socialists, cowards, moral relativists, elitists, antireligionists and so on. They never call the Republicans for what they truly are, and they act defensive about their own principles. Everyone of us knows that the rich have played the class warfare card against the rest of us throughout history, but the Democrats run and hide whenever the Republicans stand this on its head and charge “class warfare” against us. What
    arrogance. What hubris. But we just cower under these charges. That’s what’s wrong

    It comes down to the same thing every time. The Democrats simply will not fight back, and they won’t take the fight to the Republicans.

    Religion is not the problem. The Democrats are the problem.

  • Gee Carol I wonder why you’re verbally abused when you say such nice things as “pointing out that atheism is an irrational and unscientific belief” and that atheists are venomous, loud, obnoxious and mean-spirited? You don’t sound like a shy, timid person of faith to me. Perhaps people perceive your comments as beliigerent.

    Atheists might have a high profile because they are usually the ones with the courage of their convictions to legally challenge prayer in schools, religious displays by government entities and the use of “God” in public documents. Theists are compromised in dealing with evangelicals on these issues because they share the basic tenets of religions, especially belief in a magical super-being.

  • .. and a footnote:

    The comments are very thoughtful, well-composed and diverse. But one point is missed. You don’t have to be a theist or an atheist or a secularist to be devout in your faith, profound in your wisdom, and scrupulous in the morality of your conduct. What about just being a decent, kind, honest, responsible non-theist?

  • .. and another:

    — the Democrats just won’t fight.. (hark #14, et al)

    MAYBE they’re waiting for the right moment? Could that be? Or, just wishful thinking?

  • Great discussion here this morning. I really like coming here on Sundays and reading what all of you have to say.

    I’m going to discuss my experience in two places, being a (then) radical activist (most of what was so “radical” then is seen as general fact now) and a non-reglionist/semi-atheist, working with some evangelicals.

    In the south, with the civil rights movement, the black church was/is the central organizing principle and organization of that community. Where the local minister was in favor of the movement, the community was more active than where he wasn’t. Most of the white activists shared political and religious beliefs similar to mine, and were of that age and from that upper-middle class liberal/leftist background that encouraged discussion and argument, and they were (without being aware that they were bringing class prejudice with them) more than willing to discuss with the religious people we were working with just why they (the religious people) were wrong. People had been warned not to do this in training sessions, but it could happen, and when it did it had a negative impact on what we were trying to do.

    One of the people who came into that was a guy who was a “red diaper baby.” His CP-member parents had been involved in civil rights since the Scottsboro Boys fight. One would think he would have been the most prominent of the “problem folks” but he was the opposite. His idea – from his parents – was what he called the “horns and a tail theory.” What he meant was that many religious people thought people like us had horns and a tail, and it was our job to show them they were wrong. This didn’t mean “giving up” any beliefs. It meant the opposite. It meant doing things exactly in accordance with our beliefs. Being honest, straightforward, up-front, acting in integrity with that. It also meant little things like paying any bills on time, being polite (even to the point of standing up when an older person entered the room, which was quite strange for many of us not from the south), and not using profanity unless they were the only words in a situation that adequately described something, followed quickly by “pardon my French.”

    This was actually pretty easy to do, and the result was that by respecting the beliefs of the people we were dealing with, they respected us back, and the issue of religious differences became of little importance as we all worked on what we had in common.

    A couple years later, when I was part of a group organizing a GI Coffeehouse outside Fort Hood, we used that same principle in dealing with the people in Killeen, most of whom – as residents of an “Army town” – were predisposed to think of us as “commie traitors” The white trash lowlifes, the “goat ropers” saw us as a target they could go after, secure in the belief the town would see them as the “patriot defenders”. To a large extent, the town was fine with letting them do that with their weekend riots outside the shop and such. But we kept on acting as described above in our business dealings with the townspeople, as we went around town during the day, dealt with the police, etc. And eventually, when “push came to shove” as they say and the authorities came down on us, we had a group of people “the church ladies” at the local leading Baptist church (white folks), who had dealt with us as they ran their businesses and such, and they told people that we weren’t “that kind of person” (who would need suppressing). Their opinions counted for a helluva lot in the community, and over time, things changed. In fact, after I left, according to my friend Dave Zeiger (who recently made the movie “Sir! No, sir!” about the GI Resistance to Vietnam) who stayed there till 1972, the town completely turned around. The venal pigs who were happy to rip off soldiers and let the goat ropers do their dirty work for them got exposed as venal pigs in a bad way, and they lost political control of the town. Killeen’s still not the place I would want to live, but from hearing it described by guys who have lived there in the past 20 years when they were stationed at Fort Hood, it’s a far cry from the place it was.

    My “common thread” in both those stories is that there was no need to “change,” to “lose our beliefs” in order to achieve what we did. In fact, it was the opposite. When they saw we tried to live our ideals as strongly as they tried to live theirs, the religious folks changed their minds about us. But it started with us showing them respect (and showing our own beliefs respect). I think that is what Obama was talking about, and it’s why I had no problems whatsoever with his speech.

    Mutual respect. What a concept! Who’d a thunkit!!

    Nobody wants to be pandered to, and we all know when we’re being bullshitted (at least eventually).

    If you want to put it in simple terms, take the circle of your beliefs, take the circle of a religious person’s beliefs, and look for the areas of intersection. Concentrate on them, and respect the rest.

  • Dale, I think you made Carol’s point.

    If it is “courage” of conviction to try to erradicate references to God from the public square, why isn’t it ‘courage of conviction’ to try to force them there?

    I personally think that many distinctions along lines of religious belief are nothing compared to some more fundemental distinctions between people. Namely, the line between people who are fundementally secure in their own beliefs and tolerant and respectful of others, understanding that to benefit from the benefits of a secular society you must support it – and insecure squawking twits who are not satisfied unless everyone is brow beat and legislated into their view of paradise.

    I see little distinction between the would-be theocrats and the wanna-be marxists. Neither is being particularly tolerant or respectful. Carol’s point appeared to be that aethists who point to science as proof positive are simply being psuedo certain with their own beliefs, a point she tempered by mentioning the reverse.

    Your point appears to be that aethists are the only ones standing up for a secular society. This would be an interesting point if it were remotely true. Unfortunately, if you look at the legal challenges involving church/state seperation over the last 10 years you will find that the majority of plaintifs are, themselves, people of faith.

    For example, it was Catholic, Jewish, and Methodist families that challenged fire and brimstone pre-game prayers at their high school foot ball games. Similiarly, it was Catholic Charities that challenged a ‘faith for food’ type arrangement in a city subsidized food bank.

    These cases are pretty clear cut. Heavy doses of religion dispensed in public events where the recipients have little or no choice. Although I am a person of faith, I wholly support them. I am personally more prone to some tolerance – for example, I would not mind if clergy from various faiths rotated in giving a prayer before a school game, or if students of different faiths provided their own prayers, as long as some tolerance and consideration was displayed by all. However, I understand that is difficult for some people, so absolute exclussion may be requried.

    On the other hand, I have strong misgivings about some suits brought by self described aethiests. For example, 3 different cases against the Boy Scouts. I’m sorry, but if like minded people are not allowed to band together and profess their own beliefs, democracy as well as religious freedom is under attack. It is one thing to challenge such a group getting public funding or special treatment. It is another to challenge it’s right to exist and to express certain values. That is not courage, that is fascism.

    -jjf

  • They attack people of faith as fools and deluded…

    Examples, please? (And no, Dale doesn’t count, because he merely commented on Carol’s tone and didn’t make blanket statements about all people of faith)

    atheism is an irrational and unscientific belief in the self-organizing principle of matter

    Completely wrong. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in any particular notion of the Deity. It has nothing to say about “the self-organizing principle of matter,” whatever that is.

    Also, it’s silly to imagine that it takes more courage to self-declare as a believer than it does to self-declare as an atheist. Lots of people equate atheism with communism, perversion and a general lack of ethics. In a recent case involving an atheist, jurors had to be struck for cause when they admitted they would automatically disbelieive any testimony given by an atheist.

  • Is there any doubt that religious extremism is the biggest threat to humankind? Whether at home or abroad, religious extremism threatens peace between peoples and the rights of individuals.

    The founding fathers of America had learned the lessons of a history filled with religious intolerance. They created a government that would allow religious diversity by enshrining secularism. More than 200 years later, extremists don’t understand the concept of not permitting religious chauvinism, and thus allow people to think freely about their existence and their role in society. Dogma is antithetical to individual liberty.

    In terms of religious tolerance, Democrats and the Left must have the courage to say why secularism allows all of us to be free to have the faith (even if it is no faith) of our choice.

    In my mind Christianity has always had a split personality, between the “fire and brimstone” of the Old Testament and the compassionate and loving Jesus of the New Testament. How does one appeal to such a Jekyll and Hyde mindset?

  • I’m not a huge fan of Andrew Sullivan, but he wrote something today, as regards the Hamdan decision that I think applies this discussion:

    America is not in essence a geographical entity. When it was founded, it occupied a fraction of the land it now does. Nor is it defined by an ethnic group or a royal line. Its core is essentially a piece of paper, a written constitution, a formal set of procedures designed, before everything else, to protect individual liberty. At the heart of that liberty is the right to a fair trial and the insistence that nobody — especially not the president — can take that away.

    There should be no problem with individuals who wish to profess their beliefs – and when in the public square subject to the same rules and regulations that pertain to all of us. There is a huge problem however when individuals and groups attempt to make their religious beliefs superior to all others via the power of the state – including when we are brought together in the public square for the business (in whatever form) of the state.. There is a huge problem when individuals and groups attempt to make their religion and religious views superior to the state and the Constitution – by declaring that we are a “Christian nation” – by declaring that their “God’s law” is superior to and takes precedent to the civil law – by declaring that our laws and all social norms must be in accordance with the Bible.

    Sullivan has a point – the Constitution, and the legal and social tradition that has flourished in this country because of the Constitution, IS the one defining thing that binds us together as a nation. To the extent that religionists insist that their relgious beliefs take precedence over the Constitution and what it stands for – they must not be accomodated. We are all Americans, first. Some people wish to be something else first and force that choice upon all other Americans. They appear to have no desire to compromise – to that extent, then neither should we. It is imperitive that progressives and the Democratic party stand up for the Constitution and the secular political philosophical tradition which the Founding Fathers bequeathed us.

  • Theists can defintiely be secularists. In fact, most secularist are theists, since most any way you group Americans will have more theists than a-theists.

    You don’t have to be an atheist to be a secularist–but it helps. 🙂

  • In an ideal world, religion and politics should be kept apart. I look on mixing the two as the law often does when administrator’s and client’s funds are co-mingled improperly. There is a grey line and it is not unusual to see for example, an attorney disbarred for just such an offense.

    Obama treads very close to the line when he starts talking up the Republican meme connection to religion. It is the classic “move to the middle” Mrs. Clinton is so despised for the past few years. The money quotes about the subject are exactly what they seem, “credibilty enhancers” for the huge Christian base that now sees Mr. Bush for who he is and are frantically looking for a way out with dignity.

    Politics as usual as far as I am concerned. But maybe it will work, Obama seems to have incredible charisma and some folks think he pisses ginger ale and can do nothing wrong.

  • Hmmmmn. I wonder if there is some way we can bring out the conflict of interest that can exist with religion and state? Kennedy and other Catholics had to make clear that their allegiance was first to US interests, only secondarily to the Pope. Are there ways to pit Protestant religions against the state, to put on the defensive those who have been so quick to act as if there is no difference and criticize people for not being religious?

    I feel there should be a way for us to criticize people for being too religious when they are in public office. And our criticism shouldn’t be based on liberal reasoning, but should imply divided loyalties — it should be argued on terms that conservatives agree with. Patriot first, Christian second.

    For instance, “I’m concerned about Bush being president because I think his religious beliefs may be leading him astray. How do I know he didn’t really invade Iraq just because he doesn’t agree with their religion? —I don’t agree with their religion, myself, but that would never lead me to risk America’s security by starting a religious war. But with Bush, the way he talks about God all the time, I don’t know.”

  • Carol–

    You say that the atheists in the Progressive movement have a religion problem and that they attack people of faith as fools and deluded.

    I don’t know what message boards you’re reading. Can you honestly say you’ve ever seen newspapers or television acting as if atheists even exist in this country? Aside from when one of us occasionally protests the lack of separation of church and state, which forces our kids to say “under God” and coins money that also pledges us to your god?

    I imagine before the civil rights movement got going, there were Democrats who said that there was no negro problem — we just needed to shut up those negros who insisted on saying that such a belief was foolish and deluded.

    Oh, those poor people of faith, constantly harrassed by us atheists. We’re always out there t.p.ing their houses, marching with our signs, shouting epithets as they try to peacefully enter their churches. And then there are all those atheists who come knocking at the door, trying to convert honest Christians with our Big Book of Atheism.

    Don’t we understand that we’re damaging the Democratic Party? If only the atheists, homosexuals, pro-choice, environmentalists would all leave the party, the Democratic Party would finally be able to win an election…

  • As I stated before for anyone in this 21st century to flip a switch and witness light appears and still believe in ANY gods is truly imbecilistic …

    … specially a god that so loves children as to ‘supposedly’ outlaw abortion but that god of theirs does not mind torturing to death -through starvation- over 11 MILLIONS infants/children per year … that is one dead child every 2.7 seconds … impressive in its stupidity!!!

    There simply is NO ROOM -and it always should be disallowed- to believe in anything when with a little effort one can access information and replace such useless beliefs with knowledge …

    Remember that there is NO PLACE nor will there ever be place for belief ‘in’ Knowledge both terms are mutually exclusive and belief in all its uselessness always point to the fact that at the moment that one ‘believes’, one admits to NOT KNOWING … TRY AND THINK THAT ONE OUT YOU STUPID RELIGIOUS IDIOTS … AND YES I AM INCLUDING All RELIGIONS/BELIEFS .. buddha is less sanguinary -so far- than jesus but it is still a religious stupidity … and vishnu … and satan … and you get the point …

    Educate yourselves and there will never be another war because an asshole like bush thinks his fucking god told him to spread democracy … you accept a god you accept them all.

  • I grew up in the ’40s and ’50s. I simply don’t understand what’s been going on, with regard to church-state issues, at least for the last decade or so.

    In the mostly Republican, central coast, California town where I went to public grammar school, we were taught complete separation of church and state. Contrary to myth, we never said prayers in school. We said the Pledge of Allegiance without “under God”. The cow-town citizenry would deny religious prejudice, but that’s because few of them realized they knew Catholics (like my family then) or Jews (the “German” couple who ran the five-and-ten cent store). Religion was a private thing. Everyone celebrated Christmas and Easter. I don’t know if the “Germans” celebrated Rosh Hoshanah.

    The nation had, to its shame according to my parents, voted for Herbert Hoover over the Al Smith because of Smith’s Catholicism. It was taken for granted by the time I knew what was going that a Catholic would never be president. When John Kennedy showed promise of doing just that Baptists worried aloud that the Pope might have a puppet in the White House. Kennedy put that idea to rest by simply, but boldly, asserting that his religion would play no role in his governance of the nation.

    Things stayed that way most of my adult life. At least in civilized America Catholics could run for any office; so could Jews. We still expect non-religious people (I’m thinking Reagan) to at least pretend to be religious.

    Then, when the United States joined the rest of the civilized world in decriminalizing abortion, those who still want to criminalize it (Evangelicals, Catholics, Mormons) “went public”, in spite of Matthew 6:5-6. With Crusader enthusiasm they offered themselves to the Republican party and began claiming offices, funneling enormous amounts of tax-free funds and organization, and, minimally, threatening to withhold support from office holders who wouldn’t join the Revival. A host of other issues (school prayer, gay rights, remnants of racism) were compounded with abortion.

    I don’t believe the Democratic party (there is no “Left” in this country) has a religion problem. It’s religion which has the problem. Its recent foray into public life is but the latest in a chain of previous eruptions: The First and Second Awakenings, the Know Nothings, the Temperance Movement … all tend to be short-lived. The enthusiasm wanes. I think the American public has already turned against, or just become bored with, today’s Hypocrites (Dobson, Falwell, Robertson). Their followers, like those who went before them, are bound to feel betrayed sooner or later and leave the political scene.

    We don’t need to “reach out”. We don’t need to become GOP Lite. We don’t need to imitate the Taliban. Everyone’s religion is their own business. As a party we need to return to our roots: Thomas Jefferson and Franklin Delano Roosevelt are “good enough for me”.

  • Observations on religious belief in America:
    1. Non believer in Christ = athiest
    2. The source of liberty and freedom and rights is god
    3. There can be no morality without religious belief
    4. Secularists are anti religious, anti family, and anti american
    5. Democrats who pander to the faithful make shows in black churches
    6. Many death row inmates have jail house conversions
    7. George W fried jail house converts
    8. Politicians will end their speeches with “God Bless America”
    9. God punishes us for the wickedness in America
    10. America is one of the most religious nations in the western world

  • GAH!!! So many questions, and so little time between rumles of thunder to type….

    *** Does the left have a religion problem?
    The Left has a multitude of religious problems. “Some” Lefties openly denouce religion in general, ranting and rambling ad nauseum about how it is a proven hoax. “Some” Lefties go out of their way to insult people of faith—even those who embrace the causes of the Left. “Some” Lefties cry out to the stars, wondering whatever happened to the First Amendment—yet, in the very next breath, will equally decry the right of an individual to believe in a deity, or to worship a deity, or to do things that a fair-minded deity would probably expect of a person—all because it includes something about a deity. “Some” Lefties regurgitate the phrase, “Separation of Church and State,” as a means toward silencing religious coersion in these United States, thus protecting the People from a theocratic form of government—but will not offer equal justification the opposite side of that same coin, being “Separation of State and Church,” which would protect the inherent right of individuals to practice their fundamental beliefs without provocation, intimidation, and ridicule from other citizens and the State itself.

    *** If so, what should progressives do about it, if anything?
    Progressives—combined with Liberals from the moderate to the extreme—must adopt a policy that fully embraces, and places into a completely-pragmatic practice, the full force of the First Amendment. The common practice, to date, has been that “I have a Constitutional Right to protect my belief from your belief.” We, as a People, must equally and justifiable apply the opposite half or the equation, being that “I have a Constitutional Responsibility to protect your belief from my belief.” Until this mantra is accepted, embraced, and put into full, across-the-board practice, the Progessive Movement in these United States is no less a hypocritical joke that the Conservative Movement has become.

    *** Should Dems reach out to evangelicals? Or is outreach a waste of time?
    There are a good many evangelicals within the borders of these United States who embrace the full message of Jesus, and who openly accept the reasoned theory that the Bible is a literal document—but that the singular term “literal” can have many meanings, based upon the interpretations of the unique individual. They understand full well that “what is literal for one may not be literal for another,” based within the concept of free Will, the variances within the four Gospels of the New Testament, and the many practices and parables. They accept and embrace the “through-me” construct as not a physical connection, but as a charge to “walk in my footsteps; do as I do; reject the Letter of Law for the Spirit of Law.” In the end, the “true” evangelical would reject the hateful arrogance of the “faux” evangelical who uses the Bible as a weapon, and who rejects the teachings of the Nazarene Carpenter while wrapping themselves in his name as a shield to justify their “predatory xenophobia.”

    *** Can progressive secularists and progressive theists work cooperatively under a Democratic “big tent”?
    Progressive theists are the “true” evangelicals that I refer to in the third portion of my reply. Now granted, it might not be a picture-perfect ideal in which a rabble-rousing atheist and a die-hard believer can sit within arm’s length of each other, but I cannot see any elemental reason as to why two such disparate individuals should be placed on opposite sides of the “big” tent-wall. Maybe—just maybe, mind you—instead of a “big-tent” model, a vision of an encampment could be adopted. Something, perhaps, along the lines of a Civil War encampment; hundreds of Companies, from many different States, all in thousands of individual tants, yet brought together for one purpose—being in Defense of the Cause….

  • I think the whole notion of believer versus athiest is a silly straw man notion. That the Dems must accept one or the other is a false dichotomy. Decent non-judgemental deportment is the medicine that I (and problably most voters) crave. Since something like 85% of Americans have some sort of religious faith, I think it is pretty unrealistic to identify all people of faith as right wing nuts. We won’t win elections doing that sort of thing. I happen to know quite a few dissilusioned Christians right now. Anyone who is actually reading scripture (or anything else including the newspaper for that matter) knows that W and his henchmen are liars.

    Obama is right to try for common ground and not allow the extreme right wing to define who is for God and against sin.

  • I have’t seen any instance of atheists trying to use government to limit individual freedom of religion. When suits are brought in the name of separation of church and state they are in reaction to attempts by religionists to breach that separation. It is not an attempt to limit anyone’s rights as guaranteed by the Constitution. Tolerance has to be more than just tolerance of other forms of theism.

    I don’t think the answer is to give in to “some” reiigion in government so the evangelicals will be appeased. Stick to the secular principle.

    And let’s not get confused by terms ilke the “public square” and such. We’re talking about government-funded activities requiring separation of church and state. Not public discourse. Or personal views.

  • I’m an atheist, and my personal opinions are not kindly toward religion. My suspicion is that if people had no religion, they’d be much better off for it. That being said, I’m not evangelical about atheism, and I consider people’s religion their own business. If people are willing to leave me alone on the topic, I’m willing to return the favor.

    I was very disappointed to hear Obama dismiss objections to “one nation, under God”. Speaking solely for myself, when I was in school, I felt quite oppressed and excluded by the “under god” part of the pledge. Again speaking personally, I would not feel that we had a legitimate and fair justice system and that I was part of it and properly subject to it if I was to find myself in a courtroom that had the ten commandments on the wall and required everyone to swear on bibles.

    The off-putting God parts are not properly part of the proceedings, they are unnecessarily exclusionary, and their absence would cause no harm.

    In more general terms, I note that the US is almost uniquely religous among western nations in terms of devotion, fervor, and church attendance. Most countries in NW Europe have state religions and incorporate religion into education, but the people largely ignore religion in most meaningful ways. My experience suggests to me that the great success of religion in the US depends on its separation from the state. In contrast, a generation of leaders like Bush justifying inane and stupid actions with religious platitudes should pretty much take the shine off religion for anyone. Mixing religion with politics and state power is truly risky. We have only to look at the former Yugoslavia or Ireland to see the downhill end of that particular slippery slope. I have no confidence that politicians here can safely demagogue religion “just a little bit” (or that preachers can proselytize politics), without seriously damaging the American social contract.

  • I wonder what Obama’s approach to the new Georgia law that the 10 Commandments can be displayed in public buildings if they are a part of 8 other documents.

    Which of these “commandments” do we compromise on?

    Exodus 20:
    2 I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
    3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
    4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
    5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
    6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
    7 Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
    8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
    9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
    10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
    11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
    12 Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.
    13 Thou shalt not kill.
    14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.
    15 Thou shalt not steal.
    16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
    17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s.

  • This has been the weirdest Sunday Discussion Group at TCBR.. ever?

    Ever watched a dog that cannot stop chasing its tail?

    It’s hypnotic. You want to free it, but you can’t. You can’t stop watching it. You want to distract it, get it interested in something with a future. You throw it a bone or a ball. It runs after it. Great! You turn your back. Three minutes later it’s spinning in circles again, disappearing in its own dust.

    Leave religion alone. Have nothing to do with it it’s a snake pit. For a political party, that is. Though I suppose that’s just too easy to say. But it’s all I can hear myself saying. You see — it drives you crazy.

    I never realised what a big problem Christianity was for you Americans. I’m shocked. My eyes are popping. I feel really genuinely sorry for you. And, worst of all, I can think of absolutely nothing useful to say.

  • Obama’s speech may well have significant consequences beyond the specifics of what he said. It seems to have provoked very worthwhile analysis and dialogue concerning a possible rapprochement between secularists and non-fundamentalist believers. A spiritual perspective seems to be inherent, and may be essential, to the human condition. Denying that ‘fact’ may be as intellectually dishonest as claiming that God’s non-existence is a certainty.

    Thanks to Patrick Briggs for the link to Dr. Jensen’s essay. I am passing it on to others who share a love for the Christian message.

    For myself, I have just ordered a copy of Jefferson’s Bible and Jon Meacham’s American Gospel(Meacham gave a very stimulating presentation on C-Span 2 Book Review this weekend). I will donate them to my small town public library when done.

    Hallelujah?

  • Answer me this:
    Why is it that the most religious of Western Nations (the United States) doesn’t provide universal health care for its people?

    Are Americans compassionate in thought only, rather than deed? Doesn’t this undercut the faith, hope and charity of a religious people?

    I remember the parable of Jesus going into the temple and overturning the tables of the money-changers …

  • ***I remember the parable of Jesus going into the temple and overturning the tables of the money-changers …***
    Comment by slip kid no more

    If for nothing more, that is why the Democratic Party cannot abandon the progressive theist—to deny the money-changers their opportunity to financially demolish the United States at the beckoning of the sadjucees, pharisees, and scribes who masquerade as Christians….

  • Who we think we are as a religious nation is a fiction of self-delusion.
    The actual behaviors I observe in everyday American life are not those of seekers and saints, but ordinary people surviving the day and then plugging into the “matix” of entertainment and consumerism. Walk down any residential street on a hot summer night and you will see livingroom after livingroom bathed in the hypnotic flicker of televisions, not reading bibles and singing hymns. There is a pervasive spiritual emptiness in our common culture that encourages greed, adictive diversion and isolation.

    But on Sunday,from the pulpit of a church, the a religious leader speaks to the emptiness and people think they have “religion”.

    Reminds me of pharmacutical companies that would profit more from selling awareness of ongoing symptoms than from promoting a cure.

    I see the Repubs in that category… provoking social discord to pimp spiritual unrest for their advantage.

    hmmmm ..What would Jesus do?

  • I don’t think the left has a problem with religion, per se. They/we do have a problem with far right zealots who wrap themselves in it, or as it often seems – Hide behind it.
    Here’s where the left should be more careful with our rhetoric. When I’m confronted with the idiocies of Robertson or Dobson, I see them as religious nutcases. But when I say that, there will be those who think that is my take on all religious folk. Nothing could be further from the truth.

    The problem is when the rabid bible thumpers from the right try to shove their version of religion down the throats of the rest of us. Any resistance to their agenda is loudly trumpeted as proof that the left hates religion. From there they go into full victim mode. They are under attack, they whine. I’m sorry, but I just can’t find room or reason to cooperate with those people.

    But people who attend church regularly, and who are pleasant and tolerant of people with differing views? They have have my genuine and complete respect.

  • Boards, blogs etc where atheists malign non-atheists? Sure, I can show you a few: http://ravingatheist.com/, for instance…or how about at the Daily Kos, (although this particular post/thread is quite old) http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/11/15/12016/649

    Anyhow, my point isn’t that atheists ought to not be heard from and should hide in shame, they are just one belief system among many. As such, the Democrats owe them as much as they do people of faith. All Americans should be the constituency of the Democratic Party. We might note that the Republicans have managed to make it so that very few Americans are considered to be their constituency.

    And the point here, again, is that Americans, regardless of their belief system, are AMERICANS, not some religious affiliation, so yes, reach out to all AMERICANS. You won’t be able to get them all on board, but you cannot and should not exclude some group because it offends your personal secularist/Christian/Muslim or other belief system.

    And yes, I know atheists are harassed. Any one who does not belong to the Christian social mindset is harassed to some extent…I am not a Christian, so I have had my share of harassment.

    I don’t think of myself as a shy soul, but I know shy souls who are afraid of verbal abuse and attacks.

  • There’s no excuse for abusing other people, especially among progressives. To me the term Progressive connotes more than just an enlightened political process. It suggest an enlightened way of interacting with the world and other people. I’m sure this thread is all used up, but I would be interested in what the term Progressive means to other people.

    To me the term means conserving constitutional rights, empowering people, providing the disadvantaged with a social safety net and inspiring cooperation and hope. Also attacking problems with every tool, not just our power tools.

  • Great discussion, folks.

    Here’s the take of someone who is a liberal mainline Christian, who attends services regularly but is not so good at reading her Bible or praying as much as she should…

    I read Obama’s entire speech and think over all it was very good, esp. when you consider the audience to whom he was speaking. Mostly I want to share my thoughts on religion and the USA.

    “Religion” has problems – always has, always will: traditions, dogma, prejudices. We can all name plenty of examples. “Faith”, though, is a personal thing. It is impossible to force one’s faith onto another. Am I certain my “faith” is correct? No. Obama is right when he said that “Faith doesn’t mean that you don’t have doubts”. Martin Luther, founder of the Protestant revolution, himself had huge doubts about his faith, his God.

    While faith can’t be forced, “religion” can, and this is the great danger, as we see in countries where there is a state religion. I would no more want my religion to be forced onto others than I would want another to be forced onto me. This is a point those who want the USA to be based entirely on their “brand” of Christianity completely miss. Our Constitution guarantees freedom of religion. But freedom “of” religion also means freedom “from” religion, or freedom from “your” religion. As the people of the United States, we should respect that others may not share our faith or belief in a higher being, or our “version” of a higher being.

    When I “judge” (not the word I’d like to use, but the closest to what I mean) people, I don’t do so based on their religion, political party, sexuality, gender, age, etc. I do so based on their actions: how do they treat their fellow man and fellow creatures? Do they care for the environment? Are they honest, hard-working, benefitting society? Or do they lie, cheat and steal for their own benefit and to the detriment of others?

    As a Christian, I believe that Jesus instructed us to “love our neighbors as ourselves”… our neighbors being all fellow humans. Also known as the golden rule – treat others how you would like to be treated. I can’t think of any better way of living in this world.

    So I would ask that all of us on the “left”, progressives, what have you… look at the goals we would like to accomplish: honesty in our government, education, health care, employment, and justice for all, peace, a clean environment, to name a few, to realize that no matter our beliefs about religion or faith, we can do this together. We must do this together.

    Can we convince “evangelicals” to join us? Sure – some prominent evangelicals have been on board for a while: Jimmy Carter, Jim Wallis, Tony Campolo. We must reach out.

  • I still like the the bumper sticker suggested by my daughter. It puts religion in the context of Democratic values and would, I think, sneak under the radar of the Religious Right to get them to actually consider the message instead of shutting it out. I do have the problem with Obama’s speech seeming to accept the framing of the issue that the GOP has foisted on us, which is what started the bumper sticker post.

  • I think Senator Obama was referring to the progressive principles similar to those of the interfaith movement, the Network of Spiritual Progessives at (www.spiritualprogressives.org), whose vision includes “1) Changing the Bottom Line in America; 2) Challenging the misuse of religion, God and spirit by the Religious Right; and, 3) Challenging the many anti-religious and anti-spiritual assumptions and behaviors that have increasingly become part of the liberal culture” (because of “the misuse of religion, God and spirit by the Religious Right”).

    The Network of Spiritual Progressives is an interfaith movement that tries to be inclusive of those of all faiths and those who profess to be not religious but spiritual in their progressive beliefs. In other words, the Religious Right doesn’t have the exclusive ear of God; there is a Religious or Spiritual Left.

  • I have no trouble at all co-existing with the faithful (of whatever faith); some of my best friends are deeply religious (sorry; couldn’t resist. I’m half-Jewish, and Iused to hear that line all the time). As long as they’re willing to grant me my “space” and superstitions, I’m happy to extend the same courtesy to them. It’s when they tell me that I’ll burn in hell forever unless I “accept Jesus” (*and* in the particular format they’re peddling), that I begin to see red (um… blue?). Doesn’t matter what I do otherwise — I don’t steal, I don’t cheat, I don’t kill, I’ve been faithful to the same husband for over 30 yrs, and I volunteer as much as I can in places like libraries. Doesn’t count, won’t save me at all; “come to Jesuss, baby, or else”…

    I do admit to feeling a bit out of my element in a church/temple/whatever. But that’s because, having grown up as an atheist, I don’t know the rituals, so am likely to behave “wrongly” and offend someone.

    And that — the fear of offending someone’s sensibilities needlessly and unintentionally — is, I think, more common to the Democrats than it is to the neo-conservatives, Carol’s experiences to the contrary. There are extreme nuts in every camp, but there seem to be more nuts on the right than there are on the left.

  • After you’ve watch the dog chasing its tail for long enough you start chasing your own tail.

    For a topic like this it seems we can never quite say enough. There’s been some fabulous comments here. It’s been a transfiguring experience trying to keep up with it. What depth and ingenuity of interpretation and exposition!

    They eye-opener for me, coming (forgive me) from the relative outside, is that almost the entirety of the debate about ‘religion’ is actually an internal debate within Christianity. I hadn’t realised how consumed the American culture is with the Christian tradition and its mythology. Of course, it stands to reason given the (relatively) recent history of the American continent.

    What I see (I assume you skim over this if it’s not relevant for you) — and I really can only take a personal approach to this topic — so it is very personal ! — is that Christianity, for all its undoubted qualities and possibilities, is not necessarily everyone’s cup of tea. For me, to take a random example, it is far too cumbersome. I prefer something clean, clear and simple. I’ve found it for myself but, as Nelson Mandela said when asked: “That’s private”. And I guess that’s truly how I see it. Religion, as a corpus of teaching and methods for spiritual development, is sacred and precious. It’s not something you wear on your sleeve. It’s not something you bandy about like a football or in the ‘public square’ for all to see and maul, twist or abuse every which way. — You cherish it, you examine it, and you practise it.

    The burden of Barack Obama’s speech (of which I enjoyed the rhythm, cadence and tone) seems to be that it is not possible, or even desirable to try to separate one’s thoughts, decisions and actions from the guiding principles of one’s faith, or belief, and understanding. It would seem hard to disagree with that. Where I do disagree, however, is in how public you make your particular belief system. You don’t have to watch the cook to enjoy the meal.

    What I guess I’m saying here is that politics is fine, religious faith whatever it may be is fine, but one is PUBLIC and the other is PRIVATE. The one, the latter, informs the other. You shouldn’t get them mixed up, and you certainly shouldn’t rub the private one in the other person’s public face.

    If you truly embody your faith, you have no need to proclaim it.

    My belief is that Democrats should take this deeply to heart, believe it, trust it, and apply it.

    Does that help?

  • The “left” doesn’t have a “problem” with religion. It is the “right” that has the problem. Those of us on the progressive or Leftist side of politics see religion as a purely personal choice. There is no legal mandate that states citizens must be a member of an establishment religious order. Additionally, this choice is a private matter, one that is protected by the Establishment Clause. The United States is the only country to enshrine freedom of conscience in its founding charter. All religions are subsumed under this umbrella including some that are arguably not religion at all such as Scientology. It is this secular principle of neutrality that allows all religions to co-exist as a function of our governmental infrastructure. “Freedom of religion” necessarily includes freedom from religion, otherwise there is no real freedom.

    The political right sees none of this and THAT is the problem. In my view the Pentecostals, or “evangelicals” if you prefer, are incapable or unwilling to separate their social conditioning as “religious people” from their duties as citizens to uphold and protect the Constitution. Indeed, their aim is to attack and undermine the Constitution and to demand fealty to their simplistic, patriarchal, top-down, sex-based, role-based, archaic form of society that literally pre-dates the era of the Founders themselves. The political right suffers from pathological narcissism that proceeds from their self-conscious intransigence centered on their religion. In other words, they are right and everyone else is wrong. In practical terms this presents the greatest threat to our country, not the occasional violence perpetrated, also in the name of religion, by the Islamic fascists from abroad.

    Obama’s speech addressed none of these points and, indeed, seemed to go out of his way to avoid mentioning this clear reality altogether.

    In my view there is no common ground between the progressive Left and the willfully ignorant and truculent Right.

  • If you truly embody your faith, you have no need to proclaim it.-comment by Goldilocks

    And to go full circle… what if Democratic candidates had such a strong faith in the constitution that we could feel it from their actions?

  • This is a fantastic discussion topic and I’m sorry I’m so late to the party. Let me offer my responses to the bulleted questions.

    Does the left have a religion problem?

    I think so, yes. This is my own observation (YMMV,) but I think too many are too quick to charactarize all Christians as evangelicals, and assume that all Christians are conservative. This is certainly not the case, as most of the Democratic party are liberal Christians, who do believe in just the things that Obama spoke about, and strongly and sincerely that by emulating Christ (WWJD?) they can be good Christians. This means treating people as equals, with sympathy and compassion and without judgement, as Christ would, and doing service to the least among us, not just the poorest but those who are most marginalized groups. In Christ’s time this included the lepers and beggars and prostitutes. And it remains so today.

    I could go on and on, but I’m not even a Christian. Though I believe in the teachings of Christ as an excellent guide for today’s society I by no means believe he is the savior or son of God. Sorry.

    If so, what should progressives do about it, if anything?

    We should police/educate ourselves. A lot of lefties think we have to be athiests, and that Christianity is incompatible with our ideals. It isn’t. Conservative Christianity is, but really, Jesus is the ultimate liberal, and the first hippy. Of course we have a lot in common. We must remember that many people of faith believe in the same things we do, ie charity.

    Should Dems reach out to evangelicals? Or is outreach a waste of time?

    No idea. I haven’t decided where evangelicals lie, or if they are completely incompatible with liberal Christianity. I’m leaning toward incompatible though.

    Can progressive secularists and progressive theists work cooperatively under a Democratic “big tent”?

    Short answer: definitely. We should and we need to or otherwise risk marginalizing ourselves far too much. Remember that much of the country is still religous, just not conservative religious.

  • Presumably RolandC was just trolling. Quantum Electro Dynamics, or QED is our current best predictive theory for light. It is possible the most successful physics theory of all time. The Nobel Prize went to three physicists, but Dick Feinman, not known for his modesty and almost certainly the person who most singularly made the theory accessible to folks only somewhat more intelligent than Roland, acknowledged that they were standing on the shoulders of some towering giants.

    Interestingly, the majority of those ‘giants’, furthering human knowledge, considering themselves devout, as did Newton.

    Now, discarding Dale and RolandC’s comments, those who want an example of the dismissive tone that Carol notes need look no farther than Air America. We have essentially one progressive radio network – check how many personalities on it have used the phrase “American Taliban” to describe religiously conservative people. In a recent public appearance here in LA, Al Franken acknowledged that he, too, saw open disdain for religion among some progressives as a problem.

    -jjf

    • Comments are closed.