Liberalism and Religion

First of all, let me thank you for the warm and encouraging welcome you've given here over the last few days.  I have come to have a "thing" about the Kos community in the months since I finally got the nerve to post my first comment (took me almost a year.)  You rock.  Since the move to Scoop I have been thunderstruck by the creativity you've demonstrated in the Diaries, you've let us all see your passions and personalities.  I feel like I've gotten to know all of you a lot better, and, boy, do I like what I see.

I have a pretty serious essay to offer today, but I also have enough ego that I want you to know me a little bit:  who is this Melanie who seems to have a major crush on George Tenet?.....

Here are some of the nuts and bolts:  

I've lived inside the Washington Beltway since 1985, the life right now is with two large cats and a really embarrassing number of books.  I'm 49 and in the middle of the mid-life career change.  I was a professional  bassoonist for more than 25 years (Kos and I sort of bond over the music thing) and until 2000 I worked as the Assistant Principal Bassoonist of the Kennedy Center Opera House Orchestra, the orchestra which plays for operas, ballets and musical theater in the Kennedy Center's three theatrical stages.  In 2000, my life took a different turn, and I enrolled at the Washington Theological Union to pursue another master's degree, this time in theology.  I finished my course work in 2002. (Ilia, if you are reading this, I promise to have the final draft of the thesis on your desk by Thanksgiving) and worked a wonderful temp job, but got laid off on July 1.  I'm looking for my new career (and think I'm going to get an interview and an offer here)  but I don't really know what is going to happen next.  I am a lay women, a Roman Catholic (for two years) and a spiritual director, retreat director and writer.

My road to Washington began in a small town on the northern Minnesota border with Canada, went through the Twin Cities, Boston, Charlotte, Winston-Salem and Greensboro.  My resume is fairly scary:  when you work in the performing arts you learn to do a lot of things if you like to eat.  Major themes:  college teacher for decades, lots of experience in fund raising (if you are in the DC area and you've got a development job, click on my name up top and email me, I'll email you the resume) and I've worked in orchestras all over the country and in Europe.  If you've read my Diary, you know that I got hooked on progressive politics at an early age, honed the jones when I lived in Boston (where I discovered politics as blood sport, Minnesota was a lot gentler than Massachussetts) and am now, of course, residing in politics junkie heaven.  As all of you know by now, my particular area of interest is in the "backstory," the stuff that's going on behind what you read in the paper.

Many of you have asked if I'm going to take on the big Seymour Hersh piece on doctored intelligence in the current New Yorker.  I am, over the weekend.  Of course.  I'll have an essay for you on two threads of Hersh's backstory.  I'm working on it now, this is going to be a really bloggy-linky thing and I'm still learning how to use HTML and the posting software, so it is going slowly.  Please be gentle with me as I climb the learning curve.

But I wanted my first appearance on Kos's front page to show you a different side of me.

Here's a snapshot of a comments thread on a poem I posted in my Diary.

I don't know what the significance of this diary entry is. I was surprised when I found out you are a theologian. You seem way too astute to believe in that stuff . . .  

I'm not blaming any Kossians, but I want you to notice something.

I'm both an intellectual, and religious.  I know a whole lot of other people like me.

My blogtime (and there is a lot of it while I'm unemployed) is spent in two parts of the Blogosphere (y!sctt):  the liberal politics part, and the liberal religious part.  Many, many other religious liberals have complained to me that the first part devotes a fair amount of energy to dissing or openly denigrating the second part.  That's been my experience, too, and I was on the receiving end of a flame war at Atrios the other night as a result, not a pleasant experience.

Secular liberals, you need to get a clue:  there are lots of deeply religious people out here who reliably pull the lever in the voting booth for the straight D ticket.  We are Christian evangelicals and Main Line Protestants and Catholics like me, from the Dorothy Day-Peter Maurin-Oscar Romero wing of the Church.  We are Jews and Muslims and Sikhs and Buddhists and Jains, pagans, Hindus and, yes, by God, there are even Zoroastrian Democrats in this country.  When you make light of religion, you wound a part of us which is very important to us.  Making light .... hmm, that's very diplomatic, which I rarely am.  What we usually get are outright insults.

Fundamentalism, be it Christian or Islamic, is only one faction of these faiths, which are not monoliths.  Every one of the world's great faith traditions is an umbrella which covers wide and various theologies and practices.  The Roman Catholic church is one of the broadest in the Christian tradition.  It is too easy to tar all of Christianity with the broad brush of condemnation of the George Bushes, the Pat Robertsons, the William Boykins.  Yes, they own one piece of the large tent which is Christianity, they are not one that I can justify in any way.  From the progressive religious view, there are similar movements in all of the other great faiths which are similarly distasteful.  As a religious liberal, I have a critique of Roman Catholicism.  But, really, that isn't very hard work, now, is it?

I'm not trying to convert you.  That's not my job.  What I want you to notice is that the casual putdowns of faith that I see so often in the threads here, and nearly everywhere on the lefty blogs, is like a slap in the face to those of us for whom our faith is one of the things that fuels our progressive politics.  You know, take care of the widows and orphans, give it up for the poor, visit those in prison?  Do you think these are Democratic values or virtues?

Has religion been used to justify atrocities?  Please, I know the history as well as you do. But faith has done some pretty good stuff, too.  Not often enough, but none of us does good stuff often enough.

So, before you post the next time on some outrage by a Boykin or a Bush, learn something about the faith positions of the great traditions and don't trash religion in general.  We understand that religion isn't important to you, but it is to us, and we kinda like you.  We have a lot in common, like the way we've chosen to live and vote.  Your Demo base includes people like us.

Here are some liberal religion blogs I check in on regularly.  Go visit.  Find out how much we have in common.  We don't bite, and we won't hit you up for money.  And some of these folks are simply amazing writers.

You think you've got the Baptists all pegged? Wrong-o.  Read
Real Live Preacher (Link fixed.) and get all of your stereotypes busted.  God, can this man write.

You grew up Episcopalian so you think you've got that Episcopalian thing all sussed out?  Read Le Pretre Noir (link fixed) and take a look at his do-rag and his Harley (he's older than I am, an Episcopal priest who works in the mountains of western Maryland.) His sense of outrage powers some fine argument.  This is single malt scotch writing.

Allen Brill is a Protestant minister who thinks that the problem with the Christian Right is that they haven't met The Right Christians.  Go look at his Theory of Everything.  The man's a big thinker.

What the hell is a Moravian doing in Minnesota?  I had no idea you folks had invaded my Lutheran place of birth, but you are doing it with style.  He's a  
post-modernist like me.

Ever met a progressive Muslim woman?  She's
Veiled for Allah and she's got a story to tell.  She's a Kucinich voter.

I read this one daily to learn about Shi'a Islam.  
Aziz Poonwalla is a faithful correspondant.

I'm still acquiring Jewish links, if you've got some, I'd love to add them to my bookmarks.

Thank you for your warm welcome.  Kos was right, with Scoop, we've got a new kind of community.  And I welcome your comments.

•  Re: Liberalism and Religion

  I have a very complicated relationship with this question.  Pragmatically, of course I recognize that anti-atheist (or pro-religious, if you prefer) bias will never allow someone with atheistic tendencies to ever make it to the White House. And philosophically, of course I fully respect the rights of all people to go about their lives practicing whatever religion or non-religion they want to practice.

  But.

  When it comes to public policy, I strongly feel that religion is primarily and perhaps only a force for repression in society.  Organization religion in this country tends overwhelmingly to stand on the side of backsliding, of superstition, and outright bigotry.

  I support abortion rights.
  I support science.
  I am a HUGE believer in the rights of homosexuals.
  I believe strongly in the separation of church and state.
  I support the teaching of evolution.
  And on and on.

  I understand that not every religious person is on the wrong side of these issues, but the public discourse is dominated by the most conservative and the most oppressive.  Religious people of liberal and moderate persuasion need to make their voices heard in opposing the bigots.

  I don't think secularism and liberalism need to go hand in hand.  There's secular conservatives, and there's religious moderates.  But as a atheist, and frankly just as an American, I feel very strongly that the tenets of any particular religion ought to have no hold whatsoever over the way I live my life. There's a reason why the Good Doctor says, "I'm tired of listening to fundamentalist preachers!" I'm tired of it, too.

  Sorry to make such a long comment.

  by G C on Fri Oct 24, 2003 at 06:11:40 AM PDT

  •  Re: Liberalism and Religion

    G C, I really hear you, and Melanie, thank you for your calm and even-handedness on this subject which upsets so many of us... I consider myself a Course in Miracles "spiritualist" after having survived a horrifying partial upbringing as a (Irish) Catholic...  I ditto what G C said because I have been a victim of the repressive side of religion and know it's nasty effects... it is hard for me not to think of organized religion in any other way other than negative - and while progressive religious people like you exist in the world, the backlash I have heard here really seems to extend to those that would shove their religion down our throats... at least that is how I perceive it.  I am very glad you are here and look forward to your posts.

    mwjeepster

    by mwjeepster on Fri Oct 24, 2003 at 06:41:50 AM PDT

  •  Re: Liberalism and Religion

    (Disclaimer: I'm a Deacon in my church.)

    When it comes to public policy, I strongly feel that religion is primarily and perhaps only a force for repression in society.

    I have some counterexamples for you to consider:

    1. The Civil Rights movement was primarily led by religious leaders, including Dr. Martin Luther King.
    2. Before that, the Abolition movement was led primarily by religious folk, most famously the Quakers.
    3. Much of the current peace and human rights movement have huge religious constituencies.

    I understand that not every religious person is on the wrong side of these issues, but the public discourse is dominated by the most conservative and the most oppressive.

    I would respectfully submit that this is only because those conservative and oppressive forces are the most frank about their religious biases. The Religious Left -- represented in the public arena by Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Jimmy Carter -- are usually more quiet about their religiousity; but this doesn't make them any quieter on matters of public policy.

    by maxomai on Fri Oct 24, 2003 at 07:13:21 AM PDT

    •  Re: Liberalism and Religion

      I am a completely secular person and have no use for religion in my personal life, but I welcome others' beliefs and the contributions these beliefs make to our society.

      Outside of Unitarians, I didn't even know there was a solid religious left until 1992, when a coalition of churches stood publicly with gays to narrowly defeat an extreme anti-gay ballot measure in Oregon.  Their support was critical, and I've been thankful ever since.

      Falwell, Robertson, and their ilk thankfully do not own religious discourse or thought in this country, and I hope that secularists like myself continue to reach out to the religious left.  As with the above example, we need to form coalitions to defeat bigotry and narrow, selfish laissez-faire capitalism.

      by sakitume on Fri Oct 24, 2003 at 07:34:29 AM PDT

    •  Re: Liberalism and Religion

      Once upon a time they were there.  Now, there is no equivalent of the abolition movement or Civil rights movement in the religious left.  Yes, the Quakers toil on, but with precious little help from their one time mainline allies.  The activist force of the churches is going the way of those churches themselves.  Pews full of senior citizens can have an impact, but rarely have the same kind of drive for social change.

      by ohwilleke on Fri Oct 24, 2003 at 08:42:28 AM PDT

    •  Re: Liberalism and Religion

      Maxomai:

      Your three examples are not counter examples to the argument that religion should be left out of public policy.  Leaving religion out of public policy does not mean leaving religious people out of democracy and activism.  And in a pluralistic secular democracy people of faith and their communities have every right and responsibility to act democratically on matters of democracy.  Every one of those social movements were movements about DEMOCRACY albeit informed by religious (and secular) thinking.  That's not so much a case of using religion to "define" public policy but a case of coming to understand democratic principles through the their faith -- seeing the resonances.  None of those movements advocated taking a religious viewpoint on points of policy,  (The Voting Rights Act doesn't legislate civil rights because of a religious belief but because of an understanding of democracy.  Same thing for the 14th Amendment)  The matters of faith, as I understand them from people of faith in say the peace movement are the engines that compell to come out and as citizens in the public sphere (i.e. to engage in the activism) in order to bring about a secular policy.  That's badly articulated but a slightly different thing it seems to me.  

      by a gilas girl on Fri Oct 24, 2003 at 01:06:25 PM PDT

      •  Re: Liberalism and Religion

        I'm making some assumptions here, but I don't believe that's what they were supposed to be. They were counter-examples to the assertion that religion have been "primarily and perhaps only a force for repression in society." No one's arguing that religion should become a part of public policy. I believe the point was just that religion--and even organized Christianity--isn't all bad.

        by C L bosch on Fri Oct 24, 2003 at 06:20:13 PM PDT

        •  Re: Liberalism and Religion

          To that I would agree.  The particular examples just seemed to "large" to make that point and I interpreted you making the other as well.

          My apologies.  

          by a gilas girl on Sat Oct 25, 2003 at 08:51:04 AM PDT

•  Re: Liberalism and Religion

  Thanks, Melanie.  Nice to know that "religion" isn't a dirty word to all people...

  by gregstoll on Fri Oct 24, 2003 at 06:19:31 AM PDT

•  Re: Liberalism and Religion

  I'm a lay leader for a United Methodist church. I'll see if I can find a progressive liberal balance to Dubya.

  by Kuz on Fri Oct 24, 2003 at 06:19:56 AM PDT

•  Re: Liberalism and Religion

  Melanie,

  Excellent post, one worth more detailed follow-ups. Liberalism has a religious foundation, one that shouldn't be denied.

  I was raised a Southern Baptist, but it always ill suited me. My wife and I joined a Unitarian Universalist church three years ago, and the history of activism, particularly liberal, is pronounced in their and even in U.S. history. (I'll submit the links later.) I'm not talking up UU, just using it as an example.

  The problem is two-fold: The attitude towards religion  and the appropriation of the face of religion by Falwell, Robertson, and Reed.

  I would like to see liberals live their values and respect differences. It is a shame when some liberals think that religion doesn't count.
  

  by Tx Bubba on Fri Oct 24, 2003 at 06:23:34 AM PDT

  •  Re: Liberalism and Religion

    the appropriation of the face of religion...

    I appreciate this phrase. It is like the appropriation of the flag by the American right. When extremists lay claim to symbols that belong to a much broader group, it is hard for the majority to regain control and title to what should be theirs.

    I don't know what the answer is. There's an old word that used to mean something: heresy. Those in the Christian mainstream have every right to call Fallwell, and that crowd, heretics. They are. By any reasonable definition of the term, that's exactly what they are -- but the word no longer has any force. Given its bloodied history, I'm fairly sure that's more good than bad. Still, its lack leaves real Christians without much of a defense against those false prophets who would redefine their religion.
    

    by Canadian Reader on Fri Oct 24, 2003 at 01:37:50 PM PDT

  •  Re: Liberalism and Religion

    I'm not talking up UU, just using it as an example.

    I think maybe you should be.  Both as individuals and as an organization, UUs do a lot of great stuff.  It's a fantastic example of how a religion can exist without being ruled by dogma.  I know a number of people who had bad experiences with Chrisitianity who really had their eyes opened by Unitarian Universalism.

    by jtwdog on Fri Oct 24, 2003 at 03:51:18 PM PDT

•  Re: Liberalism and Religion

  Thank you for this. And God bless you. :)

  We Christians have for too long let poor examples put the public face on our religion. Therefore I sympathize with some of the sentiments.

  But it is hurtful to read comments about how stupid or misguided any religious person must be and to see an assumption that all Christians cheer the right wing.

  by Magenta on Fri Oct 24, 2003 at 06:24:25 AM PDT

•  Re: Liberalism and Religion

  As a secular atheist, I get annoyed by the putdowns of religion too, especially the ones that dismiss it as somehow dumb. To take Christianity as an example: no view held by the likes of Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine, and Dante could possibly be so dumb that we can just dismiss it out of hand. To think that there's something really, really obvious that these people just somehow missed is imho literally incredible. (And the fact that these people lived before the rise of modern science etc. is irrelevant; modern science in no way disproves religion.)

  by hilzoy on Fri Oct 24, 2003 at 06:26:45 AM PDT

  •  Re: Liberalism and Religion

    hmmm.... what that smell? Smells like a can o' worms to me!  :-)

    by Max M on Fri Oct 24, 2003 at 06:29:47 AM PDT

•  Re: Liberalism and Religion

  Brilliant post, Melanie. As a non-believer, I found it very enlightening.

  by Max M on Fri Oct 24, 2003 at 06:26:51 AM PDT

•  Re: Liberalism and Religion

  Religious adherants, you need to get a clue. There are plenty of secular humanists out there who reliably pull the lever in the voting booth for the straight D ticket. When you force your man-in-the-sky beliefs down our throats, you make us throw up.

  Sick to straight politics, please, and don't start in on that crap about "respecting" bigots who hate fags, like you did on Atrios' board the other night...

  by dave on Fri Oct 24, 2003 at 06:27:12 AM PDT

  •  Re: Liberalism and Religion

    
    When you force your man-in-the-sky beliefs down our throats, you make us throw up.
    

    Hey man, chillll! Kind of inflammatory & offensive, no?

    And whats with 'stick to straight politics', eh? The whole point here is that many many religious people are drawn to politics for the same reason they're drawn to religion - a desire to help people. Can't tell people how to think or how to express themselves mate, aint gonna win you votes.

    by Max M on Fri Oct 24, 2003 at 06:34:22 AM PDT

    •  Re: Liberalism and Religion

      Exactly.

      by Melanie on Fri Oct 24, 2003 at 06:50:23 AM PDT

      •  Re: Liberalism and Religion

        It's still surprising to me how many secularists are completely unaware how many people are helped in this country by the Catholic and Episcopal churches.

        Thousands of tons of food are given away every day.  Alchoholic Anonymous never, ever would have come into existence without the Catholic Church.  Catholic Relief Services has saved tens of thousands of lives from sliding away into oblivion.

        I'm a semi-Protestant--I'm a confirmed every-Sunday Episcopalian.  I dunno what the Protestants do as far as social work, but I don't think it's much.

        This social work is what keeps me coming back, 'cause I'm profoundly unhappy about the way the church has responded to our illegal inflammatory killing-for-lies war in Iraq.

        The disciplines and prayers and theology are all very nice, yeah. But at the end of the day, what have you done?

        There is a lot more to do, yes.  But it's something, and it alleviates a great deal of human pain and suffering.  I will never, ever treat such an example of spirituality lightly.

        by paradox on Fri Oct 24, 2003 at 08:17:42 AM PDT

        •  Re: Liberalism and Religion

          Lutherans (ELCA) also have a great committment to charity, as do many denominations that would be considered "mainstream" (although they're becoming less and less so).

          One of the most depressing things I ever experienced in my life was asking the pastor of a fundie-type church where we could donate to a food bank in Chester County, Pa. The city of Chester is incredibly poor, and this church was 40 minutes or so away. But he didn't know of any food banks. We ended up a leaving a pile of food for the men's prayer group to enjoy the next day.

          Not exactly spreading the love of Christ.

          by Magenta on Fri Oct 24, 2003 at 09:16:35 AM PDT

    •  Re: Liberalism and Religion

      The whole point here is that many many religious people are drawn to politics for the same reason they're drawn to religion

      I agree with Max, but I don't think it's the "whole" point. The fact is that political beliefs and religious beliefs are not equally important to most people. For many, one or the other is much more important.

      For many progressive Christians, their political beliefs are a product of religious beliefs. Politics are very important to me, but my faith is by far the most important. And I was extremely conservative until a friend and mentor cared enough to spend months very carefully guiding me to the realization that I was overlooking the more central tenets of the Christian faith (love thy neighbor, care for the widow and the orphan, etc.). That changed my entire outlook on life, most notably my political beliefs.

      The moral of my story: there is very real hope for the Christian right to migrate to the left. But it will only happen through those of us already here making real, personal investments in "them."

      by kristy007 on Fri Oct 24, 2003 at 10:40:40 AM PDT

      •  Re: Liberalism and Religion

        For me, faith has to be more important, just for the sake of my psyche. I have found myself getting through the past 3 years, thinking, "Nations come, and nations go. God is forever." I still try to save the nation, but as I watch Bush destroy it, I find that reassuring.

        by Magenta on Fri Oct 24, 2003 at 12:34:06 PM PDT

        •  Re: Liberalism and Religion

          I kind of feel that way about Christianity in general. The Religious Right is doing its best to destroy it (at least, that's the way it seems to me), but many Christians are doing what they can to prevent this.

          by C L bosch on Fri Oct 24, 2003 at 06:31:12 PM PDT

  •  Re: Liberalism and Religion

    I don't know what you're talking about.  I don't see any forcing here of belief here.  I see an expression of personal belief.

    You say to stick to straight politics as if that could ever be stand alone.  Politics is an extension of one's world view as integral as one's spiritual beliefs.  You may not realize this, but your hostile comments are just as much a reflection of your world view regarding spiritual beliefs as Melanie's post is.  The difference in how I received your comments is this:  While my world view is different from both yours and Melanie's, you managed to bring a knot of hostility into my gut.  Until then my mind (and heart.  I am a progressive after all) was wide open.

    Thank you Melanie for a thoughtful post.  That is, a post that made me think.

    by sj on Fri Oct 24, 2003 at 06:53:58 AM PDT

    •  Jesus = Hippie

      One thing so-called "secular" liberals might want to consider is the idea that no matter who you are, you do have some religious outlook; if you are an Atheist, for example, that is fueling your liberalism just as much as Catholicism is fueling Melanie's.  Atheism isn't merely the "anti-religion"; it is a religion in and of itself, albeit with no church or doctrine.  But it is a spiritual mindset, just like "theist" religions are.  Nobody is free of having to define one's metaphysical "take" on reality, except maybe Freethinkers or Agnostics (the latter actually being strictly-defined as deist -- it just means that God is unknowable, not that he doesn't "exist").  A "null" spiritual mind-set is a spiritual mind-set nonetheless, so there is no sense in classifying Atheistic politics as "straight" politics, because it is politics tainted by the spirituality of Atheism.  Saying there is no God is just as much of a spiritual belief as saying that there is.  And this aspect of your spirituality informs everything you do, from pulling the switch in the voting booth to picking your nose, just as it does with the "theists".

      As for the more subtle point I think Melanie was getting at, namely, that the left should embrace its non-secular branch, I wholeheartedly agree.  Just as the left should be re-claiming the US flag (and patriotism in general), they should also be out there trying to show that Christianity and liberalism are really a better match than Christianity and conservatism.  After all, Jesus Christ was ardently anti-violence, and, of course, would never have supported any war, even one fought in self-defense (that's what he meant by, you know, "turning the other cheek" -- look it up, it's not like that statement could possibly be interpreted to support anything Bush is doing).  For the most part, conservatism is pretty damn anti-Christian in almost all aspects, as far as I'm concerned, and the sooner liberals start trying to make this point, the sooner conservatism will be exposed for the shell game/pyramid scheme (take your pick) that it truly is.

      But, Melanie, you probably are aware (or should be, at least) that Atheists get way more flak for their religious beliefs than almost any single religion out there.  So if you feel any heat radiating back from them, keep in mind that heat is just ambient radiation from the flames they've gotten from deists their whole lives (or as long as they've been outspoken about their Atheism).  They're hot to the touch for good reason.  But it's good to have this kind of open dialogue, to say the least.

      I was going to ask if anyone has any links to good lefty Buddhist sites, but after giving it some thought, I can't imagine that any Buddhist ever voted Republican (at least any sane one).  Though I could be wrong.

      by Tlacolotl on Fri Oct 24, 2003 at 08:28:08 AM PDT

      •  Re: Jesus = Hippie

        When I was an atheist (and I was) I did take a lot of heat for it, but not nearly as much as I get now in the left blogosphere as an RC.

        I also understand that a lot of people had a lot of bad things happen to them in the name of religion, and they are reactive as a result.

        by Melanie on Fri Oct 24, 2003 at 08:35:55 AM PDT

      •  Re: Jesus = Hippie

        Atheism isn't merely the "anti-religion"; it is a religion in and of itself, albeit with no church or doctrine.  

        Wrong.

        A religion without a church or doctrine? You should think about what you are saying.

        That's like saying that you don't believe in Zeus is a religion.

        by Ray in TX on Fri Oct 24, 2003 at 09:06:44 AM PDT

        •  Re: Jesus = Hippie

          Atheism isn't just some kind of "default" for people who find the idea of invisible superheroes who live in outer space to be a bit far-fetched.  It's as arbitrary as any kind of belief system; it's based on faith, and faith alone.  There is no proof that there is no God, no Zeus, etc., yet I believe it anyway.  Saying you don't have a religious outlook is like saying you don't have an accent or an ethnicity; we all have them, its just part of being human.

          For instance, as an Atheist, I believe that I will completely cease to exist when I die (much to my relief), but I can only accept it on faith that this is the case, as I have no actual proof that I won't go to heaven, I won't be reincarnated, or whatever.  How is this any different than believing, only out of faith, that I will go to heaven, be reincarnated, or whatever?

          Granted, some Atheists' outlook might just come from having never giving spirituality a passing thought, rather than being an explicit belief system like my own.  But just because their belief system is implicit doesn't mean that it's not there.  I don't give my accent or ethnicity a passing thought, after all, yet I still have an accent and I still have an ethnicity.

          by Tlacolotl on Fri Oct 24, 2003 at 09:58:47 AM PDT

          •  Re: Jesus = Hippie

             It's as arbitrary as any kind of belief system

            Logically false. Atheism is not a "belief system," it is the absence of a belief system.

            I do not "believe there is no God." Rather, I examine the fact that there is no evidence to support the existence of any higher being and choose to abide by that logic.

            Supply scientific evidence of a higher power's existence, and I will re-examine my thoughts on the matter. Until then, there is no logical reason for me to think that any such being exists.

            by travis bushman on Fri Oct 24, 2003 at 10:06:03 AM PDT

            •  Re: Jesus = Hippie

              I disagree.  Absence of a belief system, in a religious context, is agnosticism, not athiesm.

              Athiesm means to believe there is no god.

              You are espousing a classic fallacy.  Lack of evidence to support something exists (God, in this case), is not evidence that it does not exist.  For example, we had no evidence that quarks existed until less than a hundred years ago.  I'm not saying rational evidence will someday prove God's existence.  I'm saying, where's your evidence that god doesn't exist?

              Do you know there's no god?  If so, please back up your claims.  

              If not, welcome to the fellowship of agnostics.  I warmly greet you!

              by Civil Sibyl on Fri Oct 24, 2003 at 10:18:23 AM PDT

              •  Re: Jesus = Hippie

                Lack of evidence to support something exists (God, in this case), is not evidence that it does not exist.

                Of course not, and I did not claim that it is. But in the absence of evidence to support a claim, it is illogical to believe purely on "faith" that the claim is true.

                by travis bushman on Fri Oct 24, 2003 at 10:26:43 AM PDT

                •  Re: Jesus = Hippie

                  You're right, of course. So the correct position is "there may or may not be a God". Unfortunately, that's not your stated position, is it?

                  
                  Supply scientific evidence of a higher power's existence, and I will re-examine my thoughts on the matter. Until then, there is no logical reason for me to think that any such being exists.
                  

                  If an assertion is neither proved or disproved, it is not logical to state that the assertion is false. You have latched onto the idea that belief in God is false. Your only justification for it is personal faith that "Absence of proof is proof of absence."

                  As well as your faith in logic in the first place. How are we coming with the unified field theory, by the way?
                  

                  by Bill Rehm on Fri Oct 24, 2003 at 10:36:04 AM PDT

                  •  Re: Jesus = Hippie

                    If an assertion is neither proved or disproved, it is not logical to state that the assertion is false.

                    Let me try out this analogy for people who might somehow think that atheism is a belief system.

                    The claim, There are green martians is yet to be proven.  But it has not been disproven.  In the absence of any evidence of green martians, it's fairly safe to say that nobody will believe in them.  Some people wil claim to be agreenmartianists, since no green martians have been seen, and the green martian theory is kinda leaky, anyway.  Some people will only claim that we don't know yet.  The jury is still out, the evidence hasn't gone either way.  And some people will just believe in them anyway.

                    Now let's say that we have a rocket ship, and we start looking for them.  We look in many, many corners of the universe, especially where green martians are supposed to be, and we find none.  Those agnostic towards green martians keep saying, now hold on! we haven't looked every where yet.

                    So we look a bit more.  The universe is big, but we try.  We still don't find any.  Finally, we quit, and say, "look, we didn't find any green martians, especially in the places where they are supposed to hide.  We don't want to look EVERYWHERE, it's a big universe."

                    And so many people, based on the (inductive) evidence, conclude there are no green martians and get on with their lives.  When asked about green martians, they say they are agreenmartianists, to the disdain of the greenmartianists.  Some people when asked still say the jury is out, despite having never seen one, they haven't seen the prove to show that we can NEVER see one.

                    As an atheist, I don't believe in the gods,  big G, little g, with an -ess, Zeus, Odin, etc.,  in the  same way I don't believe in green martians, or the easter bunny, or santa claus.  This doesn't mean I have a belief system in ANY of them.

                    by Vince CA on Fri Oct 24, 2003 at 11:10:32 AM PDT

                    •  aGreen Martians

                      1. Green Martians to G/god is apples to oranges somewhat.  God bigger perhaps, more ineffable, potentially harder to find cuz not a definable material creature from a specific planet.  So harder to prove that not finding God = is no God.  Analogy isn't strong enough to prove that if can't find Green Martians, athiesm implies no belief beyond logic.  
                      2. Much left unstated about the assumptions of how your knowledge system "proves" things.  People can't know whether to logically agree with you w/o assessing those assumptions you hold.
                      3. Also, if you're confining yourself to the limits of your five senses in the search, that is an a priori decision to exclude other possible senses, ways of knowing.  

                      For more on this, and a justification for not being banned for off-topic content :-), see my aEaster Bunny post).

                      by Civil Sibyl on Fri Oct 24, 2003 at 12:34:45 PM PDT

                •  Re: Jesus = Hippie

                  I'll still ask you Travis...

                  "...where's your evidence that god doesn't exist?"

                  "Do you know there's no god?  If so, please back up your claims."

                  And I'm still ready to welcome you to the fellowship of agnostics, once you understand the logical implications of your appeal to simple logic re god.

                  But don't worry, I won't pray for you to see the noble light of unfallacious logic, or worse, to become straight.

                  Rock on, Gay brother!
                  

                  by Civil Sibyl on Fri Oct 24, 2003 at 10:45:17 AM PDT

              •  Re: Jesus = Hippie

                Lack of evidence to support something exists (God, in this case), is not evidence that it does not exist.

                BUT it is NOT evidence that it does exist.  The fallacy is yours.

                I'm saying, where's your evidence that god doesn't exist?

                I'm not making a belief claim.  The burden of proof does not fall on me.  I didn't believe in quarks until I saw the evidence.  I wasn't even agnostic on them.  We could know if they exist, we just didn't yet.

                Is the absence of belief in the Easter Bunny, aEasterBunnyism, a belief system?  No, it is not.  Without sufficient evidence to provide for the existence of the Easter Bunny, and plenty of contrary evidence, we are left to conclude that the Easter Bunny, in all likelihood, in the absence of some great marvel of observational evidence, in fact, does not exist.  (Sorry if you didn't already know.)

                by Vince CA on Fri Oct 24, 2003 at 10:45:35 AM PDT

                •  Re: Jesus = Hippie

                  You bast*rd! Take it back, right now!

                  by Bill Rehm on Fri Oct 24, 2003 at 10:57:07 AM PDT

                •  Re: Jesus = Hippie

                  What am I if I believe that there is no evidence of a god or gods, but I hope there is a god or gods, and that that god or those gods will not cause me to endure suffering, especially eternal suffering, for either no reason, or to punish me for things I did when I was alive?

                  I think I should classify myself as agnostic right?

                  by Liberal Messiah LM on Fri Oct 24, 2003 at 12:04:17 PM PDT

                •  Re: aEaster-Bunnyism

                  Your example is humorous.  I like it.

                  I can't 100% rule out, from a strictly logical standpoint, the existence of the Easter Bunny.  (Note I, as well as you, have not yet clarified the definition of "logic.") The Easter Bunny could exist without ever having been observed by me, humans, witnesses I deem reliable, etc.  However I highly, highly doubt it exists.  There are dozens of reasons I could marshall why I doubt the existence of the Easter Bunny.   Some of them could apply to the existence of God as well.  (Not all of them would, and on the positive side, God as a hypothesis can explain more facts than can the Easter Bunny as its traditionally described.)  

                  I do choose to act as if the Easter Bunny doesn't exist, because my reasons against its existence are "good enough" for me, even if not absolute.  To be asolute requires an absolute, lock-step chain of logic based on irrefutable assumptions.  More about that in a moment.  

                  Interlude: Wait a minute.  Please define your terms.  What do you mean by Easter Bunny?  And what does some other person mean by God?  What do you or I mean by logic?

                  Look, all these arguments come down to the following:

                  How do you know what you know?

                  There are thousands of beliefs, and dozens of philosophical systems (some formally described, some just informal or unconscious) for underpinning knowledge.  One possible component of a system for "backing up belief" is logic.

                  Logic?  Hmmm. Hindu swamis, Christian theologians, cw, and yes, many Scientists regularly argue from logic based on a set of assumptions that are in turn backed up by something less... logical.

                  Perhaps you believe your beliefs result only from the logical constructs derived from empirical observations accessible to your five senses, or to scientific instruments that have demonstrated their consistency.

                  There are numerous points where such a system of knowledge rests on untestable or evolving assumptions.

                  One example: Science, including its very methods, evolves over time -- due to empirical factors yes, but also due to cultural values, social interactions, academic power relationships (ref: Thomas Khun), etc.  You presumably believe more than your five senses and direct observations through scientific instruments -- if you believe in quarks for example.  To do so you must believe in certain scientists.  But scientists at times have misread their observations, faked data, emotionally resisted for decades logical arguments that puncture their pet theories (cf: Khun).  What's your standard for believing some scientists and not others?  Peer review?  Lots of what we'd now call false beliefs have been published in the best journals.  I submit that your basis for belief is wider than you realize.

                  Example 2: How do you know that all reality can be confined to what is perceivable directly or indirectly through your five senses?  Other senses exist which must create for the bearer an entirely different perception of reality than our experience.  (E.G.: Magnetic perception in migrating birds, sonar in bats, movement perceptors in sharks.)  If you limit your reality input to the filters of the five senses -- that is a choice, albeit an unconscious one for most people who operate that way.

                  From the limitations of those five senses, how can you logically exclude the possibility that humans (or perhaps only whales or Andromedeans?) have other senses, which you haven't noticed in yourself, that can perceive something about God?  Millions of people have claimed such a sense, and I think the most that you can do is one of two things:  1. Say you haven't experienced such, and be intellectually agnostic whether their claims are true or false, or 2. Actively use your particular knowledge system to prove that their sense cannot exist or is unreliable.  You see, it's just your word against theirs, unless you marshall an active argument to refute them.  

                  And even if you trouble yourself to create such a proof, and it turns out to be a great one, you'll only convince people operating from the framework of your particular knowledge system.  That probably comprises less than half of all humans.  How will you boogie with the rest of them?

                  I think you are choosing Option 1 above, in saying you see no evidence for God.  But if you then say you are an athiest - that there is no God - then you are making the bolder claim of Option 2, but without offering the requisite proof from your knowledge system.  Also, if you ever in anyway communicate or deal with a religious person based on an assumption that they must be wrong because there is no God, then you've also made a behavioral choice based on an unsupported belief.

                  I find it more realistic to stay agnostic intellectually, while not supressing the possibility of a spiritual sense, even in myself.  That's a decision.  It appears you've made a different one -- either actively or unconsciously.

                  I accept that knowledge has limits we can't fathom.  I accept the responsibility to develop and live a valuable coherent life given those limits, knowing I may be wrong in many ways.  I remain open to doubt and to learn, as Science, Knowledge, Civil Morality, and all kinds of other aspects of reality (maybe even God!) evolve.

                  To tie this big discussion back to Melanie's topic of religion and progressive politics -- I'd say my central value is respect for diversity in others who are supporting, voting for, or working for progressive improvement in our "body politic."  There's no need, practical value, or logical reason to second-guess or berate the beliefs, sensed perceptions, or motivations of another fellow doing decent things -- whether in the name of God or athiesm.
                  

                  by Civil Sibyl on Fri Oct 24, 2003 at 12:25:42 PM PDT

              •  you are mistaken

                Athiesm means to believe there is no god.

                No, it does not.

                Do you know there's no god? ... If not, welcome to the fellowship of agnostics.  

                Now I see the problem. Agnosticism is not "I don't know". Agnosticism is actually an affirmative belief system about the knowability of a creator.

                This is a common misunderstanding. If you want to label yourself according to incorrect definitions, then go for it.

                I will concede, however, that atheists who affirmatively believe that there is no god are relying on faith. That does not describe me. There could very well be a creator. I don't know.

                "I don't know" is called skepticism, not agnosticism.

                by Ray in TX on Fri Oct 24, 2003 at 11:50:03 AM PDT

                •  Re: you are mistaken

                  Thanks Ray.  Point well taken.  I knew that difference in definition of agnosticism but forgot about it.

                  Given your clarification, I'd say I'm agnostic about the possibility of knowing whether god exists.  And I'm outright skeptical that certain conceptions of God are true, including cw's.

                  Yet to be candid I sense some divine/spririt/God stuff, and even see some phyical evidences of same from time to time, but not enough to constitute any logical proof.  (And pardon me but, though needed I won't define my terms for those last two little words.)  Still, I don't want "five-senses" logic to limit certain other senses and experiences, as long as they lead to... !progressive political change!

                  by Civil Sibyl on Fri Oct 24, 2003 at 12:45:37 PM PDT

                •  Re: you are mistaken

                  After a second reading of your post, permit me to make clarifications.

                  1. I quibble with your quibble of my definition of Athiesm.  You didn't back up your quibble, but what're we going to do, consult Webster?  If so, which one?  Unless you have an authoritative source, I suggest we let that sleeping dog lie.  Semantics.  Ouch.
                  2. Re agnosticism, I'm agnostic only from the standpoint of the traditional intellectual realm. (I actively believe that it is impossible to prove or disprove the the existence of God through logic + the five senses means.)  I guess in allowing the possibility of senses beyond the standard five, I may break definitions of both skeptical and agnostic.  I know there's dozens of technical specifications philosophers have developed for agnosticism.  Not sure if mine fits one of them or not.

                  Most important point is to accept people of all faiths and non-faiths as long as they're doing GOOD, which I'll leave for you, Melanie, and Kos to define 'cuz I'm tired.

                  Thx again for your challenging and clarifying post.

                  by Civil Sibyl on Fri Oct 24, 2003 at 12:57:15 PM PDT

                  •  Re: you are mistaken

                    CS,
                       The definition of agnosticism as pertaining to "knowability" of a creator is the original one. Agnosticism was coined as a term by Thomas Huxley. I use his definition.

                    There are two forms of atheism. There is strong atheism, which involves a definite affirmation that there is no god. This position definitely relies on some faith, and you will see many materialists hold this view (materialism = no supernatural).

                    I will not argue against a materialist view, because it is futile. All of the evidence is in their camp, BY DEFINITION, and they are willing to make the leap (or tiny hop) of faith to state that's all there is.

                    Then there is weak atheism, which is the typically the hallmark of skeptics. Skepticism is often confused with cynicism or pessimism, but it is neither. Missouri is our state of mind... "show me". Like Descartes, we are not willing to declare what we don't know as impossible, but we require evidence to hold a belief.

                    Now it gets a little confusing. With regards to the many, many deities postulated in human history, you can be a strong atheist towards some, and a weak atheist towards other.

                    Some religious doctrines are internally inconsistent (i.e. the Trinity) and others contradict known historical facts (Scientology, literal Old Testament, etc). These are often discarded as impossible by weak atheists because they are logically impossible (like a "square circle").

                    Others describe their faith with enough vagueness to avoid logical disproofs. For those, a skeptic will simply remain unconvinced.

                    by Ray in TX on Fri Oct 24, 2003 at 02:45:54 PM PDT

                    •  Re: you are mistaken

                      Valuable clarifications.  Thanks Ray.

                      Do you happen to know if any philosophers who've systematized the various forms of atheism and agnosticism have made a distinction between an unprovability of god* via intellect/logic and data filtered through the five senses, vs. precluding the possibility of perception of god through a different sense or senses?

                      *used in a very broad sense

                      by Civil Sibyl on Fri Oct 24, 2003 at 03:53:11 PM PDT

              •  Re: Jesus = Hippie

                Religious belief is not dependent on scientific proof.  It is experienced.  Either one experiences a connection to God, a higher power, infinite wisdom, the eternal, whatever, or one doesn't.  Or, perhaps, one occasionally experiences it and this becomes the foundation of a religious belief system.  As Thomas Merton and many others have said, to the believer the signs are everywhere.  
                That religious beliefs can't be scientifically proven doesn't make them "wrong."  (Or "right.")  It is more like love. If you love someone, you love them, and don't need scientific proof of that.
                Religion comes from a latin root and mean "to retie the bonds."  It is a way of connecting an individual in space and time, to the past (whether past religious figures or the ancestors) and to ones community.  I believe that it is this sense of connectedness, whatever its source, that is why religious people often have better medical outrcomes, for example.  But it isn't something that can be proven one way or the other like the existence of gravity or quarks.  

                by Mimikatz on Fri Oct 24, 2003 at 01:23:05 PM PDT

              •  Re: Jesus = Hippie

                As I recall being gnostic meant you believed you could directly experience god without the mediation of priest or clergy. It was and AFAIK, still is considered a profound heresy by the Roman Catholic Church.

                And, in Spain, as recently as 175 years ago openly professing such heresy meant you could be and likely would be violently murdered in a rather gruesome fashion by dedicated followers of Christ. You know the Divine Prince of Peace? Monty Pythons jokes about the Spanish Inquisition aside, those people were some seriously wacked psychotics.

                Being agnostic is still a heresy. But it simply means you believe some OTHER heresy that's all, such as, say, Calvinism or something. Or being a Lutheran, or an Episcopalian, or heavan forbid, a Baptist. However, if you're a Greek Orthodox, or Armenian Orthodox, or Coptic - you're ok.

                At least that was the opinion expressed in my little blue Baltimore catechism that my mom and Fr. Stovic battered into me as a child. I stopped paying serious attention to this drivel many years ago, so I'm likely not up on the fine points of heresy anymore.

                by jakethomson on Fri Oct 24, 2003 at 08:52:05 PM PDT

                •  Re: Jesus = Hippie

                  you're confusing agnostic and gnostic.

                  "soft" agnostics simply don't know themselves whether there is a god.  "hard" agnostics believe it is actually impossible to know whether or not there is a god.

                  gnosticism was a religious movement in christianity, judaism, zoroastrianism and even platonist paganism in the first few centuries CE.  too complex to describe here, let's just say their worldview was basically the same as the matrix movies.  they did put a premium on the direct experience of god, but so have all the christian, islamic and jewish mystics, for that matter.

                  dealing with god directly without the mediation of priests or saints was (is?) considered heresy by the vatican, but it's the heresy of martin luther and his "protestant" movement.

                  by zeke L on Mon Oct 27, 2003 at 09:53:36 PM PDT

                  •  Re: Jesus = Hippie

                    Like I said, I'm not up on the finer points of what constitutes heresy anymore. However both gnostic and agnostic are Greek. And as I remember, what little I remember about this stuff, in Greek the suffix a + X is the logical equivalent of meaning NOT + X. By that usage then agnostic means NOT gnostic. Ergo, I drew the conclusion that being agnostic would, logically, mean you're a heretic, just not a heretic of the gnostic flavor. However I'm of the opinion that theology is an oxymoron, so basically I just don't give a flying shit about this stuff in my everyday life.

                    by jakethomson on Mon Dec 08, 2003 at 02:52:57 AM PDT

      •  Re: Jesus = Hippie

        Here is one Buddhist site--the Buddhist Peace Fellowship.

        http://www.bpf.org/html/home.html

        I was raised a nominal Protestant but have been a Buddhist for many years.  Buddhist leaders are in the forefront of the peace movement (Dalai Lama, Thich Nhat Hanh etc) and have been for many years. Social justice movements as well.  

        Buddhism appeals to me because it rings true and because it is extremely helpful in everyday life, particularly in relationships.  One fundamental tenet is non-attachment.  One learns to cultivate a perspective which transcends dualisms (good/bad, liberal/conservative) and apprehends the universe as whole.  In everyday life one has to move in the relative or dualistic world and stop at the red light, go with the green.  But these are two aspects of reality, and one should be very careful not to make any relative view into an absolute that denies the reality of any other view.  This is a problem with many religions--pointing a finger at the moon and mistaking the finger for the moon, or mistaking the trappings, symbols and creed for the actual, underlying reality.

        Buddhism is also appealing because it does not have a god as such, only a sort of eternal wisdom that remains when all dualisms have been transcended, and that everything is a part of.  It also has a fairly strict code of ethics, that can be distilled into one precept: Refrain from evil, do all that is good, live and be lived for the benefit of all beings.    
        What this means in practical terms is to learn to let go of ego, see other people as individuals, listen to them, appreciate their needs, understand that reality is so complex that there is a grain of truth in everything and try to find it, and above all don't get hung up on anything so that you lose perspective and add to the evil and hurt in the world. Some Buddhists do get very hung up on their own enlightenment, but at least for my sect, the point is to move back and forth from the inner to the outer world while maintaining some degree of tranquility and connection to the whole.

        Thanks very much for the post, Melaniw, and for bringing the issue to this forum.

        by Mimikatz on Fri Oct 24, 2003 at 01:03:20 PM PDT

        •  Re: your spirit(uality)

          Thanks for your post, Mimikatz.

          The air somehow seemed fresher as I read your words.

          by Civil Sibyl on Fri Oct 24, 2003 at 01:15:15 PM PDT

  •  Re: Liberalism and Religion

    I think there's always going to be some degree of this sort of thing that we're not going to be able to eliminate.  Philosophy and theology are not universal interests.  There are plenty of people who have a belief system, but really don't want to have to think about it.  It's there, and it's done with.  Asking them to consider challenges to it is like ambushing a theater major with logarithmic equations.

    Atheists and religious people have that tendancy in equal proportions.  If you try and force these things on them, you end up with atheists thinking God creates evil and Baptists that think there's going to be a Rapture.

    Anyway, I think despite his bastardly delivery, Dave kinda has a point.  It's equally mean to tell an atheist that you'll pray for her and that Jesus will save her as it is to tell a Christian not to worry about her dead husband because he no longer exists and is, as such, percieving no pain or longing for his life.

    by fenix down on Fri Oct 24, 2003 at 07:38:15 AM PDT

    •  Re: Liberalism and Religion

      But I didn't say any of those things, did I?

      by Melanie on Fri Oct 24, 2003 at 07:43:03 AM PDT

  •  Re: Liberalism and Religion

    Thanks, Dave.  When I look for a post that practically defines the word "bigot," I'll know exactly where to go.

    by Devilstower on Fri Oct 24, 2003 at 07:50:51 AM PDT

    •  Re: Liberalism and Religion

      When I look for a post that practically defines the word "bigot," I'll know exactly where to go.

      Atrios' blog, right?

      Because, honestly, I didn't see anything bigoted in Dave's post. He said "get a clue", "don't shove your religious beliefs on me", "stick to politics" and "don't ask me to sympathize with bigots and child molesters"

      by Ray in TX on Fri Oct 24, 2003 at 11:56:16 AM PDT

  •  maybe a little harsh, but this was not a troll

    "Religious adherants, you need to get a clue."

    Translation: Melanie's post indicates that she does not understand the motivation of the religious criticisms she's seen. Let me elaborate.

    "There are plenty of secular humanists out there who reliably pull the lever in the voting booth for the straight D ticket.

    Translation: I am on your side, politically.

    When you force your man-in-the-sky beliefs down our throats, you make us throw up.

    Translation: Please don't use our common interests, such as politics, as an opportunity to rationalize your supernatural beliefs to me.

    "Stick to straight politics, please"

    Translation: Religious discussions don't belong on a political website

    and don't start in on that crap about "respecting" bigots who hate fags, like you did on Atrios' board the other night...

    Translation: I recommend that you clean up your own house before complaining to us about "casual putdowns"

    Q to Dave: was that an accurate translation?
    

    by Ray in TX on Fri Oct 24, 2003 at 11:42:56 AM PDT

    •  Re: maybe a little harsh, but this was not a troll

      hmmm... interesting.  I would never have reached that interpretation of dave's post.  Never.

      by sj on Fri Oct 24, 2003 at 01:06:47 PM PDT

      •  Re: maybe a little harsh, but this was not a troll

        I just cleaned up the tone.

        Now if he had used the same tone against Republicans, I'm sure his post would have received "3" and "4" ratings. Certainly nothing in the "troll" range.

        But since he is an outspoken Demo^H^H^H^Hatheist, he must be a trolling Bush^H^H^H^HGod-hater.

        by Ray in TX on Fri Oct 24, 2003 at 02:50:05 PM PDT

        •  Re: maybe a little harsh, but this was not a troll

          I gave Dave a 1, which I've done only about 3 or 4 times out of reading several hundred posts, because I saw him using rude language to try to shut down both Melanie and other posters here who had written with sincerity and civility.  He also was giving an "order" to people here at dKos to limit their speech on matters pertaining to religion, and by extension, any spiritual motivations that prompt their progressive politics.  His invective seemed targeted at some people here in the dKos community, not against a famous person like Bush or Dean.

          I appreciate your tone and your posts, Ray, and for your gesture at "making peace."  I'd welcome Dave here, and hearing more of his views, if his words can move towards the level of thoughfulness and respect for others that yours show.

          by Civil Sibyl on Fri Oct 24, 2003 at 04:25:07 PM PDT

•  Re: Liberalism and Religion

  p.s. How about a 'religion' poll? Looking foward to hearing more from ya!

  by Max M on Fri Oct 24, 2003 at 06:27:44 AM PDT

•  Re: Liberalism and Religion

  Good post.  

  I'm an agnostic but absolutely agree with your thoughts.  Religion is a deeply personal thing, and unless you're someone trying to put the 10 Commandments in the Courthouse, we need to be respectful- if it ain't unconstitutional don't bash religion.

  I have always thought that what the Dems need (and I'm an agnostic remember) is a William jenning Bryant candidate.  Someone who could with a holy fervor rip off the mask from compassionate conservatism.  (Though in a lot of ways that was Bill Clinton).

  by jgkojak on Fri Oct 24, 2003 at 06:30:04 AM PDT

•  Re: Liberalism and Religion

  While I am an agnostic, my brother is a Methodist and even more liberal than I am.  I know they exist.

  However:

  this may be unfair, but in my perception the moderate and progressive religious in this country have allowed the wingnut right to define Christianity as an oppressive force in this country for thirty years.

  I accept and respect the fact that non-wacko Christians do not typically wear their hearts on their sleeves, and may be uncomfortable speaking up.  But it needs to happen.  NOW.  I cannot identify the religious with a progressive cause (civil rights) since around the time I was born ('68).

  If you don't want secular humanists tarring all Christians with the same brush there needs to be vocal dissenting voices to the Pat Robertsons of the world.  We literally don't feel any of you at our back right now, only in front of us, pushing us down into darkness.

  by Jimmy Jazz on Fri Oct 24, 2003 at 06:30:40 AM PDT

  •  Re: Liberalism and Religion

    It can be difficult to speak up, though, Jimmy Jazz. A lot of people consider any mention of religion to be "shoving religion down their throats." It's hard to shout down Robertson if your own side of the political aisle is telling you to shut up about your faith. As someone already has on this thread.

    by Magenta on Fri Oct 24, 2003 at 06:36:57 AM PDT

    •  Re: Liberalism and Religion

      There is no question that the progressives have their own rabid, anti-religious crazies, but I firmly believe that most of us enjoy hearing from those whose faith informs their sense of social justice and progressivism, in the spirit of the union movements of the early 20th Century, women's suffrage, and civil rights.

      Silence has also allowed the right wing to tar progressives as a small group of crazed Communists (or even Satanists), when in fact we have majority support for almost every major goal.  Those arguments melt away if more Christian progressives were vocal.

      The gulf in this country grows ever wider, and it's people like you that represent the best hope of bringing us back together.  I came to the sad conclusion a few years ago that I had more in common with someone in Tokyo or Paris than I do with at least 50% of my countrymen.

      by Jimmy Jazz on Fri Oct 24, 2003 at 06:55:14 AM PDT

  •  Southern Baptist Convention

    While this is not true for all groups, it has certainly been true for the Southern Baptists over the last couple of decades.

    Baptists have a bad reputation, I know, but there were many Baptists involved in the civil rights movement and in social activism.  They were critical in their early support of union labor.

    However, like many churchs, the SB operatec through a lay, volunteer board.  Over two decades, the right-wing literalists spread through the structure of the convention until they reached a point where they had an absolute iron grip.  Even though they were (and are) a minority within the denomination, they utterly dominate the conversation.  Literal interpretation rules.  The voice of individual churches is drowned in a new sea of rules.

    So how did they do it?  Persistance and zeal.  What's that line from Keats?  The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.

    Substitute "moderates" for best and "fundamentalists" for worst, and you've got it.  The right wing holds sway over the Republican Party for the same reason: they're all het-up, and they ain't gonna take it no more.  How many inflamed moderates do you know?

    How you fight a takeover like that, I have no idea.  There were fine speeches made, and valiant efforts to forestall the inevitable, all of which failed.

    My family has been Southern Baptist literally since the Four Churches founded the demonination.  I grew up in the Souther Baptist faith, was baptised there, was married there.  

    And now I belong to the UCC.

    (my apologics to General Baptists and all the other demonations.  I used Baptist as shorthand above and don't mean to imply anything about the non-SBC sort.)

    by Devilstower on Fri Oct 24, 2003 at 07:49:00 AM PDT

    •  Re: Southern Baptist Convention

      Thank you.  I needed to know the Baptists have done some good.

      Otherwise I'm vastly unimpressed, to say the least.  Those people often give me the serious creeps, I'm sorry.

      by paradox on Fri Oct 24, 2003 at 08:21:46 AM PDT

      •  Re: Southern Baptist Convention

        Morris Dees ... head of Southern Poverty Law Center - an amazing group .... is southern baptist  check his groups website http://www.tolerance.org

        Also, Jimmy Carter was the first and only southern baptist president I think

        The thing about both these characters is that they are soft spoken and actually humble.  Humility is a charactaristic of many thoughtful Christians that they are prevented from shouting down their opponents like Robertson Falwel etc

        by math geek on Fri Oct 24, 2003 at 08:49:49 AM PDT

        •  Re: Southern Baptist Convention

          Bill Clinton was a Southern Baptist too, IIRC.  Ironic given that denomination's current ideological leaning, isn't it?

          by ChicagoDem on Fri Oct 24, 2003 at 09:44:43 AM PDT

          •  Ironic?

            absolutely, but i wouldnt call Clinton humble

            by math geek on Fri Oct 24, 2003 at 02:17:36 PM PDT

    •  Re: Southern Baptist Convention

      Yep, you nailed it on the head.  

      People who are progressive, moderate, open to diversity, compassionate -- are less likely to believe dogmatically, and don't love to incessantly attempt to insert their ideologies into other's hearts and heads.  (I used to be such a dogmatic fool, until I grew up.)  It's the same reason why religious demagogues like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwellgrew to dominate religious broadcasting.  What compassionate woman or man of faith wants to be a demagogue?

      But lacking a principled, (com)passionate, and effective resistance to religio-political demagoguery, the Hitlers, Stalins, and Maos of the world win, until chaos and destruction teach the multitudes some hard lessons.  This is one reason why I've liked Howard Dean, though I think it's time for him to modulate feistiness with the kind of "direct compassion" I've seen Edwards display in the debates.

      How you fight a takeover like that, I have no idea.  There were fine speeches made, and valiant efforts to forestall the inevitable, all of which failed.

      It's a real tragedy you describe.  It tells us we can't expect to preserve diversity, civility, and mutual-respect where it exists in our communities when we come under the dogmatists' attack.  In this context, we have a lot to learn from people like Melanie and some other contributors here who have preserved and built real community in the midst of churches containing dogmatists.

      by Civil Sibyl on Fri Oct 24, 2003 at 08:42:59 AM PDT

  •  Re: Liberalism and Religion

    Have allowed? What, you think the there's some religious sheriff running around that can tell the hate-filled among the fundamentalists that they have to knock it off or go to religious jail?

    I think the "hate-filled" is the more important part of that equation. And all of us have a responsibility to respond to that.

    by Bill Rehm on Fri Oct 24, 2003 at 09:47:35 AM PDT

    •  Re: Liberalism and Religion

      Well, yeah. Although "religious jail" is more commonly referred to as "hell," I'm told.

      A common argument for the importance of religion is that fear of punishment in the afterlife is necessary for people to adhere to moral principles. If that's the case (and many religious people will tell you it is), then religious leaders saying "knock it off or you'll go to hell" should have some effect.

      by YT on Fri Oct 24, 2003 at 10:28:01 AM PDT

      •  Re: Liberalism and Religion

        Because, of course, all people who believe in religion are at one of the childhood levels of moral development.

        by Bill Rehm on Fri Oct 24, 2003 at 10:37:58 AM PDT

        •  Re: Liberalism and Religion

          Childhood levels of moral development, like Martin Luther King, the Dalai Lama, Thich Nhat Hanh, Teilhard de Chardin, Thomas Merton, etc, etc.

          by Mimikatz on Fri Oct 24, 2003 at 01:36:39 PM PDT

          •  Re: Liberalism and Religion

            Hey! I was being sarcastic.

            by Bill Rehm on Fri Oct 24, 2003 at 04:04:12 PM PDT

        •  Re: Liberalism and Religion

          You need to check out James Fowler at Emory who works from Piaget, Kohlberg and a touch of Erikson to develop an analysis of stages of "faith."  His "faith" might just as well be called "worldview" since it's not related to any particular religious views but to how one handles relationships, processes moral questions, etc.  For some people, you're right.  Many individuals get "stuck" in a "synthetic-conventional faith" without ever moving on to the "individuative-reflective" stage that emphasizes the rational and skeptical.  But beyond that stage lies the "conjuntive" stage that appreciates paradox, mystery, etc.  Those mentioned above in response to your post are included by Fowler in the highest, "universalizing" stage.

          There are both religious and non=-religious people in all these stages.  The difference lies not in religious/non-religious categories but in maturity.

          by rightchristians on Sat Oct 25, 2003 at 02:45:12 AM PDT

  •  Re: Liberalism and Religion

    Some of us are trying very hard on a daily basis.  Come read us.  Also know that we try to get linked by the major progressive sites so that you know what we're saying.  We're out they're commenting too.  

    by rightchristians on Sat Oct 25, 2003 at 02:34:44 AM PDT

•  Re: Liberalism and Religion

  As a secularist, I firmly believe in the separation of church and state, and as a Jewish Democrat, I despair at the lack of separation of religion and politics... but that's America and I accept it as it stands.  I tend to stay away from discussions of Israel and Dem policy probably for similar reasons you note re posted attitudes. Many of the comments range from the irrational to the simply outrageous. It's fair game, I suppose,  but I don't choose to play.

  I also firmly believe in making light of almost anything... if it stays that, and nothing else, and if it's done with underlying respect.

  Religion can supplement policy in many positive ways. Religion and science intersections sometimes give me pause (stem cells, anyone?), but there's great need for bioethics, and faith and religion can contribute mightily to that. So can common sense, and the two concepts are not mutually exclusive, nor is boiethics the only 'allowable' place for religion and faith to be discussed when it comes to policy and science, for that matter.

  Is there such a thing as a jazz bassoonist? If there isn't there should be, else God would not have created the bassoon (or jazz).

  Looking forward to all your posts. And diaries.  may your HTML learning curve be shallow and your thoughts ever deep.

  by DemFromCT on Fri Oct 24, 2003 at 06:31:11 AM PDT

  •  Re: Liberalism and Religion

    Dem,

    I did play some jazz, in fact studied the "third stream" with Ran Blake while I was in grad school the first time, at New England Conservatory.

    One of the best is Frank Nizzari.

    by Melanie on Fri Oct 24, 2003 at 06:39:48 AM PDT

•  Re: Liberalism and Religion

  God bless you, Mel!  I hope that lots of people read this and that many who do not already understand will take from your writing the idea that being religious does not automatically make one politically close-minded.

  by EphemeralNotion on Fri Oct 24, 2003 at 06:31:47 AM PDT

•  Looking for academic to comment on theology

  I am the host of "Collective Interest" an Internet radio show.  Go to http://live365.com/stations/collectiveinterest to listen to an interview.

  I am looking for a guest to comment intelligently on how Right Wing theology has changed toward Judaism and Islam over the last decade or so.

  Does anybody have an expert they would recommend?

  Carl Nyberg, [e-mail]

  by Carl Nyberg on Fri Oct 24, 2003 at 06:37:05 AM PDT

•  Re: Liberalism and Religion

  Welcome Melenie!  It is great to have your perspective on this blog!

  Since you were kind enough to reveal a little about yourself, I will reveal a little about me.  I was raised Catholic.  But despite an overactive guilty conscience, I have to say that the experience for me was actually very warm.  I made a lot of close friends through the Church.  I attended a Catholic high-school and was involved in many Christian youth groups.  You could say that my friends and I were evangelical.  My family had our life, many of our social activities and traditions centered around the Church.

  One of the things that my parents taught me, along with my religion, was to maintain an open mind and to think critically.  As I got older, I noticed all of the terrible things that took place in the name of religion.  I also noticed how many bad things happened to good people, including members of my family.  I also noticed the hypocrisy.  This has resulted in me loosing faith and becoming agnostic - leaning towards atheism.  I know my story is not unique.

  One of the stories in the Bible that always struck a cord with me was the one time Jesus got angry.  It was the purging of the Temple.  Jesus was upset because they Rabbis, Merchants and Money Changers were all using a religious obligation to make a profit.  (If somebody wants the details of this story, I'll post them in my diary if you want).  Jesus condemned the hypocrites: not the heathens, not the pagans, not the scientists, not the skeptics, not the sinners, not even the Romans.  He was angered when people used religion to their own purposes.

  So my question is (and not to you specifically, Melanie): where are the religious leaders who are condemning the actions of the right-wing religious Republicans?  Where are the ones that are would rightly claim what Boykin said was blasphemy (Bush is president because God chose him to be president)?  Where are the ones that are outraged by what the judge did in Alabama?  Where are the ones that are claiming that Bush's actions do not dove-tail with his supposed Christian beliefs?
  

  I was determined to know beans - Henry David Thoreau

  by RichM on Fri Oct 24, 2003 at 06:41:11 AM PDT

  •  Re: Liberalism and Religion

    Unfortunately, there aren't really any national religious leaders out there besides television evangelists. There are so many denominations. Here in Chicago, the ONLY religious figure to get any attention is the Catholic Cardinal. (Jesse Jackson doesn't count, since he's more of a politician than preacher.)

    Liberal churches need to put on their own TV shows, I think. That might be the only way.

    by Kuz on Fri Oct 24, 2003 at 06:58:23 AM PDT

    •  Re: Liberalism and Religion

      I'm not sure that this is a valid characterization of Reverend Jackson. In my admittedly limited experience, the black community has one of the strongest intersections of politics and faith.

      MLK was a great man. He is, also, one beautiful black pearl on a very long strand.

      by Bill Rehm on Fri Oct 24, 2003 at 09:54:05 AM PDT

  •  Re: Liberalism and Religion

    Try the folks at Sojourners (www.sojo.net).  Read The Right Christians (www.therightchristians.org).  Check out the Martin Marty Center and the discussions that go on there on a regular basis.  Check out the Tikkun community for a progressive Jewish perspective.

    Mainstream media doesn't have much interest in what progressive religious people have to say because they don't fit the stereotype.  There are occasions when I feel the same way about some progressive weblogs.

    What you've started here, Melanie, is great.  It's a discussion that's critical, I believe, to the success of the progressive movement.

    by rightchristians on Sat Oct 25, 2003 at 02:50:43 AM PDT

•  Re: Liberalism and Religion

  Thank you for this post, Mel.  I'm a Catholic who has found that the only way to live my faith in the political arena is to be a committed liberal on almost all issues.

  It pains me when people disparage all religious individuals, or Christians specifically, with a broad brush, because of those who claim to be leaders of the faith.  In reality I think many holier than thou conservatives need to re-read the Gospels, because I sure don't see Jesus, who was committed first and foremost to the widows and orphans of society, in their thoughts and words.

  I have many very hard-line Catholic friends who think that they have some sort of duty to be very hardcore conservative because of abortion.  I've been trying to persuade them that being a person who calls themselves "pro-life" should mean that they try to improve the quality of life for all, from birth to death, that respecting life ought to make you against unnecessary war, in favor of strong environmental policy, against the death penalty, for gun control, etc...so many liberal ideas.  I was so thrilled when one of the most hardcore conservatives I knew called me up and said, "I've been thinking about what you said, and now I'm really upset with Antonin Scalia, who calls himself Catholic, but sure doesn't seem to be one."  So good things can happen when you confront good people with the facts of what they really believe.

  Christians need to take back the meaning of what it is to act Christ-like from those on the right who have co-opted the word, in my opinion.  Keep fighting the good fight, Mel.  

  by slim on Fri Oct 24, 2003 at 06:48:01 AM PDT

  •  Re: Liberalism and Religion

    Keep fighting the good fight, Mel.

    And keep up your good work, slim.  Nice story about helping that person to glimpse the truth about Scalia.

    by Civil Sibyl on Fri Oct 24, 2003 at 07:23:21 AM PDT

•  Re: Liberalism and Religion

  No offense intended, but I disagree VERY strongly.

  When you bring up your faith, or religion as the crucial point of an argument, what you're doing is you are ignoring WHY you are making the argument. The whole debate, unfortunately, for better or for worse, is cheapened.

  Because different people can analyze religious texts different ways. It becomes, in a way, nit-picking. Meaningless.

  Why are Civil Rights so important? Is it because religion teaches us that all people should be treated equal in the eyes of the law..or is it because all people SHOULD be treated equal in the eyes of the law? Is bigotry OK if you have a different religion? Is it a justification? No.

  That's what I don't like about it. Often, it becomes a justification, for BOTH bad behavior, and increasingly so in such a materialistic world, good behavior.  Which, makes good behavior, for its own sake rare. It's all about what it can do for me. This is NOT a good thing.

  I'm not a cynic, or a skeptic or anything like that. I have my own spiratual beliefs, and I believe strongly in them. But I'm not going to bring them up to justify Universal Health Care!. (Although I could..I really could, believing that we are all interconnected at some deep level, but I digress).

  In other words, it has no place..absolutly no place in modern political