My intent in part 1 was to set out the importance of Progressives talking intelligently about faith and religion using Obama's speech as the hook for the discussion. The response it recieved was very interesting. I discuss it and extend my remarks to include some suggestions below.
I was accused of repeating Republican talking points. There was a strong push back insisting that the very idea that Progressives/Democracts had a problem with faith and God issues was pure preception and that I was feeding it. Additionally, the case was made that neither Democratic Party officeholders nor activists had any problem with God and faith issues. Finally, Obama's speech itself came in for heavy flak, and some defense.
I leave the reader to decide for themselves on the merits of these various positions. I would recommend a reading of Wallis' God's Politics, Chapter 1 for the take of a sympathetic progressive evangelical on these matters. I would suggest you check here for a Blog reporting on the flap. I will stand on my claim that there is real and significant part of the Progressive movement that is afarid of the G word.
I will also say that the discussion and comments that followed my posting were full of very good ideas on how we can reframe these matters. I do not disagree with Armando on the importance of this . In this dairy I will try to offer a synthesis of them as well as other ideas on how Progressives can deal with issues of faith and God in the encounters of their dialy lives.
First, if you are a Progressive who finds foundation for your believes in faith traditions , say so. If you are a Progressive whose foundation rests in more purely secular traditions, use those. Be real, be authentic and you will do well.
It turns out that simple common sense and common decency, stripped of any particular doctrinal beliefs are also on our side. Taking a stand on conscience works. David VanOs, a populist Democratic candidate for Texas Attorney General puts it well in his stump speech:
....It is time to cease the followership strategies of scripting campaigns on the basis of what people thought yesterday in polls, and assert the leadership strategies of campaigning for what we know to be right based on our deepest convictions of what we want for tomorrow.....It is time to cherish partisan Democrats and reject nonpartisan Nothingcrats. It is time to forget "right-left" analysis and install "right-wrong" analysis....It is time to treat public office as a duty, not a promotion. We must fight for the people, not in order to win their votes, but in order to win them justice.
It is only when we avoid the issue of faith and religion in our discussions that we feed the perception that we are "secular extremists", who deny the role of faith and religion in our common life and political discourse. No one in the discussion last night seems to disagree with this.
Second, the commentor who pointed out that we can not privilege conclusions rooted in someone's faith tradition over all others is , of course, right. When confronted with this attitude, Obama has it right:
I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.
Since we don't all hear God's voice like our President does, or at least we don't get the same messages , we must make our cases for public policy in terms that all can understand and credit.
Third, it is obvious to me that we get the better of the faith debate if we forthrightly claim it as our own. Again the posters last night seem to get this. The question is how we do this.
My substantive points on this got lost in the heat of the thrust and parry on Obama's speech. I take it that no one disputes that the Right plays the media better than we do on this issue. We need to do a better job of coordinating our push back with people like Jim Wallis and the signers of the The Federal Budget as a Moral Document: A Letter from Religious Leaders.
I take it also as given that we need to get better organized. That is happening already and there is much hope it will grow . [See Religious Liberals Gain New Visibility ]
This entire discussion has been all institutional and big picture. The "Democratic Dozen" of which this is the fourth point is about empowering individuals to talk back , to be agents of change wherever they are , no matter who they are talking to
.
So , I will end this posting with some ideas on this.
I begin by embracing Armando's reframing of the issue.
Some people believe Dems are afraid to talk about God. They are wrong. Progressives know that the values of the faithful are the values of the Democratic Party.
Jesus said "whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers, that you do onto me." And that describes the core values of the Democratic Party. A Party dedicated to the common working men and women of this great nation.
People of faith have a home in the Democratic Party because their values are o[u]r values.
Brought down to a personal level, I would say this:
My faith teaches me that I must care for my brothers and sisters. Progressives values teach the same thing. Jesus said "whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers, that you do onto me." And that describes the core values of the Democratic Party. A Party dedicated to the common working men and women of this great nation.
People of faith have a home in the Democratic Party because their values are o[u]r values.
I would point out that this links nicely with the Master Progressive Narrative I proposed in another posting. Specifically :
Americans also have a long history of making communities, of recognizing that we are in this together, that individual achievement is rooted in the resources that only communities can create and maintain. We understand that America is stronger and more secure when her prosperity is widely and fairly shared, when everyone plays by the same rules.
I must also second the view of the poster who suggested that we need to be passionate about our beliefs, not least about these beliefs. By itself, it is not enough, but passion does open the door to be heard. It helps us be accepted as authentic and credible.
I end with some simple suggestions on the hot botton issues that ended the first posting.
On abortion: I offer this approach:
1. Admit the obvious, nobody in their right mind celebrates an abortion. It is a tragedgy. [ Note: NOT EVERY TRAGEDY CAN BE AVOIDED! Thus some abortions are necessary, even when we don't agree with the decision of the mother and her chosen advisors, they get to make this call . ]
2. "Democrats are Pro-life, too, but we are Pro ALL life.
3. So, if you say you are "Pro-life" , then be Pro-ALL Life!
We can both minimize abortions while maintaining a woman's right to make decisions about the most intimate aspects of her life . Supporting living children is also being Pro-Life! Children are the single largest group in the U.S. living in poverty and hunger, and without health care. They are dying for lack of food, shelter and medicine. If you are Pro-Life , be Pro-Life ALL life, not just some. Be passionate about the fate of all children, not just some.
The countries with the lowest abortion rates are places like France, Germany, Norway, Denmark.
Did you know that the reason for this is that they provide top notch pre-natal and post-natal care?
Do you want to really do something about abortions , or do you simply want to be against them?
A person of faith or no faith can defend this position IMHO.
On same gender marriage:
I believe in the command to "love my neighbor" means all my neighbors. I care enough about the well-being of my gay brothers and sisters to allow them a socially-approved supporting structure of love and acceptance and security such as married heterosexuals enjoy, the opportunity to grow together in sustained, committed intimacy.[this taken largely from here ]
I like the fact that we reframe the issue as one of caring for people, not hating some faceless group as the Right does. Among people of good will, this is a conversation starter and stakes ground we can win. This claims values that both the religious and non-religious can embrace. It is win-win.
I offer these last comments as a starting point for people who want to talk back to the folks they work with, to their partners, their family on these key hot button issues. As I often say, even if you can't win over the person you are talking to, you can win the onlookers. At a a minimal, you began to change the false perception that Progressives have no values.