A Brief Note To Religious Progressives

Well, really, this note is for the "Judeo-Christian" progressives.  I reckon the progressives of other faiths have enough to worry about in the current environment. 

I recently finished God's Politics by Jim Wallis, and generally enjoyed it.  There's a lot of common ground on which religious and secular progressives can stand together.  But, I still cringe every time a leading religious progressive accuses more secular progressives of hostility toward religion.  Something in that vein is almost always part of any commentary on any political venture by religious progressives.  I try to take the assertion on faith, but it doesn't line up with my experience, and has the ring of the attacks on liberals generally from the Republican Fundamentalists.  That is profoundly disheartening.

There are always some outliers, but none of the secular progressives I know, and even the most assertive atheists I know are hostile toward religion in and of itself.  We don't care where people get the values upon which they act in the world.  We care what those values are.  We are hostile toward the particular brand of aggressive public religiosity which has singled us out as evil.  Even the ACLU, PFAW and AU as I read them, are not hostile to religion.  They are particularly sensitive to the intertwining of religion and government, and the use of public moneys and public spaces for religious purposes.   Unless you're pretty sure your religion is going to be the winner in the theocracy steeple chase, you should be sensitive to that as well.  (I note in passing at least one theory for the extraordinary degree of religious feeling in the United States is the strength of the wall between church and state.)

Religious progressives need to understand that the public face of religion most secular progressives experience is not the United Church of Christ, or Glide Memorial. The public faces of religion many of us experience are Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, James Dobson, Donald Wildmun, Tom Coburn, Sam Brownback, and on and on.  These are people who demand not just the freedom to worship as they wish, but the freedom to force the rest of us to subsidize their worship, and to force us to sit silently while they proselytize our children, and ultimately the power of the state to force the rest of us to worship as they do.  These are people who attack our beliefs and lives as not just different from theirs, but corrupt and evil.  These are people who talk with regretful words and hungry eyes of the lake of fire in which they expect us to burn.  These are people who look forward to Rapture, the scourging of the Earth by the four horsemen of the apocalypse, while they look down on the suffering of the rest of us.

I have rarely known a leading religious progressive stand up to defend us against those attacks on our value as human beings.  From time to time I have heard and read religious progressives disagree about the true values that religion involves, but I don't think I've ever heard you say, "Those attacks on non-religious liberals are wrong.  They are an abuse of religion.  That does not represent any God I recognize." 

I prefer not to attribute my ignorance of such a defense not to complacency on your part, or worse, some resonance with the message of exclusion by your Republican Fundamentalist co-religionists.  After all, at least for the Christians, there is only true path and we're not on it.  I prefer to attribute my ignorance of such a defense to your focus on practical good works over structural change, a decent modesty about your beliefs, and the lack of media interest in  people merely saying how great it would be to be nice to people for a change.  And in fact, the national media does refuse to spread that message, even when you're paying for it. [Hat Tip: The Green Knight]

But the fact remains that those of us not basking in the brotherly love of a progressive church mostly hear the loudest shouters of the Republican Fundamentalists.  And then, to add insult to injury, when we finally do hear a public message from religious progressives, mixed in with the encouraging material we hear repeated statements that we secular progressives are in the wrong, need to make amends, and reach out to you.  Wow.  Beams, motes, etc.   

So, here's my proposal to religious progressives.  I won't blame you for not reaching out to secular progressives earlier or the failure to loudly and publicly defend secular progressives from the attacks by your coreligionists.  In return, stop attacking me with language that resonates with the attacks on me by those coreligionists.  There is plenty of common ground and shared goals.  Don't poison the relationship by painting as hostility my failure to acknowledge your source of morality as superior to mine.

Comments

[The Green Knight]

That's all very fair, and personally I don't think that your source of morality is at all inferior to mine. Nor do I think that "there's only one true path and you're not on it." Actually, Wallis himself emphasises frequently that religion has no monopoly on morality.

An experience that many lefty religious people have, though, can be seen in places like the DailyKos boards; whenever any kind of religious topic comes up the thread is swarmed with people saying, essentially, "You're all idiots. You're right-wing lunatics in disguise. You're primitive barbarians. Why won't you listen when we tell you this?"

[paperwight]

GK - I've not seen that, but I'll take your word that it exists. A lot of people get hit pretty hard at DKos - it's very factionalized. I'm always curious about exactly what it is that sets off those kinds of reactions.

I've certainly written harshly in the past to even theoretically progressive Christians who feel the need to go on about (a) the need for a belief in (generally their) God to ground morality, or (b) their sense of victimization. It's very difficult to shut off a negative reaction to certain kinds of God-talk, after it's been pointed at you in really destructive ways for big chunks of your adult life.

And thankfully, that's something that I'm starting to see religious progressives recognize.

[Abby]

First off, Jim Wallis is not the only religious progressive, and he's coming to the table from the perspective of an evangelical.

Second, GreenKnight is right that there are some people at dKos who are actively hostile to religion and religious people saying things like, "why should we listen to anything these superstitious people say?"

Third, Have you ever read Jeanne D'Arc's Body and Soul? I'd count her as a Progressive Roman Catholic, and, yes, Catholics are Christians, and I have never seen her write that "there is only true path and non-religious people are not on it." The only thing I've seen her say absolutely is that torture is always and everywhere wrong. (I think you'd agree with that.)

You're right that there are plenty of religious moderates who don't spend their time working on structural issues, but there are also progressive/liberal Christians who have called out the attacks on non-religious progressives. Some of them are Episcopalians and Lutherans; they just don't get quoted in the papers, and they're not invited on TV. You haven't heard them say it, because many of them look like a bunch of hippies, and they're hopelessly inept at media and messaging, but on that latter point, so are the damn Democrats.

Finally. Americans United for the Separation of Church and State is run by a Barry Lynn who is an ordained minster, a Presybterean, I believe.

[Abby]

Ugh, Presbyterean.

[paperwight]

Abby -

1) Yes, I know that Wallis has a particular bias. I also know he's not the only one who's working on this issue and taking this approach. I have seen this in several places, including for example, Michael Lerner's new interfaith group. It's also what turned me off reading Just a Bump in the Beltway.

2) As I said, I'll take GK's word for it. I am also, as I said, genuinely curious about what exactly the religious folks were saying. Or maybe there are some folks at DKos who are just flat-out hostile. I think that's wrong, but understandable, for all of the reasons I set out above.

3) I have read Jeanne D'Arc, and I do know she's a Catholic (which I include in the generic category 'Christian', even if the fundamentalists don't). I have a great deal of respect for her moral compass. Unless I missed something, though, she's not speaking for the hierarchy, or even leading a lay organization.

4) I'm thrilled to see liberal Christians beginning to work publicly on structural issues. Seriously. And I thought I was very clear about *why* those people don't get their voices heard more loudly. My point, again, is that the loudest, most belligerent shouters is what most of the unchurched hear. So we have to go looking to find other views represented. Not everyone has the time to do that.

5) I did know that about Barry Lynn. But how many people do? How many people could even identify the name? Compare that to how many people could identify the name "Pat Robertson". And that's the problem in a nutshell. Just as with all other problems of public perception, religious progressives are facing a PR deficit, even w/r/t their allies.

6) It's really interesting that both you and GK picked up immediately on the *one* sentence I wrote that identifies the exclusionary nature of Christianity. I didn't think that was particularly controversial -- after all, "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. No one can come to the Father except through me." [John 14:6] From the outside, that seems pretty definitive.

It seems that I'm creating more of a problem than I sought to address. All I'm trying to do is explain what religion looks like from the *outside*, which I believe is very different from the way it looks from the *inside*.

[jack*]

Sigh. This is an important issue and I've been trying to figure out how to make my point without just throwing more gasoline on the fire.

The history of religion is a history of violence. Eventually religious sects learned to live together through what we now think of as the GIYOW principle. You say, "Well I disagree with your religious practices, but that's OK because you are just worshiping God In Your Own Way." Liberal religious traditions of all faiths accept the GIYOW compromise, which allows them to be civil with their neighbors.

But then there's athesists. We take offense if you try to apply GIYOW to us, even if you mean it with the best intentions. Atheists are not religious any more than asexual organisms are practicing some alternate form of sex. The truce between athesists and theists was best expressed by Gould as NOMA -- Non-overlapping Magisteria. Basically we accept that you belive things we think are false, provided you don't try to interject those beliefs into government, education or science. The religious right has broken that truce, something which should be of concern to all progressives.

Atheists are used to having to defend ourselves. I'll spare you the foul names I have been called for my lack of belief, but I have developed a thick skin about it and don't shrink from expressing my philosophy. Theists are much more sensitive. They are used to getting deference for their piety, so they take even reasoned criticism of their cherished beliefs as "hostility." There's no question that the internet is crawling with jerks -- both atheist and theist -- but that's no reason to take your toys and go home.

Alliances can be built that bridge the most seemingly irreconciable differences, provided that both sides have common interests and can agree to terms that allow them to tolerate their differences. Constitutional "Freedom of Religion" can be defined so we both benefit. I may think that your religion is a waste of time, but I'll defend with my life your right to practice it.

[The Green Knight]

Hi, Jack,

I have no doubt you've been called foul things for your lack of belief, and that's wrong. I too will defend with my life your right to believe (or not) as you think best.

[Abby]

paperwight,

You raise some fair points. I think that there are people within church hierarchies who have said the things you wish they would, e.g, Bishop Gene Robinson of New Hampshire, but it is not terribly well reported. I think that we agree that there's a huge PR problem. That's something that needs to be worked on, but it's not something that these people were ever trained to do. Some of them might find modern PR methods awkward and manipulative.

Americans United for the Separation of Church and State should work on its public relations. I do think that the adjustment to the Fox-ification of the news and the loss of a shared consensus about the role of religion in American life (as exemplified by Kennedy's statement during the 1960 election) has been difficult for groups like Barry Lynn's in the same way that losing power of the House of Representatives has been hard for the Democrats. That's not an excuse. It just means that they have some learning to do.

Re: after all, "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. No one can come to the Father except through me." [John 14:6]

Most scholars today would say that thae author was directing those words to the particular concerns of the Johannine community that was trying to find its own way after it had been rejected by the Jewish leaders. I don't expect most people to know this, but I do expect someone with your education to be familiar with these issues. In the same way that I'd hope that you wouldn't think, "Oh, she's a Christian; she must support Intelligent Design."

And Jack* says that we're used to deference as religious people, but I really think that this is very much an "in the eye of the beholder thing." I'm sure that the religious right thinks that I'm a lefty liberal heathen, and I'm also sure that any real lefty would think that I was terribly reactionary.

In the UK Christians are treated to bemused stares. Look at those fuddy duddies etc. If you grew up among liberals in Eastern Massachusetts, then anything more than cultural ties to Reform Judaism was looked at as odd. I'm not saying that anybody was oppressed or anything, but it made it hard to join the soccer lleague, because all of the games were at inconvenient times.

[InsultComicDog]

Well said, and I agree.

[paperwight]

Most scholars today would say that the author was directing those words to the particular concerns of the Johannine community that was trying to find its own way after it had been rejected by the Jewish leaders. I don't expect most people to know this, but I do expect someone with your education to be familiar with these issues. In the same way that I'd hope that you wouldn't think, "Oh, she's a Christian; she must support Intelligent Design."

Well, I think of those two things as at least one order of magnitude apart in terms of the level of education one would need. I've read some historical analyses of scripture, but nothing at that level. I would be curious about your read (and GK's) of the less educated lay understanding of that language (and some of the other similar language in the gospels).

And Jack* says that we're used to deference as religious people, but I really think that this is very much an "in the eye of the beholder thing." I'm sure that the religious right thinks that I'm a lefty liberal heathen, and I'm also sure that any real lefty would think that I was terribly reactionary.

I suspect that what Jack* means is that arguments about public policy from Christian or Jewish faith are accorded automatic deference in the public arena. I tend to agree. That's different from whether or not religious individuals get much deference.

In the UK Christians are treated to bemused stares. Look at those fuddy duddies etc. If you grew up among liberals in Eastern Massachusetts, then anything more than cultural ties to Reform Judaism was looked at as odd. I'm not saying that anybody was oppressed or anything, but it made it hard to join the soccer lleague, because all of the games were at inconvenient times.

Well, OK. But we're not talking about the UK. And, yeah, I can see where soccer games (and other recreational sports) would be scheduled at inconvenient times for religious folks. Of course, that's primarily because most countries of which I'm aware started "weekends" around the day of worship. But I've spent a lot of time around the people you're describing and a lot of them seemed to go to church, while very few of them badmouthed religion in and of itself. Maybe my read is just very different.

[s9]

Green Knight writes: An experience that many lefty religious people have, though, can be seen in places like the DailyKos boards

Oh, Dear Lord, deliver us from the nameless trolls on DailyKos.com before they grow so powerful and influential over such numerous peoples that they are invited by the President to consult on the selection of nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The word of the day is provocateur.

[Azbob]

religious progressive to me is an oxymoron. I have little faith in either. they have stumbled and bumbled themselves to the least of my worries. Fuck them both. Religion adores something that is not; progressives adore something that is not not.
Let's get real you fucking assholes.
Bob, your loki in disguise...

[Azbob, I'm going to leave this up for now, but it's unacceptable behavior. You've skirted the bounds in the past, but this is past what I'm willing to tolerate. Any more like this and I'll ban your IP. PW]

[eRobin]

The word of the day is provocateur.

Amen.

[Joy]

Somehow in the overall discussion the hostile attacks one gets anywhere on the Internet to innocuous references to "a friend at church said" have been discounted as dKos trolls. That isn't true. It isn't even just blogs. On my work-related e-lists and hobby-related e-lists, the same nasty comments, just short of flaming on moderated lists, ensue.

I was hurt, furious, offended, etc., many times before I detected the pattern and came up with a response--a quiet, calm, brief rejoinder, a sort of soft answer that turneth away wrath. And always at least one other "progressive Christian" seems to materialize to "me, too."

Anyway, the liberal, progressive, reality-based (use your own favorite self-descriptive adjective) online community has a lot of bigotry it's oblivious to.

[Michael]

GK is right: there are folk at dKos (and elsewhere) who are actively hostile to religion. And as a progressive person of faith, it's awfully doggone hard not to virtually smack such people when they turn up and start stirring the pot.

But you might wander over to Street Prophets to see where some of us PPoFs hang out, and where nobody will yell at you for being of a different faith (including "None of the above"). And if someone does, s/he will be quickly troll-rated out of visibility.

[eRobin]

Anyway, the liberal, progressive, reality-based (use your own favorite self-descriptive adjective) online community has a lot of bigotry it's oblivious to.

That's interesting and I think that it's true. But if you talked to some of the people who are quick to jump ugly on the question of religion, I think they would probably say that it's a "reverse-bigotry" (I'm not endorsing that term.) that they are feeling and a function of self-preservation.

Like it or not, there's a ton of bigotry built into the major religions in this country. That, combined with the way the current administration pushes the worst instincts of the Dominionists who seem to be in charge of and the target of the faith based message, puts any tolerant people of faith behind the eight ball. That's why my sympathies fall reluctantly with the strident dKos types. I do wish that they'd take a minute to think about what they're writing before they typed since all the resulting anger doesn't help.

[Mark]

It's possible that religious progressives are asking too much of atheists. I'm an atheist. Not an agnostic. I admire a lot of religious writing but it is 100% the work of humans. Divine inspiration does not exist. I've written nasty things about religious people, all religious people. I've also written that it's much more important what people do than why they do it -- which is true. To me a religious progressive is an ally, and a much more desirable fellow human than an atheist wingnut. (And they do, you know, exist.)

However, from my perspective, all religion is totally irrational. It's all a set of beliefs held in the absence of any actual evidence. This is true if you think a supernatural force wants you to help the poor, and it's true if you think a supernatural force wants you to attack Iraq. It's all a fantasy. Period.

Does this matter, given that it is entirely possible for political alliances to be made among people who have different sets of beliefs and backgrounds? No, in that sense it does not matter. But it does matter in the sense that once you have decided to tolerate beliefs that have no basis in reality, you have abandoned a great deal of the grounds for rejecting any claim whatsoever. It was much more likely that Paul Wolfowitz was going be right about Iraq than it is that any god exists. It's more likely that Harriet Miers will be a great Supreme Court justice than it is that we have a soul which lives on after our physical bodies die.

So if I'm going to take seriously any religious claims, what grounds do I have for rejecting any claim made by anyone about anything? That's the problem for me. If you say that Jesus rose from the dead, or that God turned sticks into snakes, or whatever, and I accept that without criticism, then how can I turn around and say there is no chance that Iraq has any WMDs, or that the claims of supply-side economics are a scam? There's no evidence for any of these claims. They are all faith-based.

My practical and political solution is to avoid talking about religion as much as possible. I don't have a philosophical solution that seems satisfactory.

[eRobin]

Does this matter, given that it is entirely possible for political alliances to be made among people who have different sets of beliefs and backgrounds?

I think that's what is at the heart of this post though - it used to be more possible for political alliances to be made among people who have different sets of beliefs and backgrounds and that was bad news for Team BushCo. It's a joke on the left to mock the "I'm a uniter, not a divider" claim, but dividing America is a deadly serious objective for those people. No fools, they settled on religion to achieve it.

[s9]

"I don't have a philosophical solution that seems satisfactory."

The philosophers you are looking for are calling themselves "neopragmatists" these days. Google is your friend.