"Religious Liberals Gain New Visibility" - The Washington Post

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

U2democrat

Blue Crack Addict
Joined
Aug 21, 2004
Messages
22,142
Location
England by way of 'Murica.
This is a fascinating article.

A Different List Of Moral Issues

By Caryle Murphy and Alan Cooperman
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, May 20, 2006; Page A01

The religious left is back.

Long overshadowed by the Christian right, religious liberals across a wide swath of denominations are engaged today in their most intensive bout of political organizing and alliance-building since the civil rights and anti-Vietnam War movements of the 1960s, according to scholars, politicians and clergy members.

In large part, the revival of the religious left is a reaction against conservatives' success in the 2004 elections in equating moral values with opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage.

Religious liberals say their faith compels them to emphasize such issues as poverty, affordable health care and global warming. Disillusionment with the war in Iraq and opposition to Bush administration policies on secret prisons and torture have also fueled the movement.

For the full article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/19/AR2006051901813.html


:up::up::up:

Finally someone gets the message that not all Christians are Bush-loving gay-hating bigots.
 
"Religious liberals say their faith compels them to emphasize such issues as poverty, affordable health care and global warming."


Okay, I can see poverty and affordable health care, but what does faith have to do with global warming? :scratch:
 
"Finally someone gets the message that not all Christians are Bush-loving gay-hating bigots."

Only a truly hateful ignoramus would believe such a thing.


That article is a bit misleading, I think.

Religious "liberals" (ie. those who favor the Democratic Party) tend to be Jewish and African-American (and now, possibly, Muslim, but not because of poverty, abortion rights and gay marriage arguments, obviously).

African-Americans and Jews have been voting Democratic in huge numbers since at least the early 60's.

"Religious liberals" sound like a cool, new untapped constituency, but, in fact, they have been here all along. Some clever marketing genius just decided to slap a name on them.

As for Roman Catholic Latinos: Latinos vote in very, very low numbers (except for the highly organized Florida Cuban-American community), so activating them would be a huge plus for Democrats in states like Texas, Arizona and New Mexico.

The problem, though, is that Democrats can't appeal to Latinos on the two central "religious" issues that rile people up, since the majority of Latino Catholics are against abortion and gay marriage. Therefore, Democrats must appeal to them in ways other than through religious speeches. Talking about the Darfur genocide is noble and right, but I don't think millions, or even hundreds of voters will choose a Democrat over a Republican because that candidate "cares about poor black Muslims in Africa", even if this is the most important "religious" topic of the day, in my opinion.

Our media sometimes enjoys putting people and groups into neat, tidy little boxes. Last time around, it was the great, unwashed "Soccer Moms" who swayed the election toward Bush, according to the pundits. This simplification supposedly helps everyone understand the varied complexities of life and culture in this country, perhaps.

Unfortunately, many people take such pigeon-holing at face value and never bother to look beyond the attractive catch-phrase or the eye-poppingly complicated (and biased) political polling that occurs during election season.

The article does point out, halfway down, that the numbers of these so-called "religious liberals" are not necessarily growing, but rather, that they are perhaps becoming more politically organized. Based on the examples given in the article itself, the evidence of that is anecdotal at best.

Hilary always makes it a point to reach out to religious voters, though, so it appears that the DNC has targeted this varied group in certain key swing states (Ohio, etc.), hence that WP puff piece.

http://www.democrats.org/a/communities/religious_communities/
 
Last edited:
Here's another one I like

My Problem with Christianism
A believer spells out the difference between faith and a political agenda
By ANDREW SULLIVAN

Are you a Christian who doesn't feel represented by the religious right? I know the feeling. When the discourse about faith is dominated by political fundamentalists and social conservatives, many others begin to feel as if their religion has been taken away from them.

The number of Christians misrepresented by the Christian right is many. There are evangelical Protestants who believe strongly that Christianity should not get too close to the corrupting allure of government power. There are lay Catholics who, while personally devout, are socially liberal on issues like contraception, gay rights, women's equality and a multi-faith society. There are very orthodox believers who nonetheless respect the freedom and conscience of others as part of their core understanding of what being a Christian is. They have no problem living next to an atheist or a gay couple or a single mother or people whose views on the meaning of life are utterly alien to them--and respecting their neighbors' choices. That doesn't threaten their faith. Sometimes the contrast helps them understand their own faith better.

And there are those who simply believe that, by definition, God is unknowable to our limited, fallible human minds and souls. If God is ultimately unknowable, then how can we be so certain of what God's real position is on, say, the fate of Terri Schiavo? Or the morality of contraception? Or the role of women? Or the love of a gay couple? Also, faith for many of us is interwoven with doubt, a doubt that can strengthen faith and give it perspective and shadow. That doubt means having great humility in the face of God and an enormous reluctance to impose one's beliefs, through civil law, on anyone else.

I would say a clear majority of Christians in the U.S. fall into one or many of those camps. Yet the term "people of faith" has been co-opted almost entirely in our discourse by those who see Christianity as compatible with only one political party, the Republicans, and believe that their religious doctrines should determine public policy for everyone. "Sides are being chosen," Tom DeLay recently told his supporters, "and the future of man hangs in the balance! The enemies of virtue may be on the march, but they have not won, and if we put our trust in Christ, they never will." So Christ is a conservative Republican?

Rush Limbaugh recently called the Democrats the "party of death" because of many Democrats' view that some moral decisions, like the choice to have a first-trimester abortion, should be left to the individual, not the cops. Ann Coulter, with her usual subtlety, simply calls her political opponents "godless," the title of her new book. And the largely nonreligious media have taken the bait. The "Christian" vote has become shorthand in journalism for the Republican base.

What to do about it? The worst response, I think, would be to construct something called the religious left. Many of us who are Christians and not supportive of the religious right are not on the left either. In fact, we are opposed to any politicization of the Gospels by any party, Democratic or Republican, by partisan black churches or partisan white ones. "My kingdom is not of this world," Jesus insisted. What part of that do we not understand?

So let me suggest that we take back the word Christian while giving the religious right a new adjective: Christianist. Christianity, in this view, is simply a faith. Christianism is an ideology, politics, an ism. The distinction between Christian and Christianist echoes the distinction we make between Muslim and Islamist. Muslims are those who follow Islam. Islamists are those who want to wield Islam as a political force and conflate state and mosque. Not all Islamists are violent. Only a tiny few are terrorists. And I should underline that the term Christianist is in no way designed to label people on the religious right as favoring any violence at all. I mean merely by the term Christianist the view that religious faith is so important that it must also have a precise political agenda. It is the belief that religion dictates politics and that politics should dictate the laws for everyone, Christian and non-Christian alike.

That's what I dissent from, and I dissent from it as a Christian. I dissent from the political pollution of sincere, personal faith. I dissent most strongly from the attempt to argue that one party represents God and that the other doesn't. I dissent from having my faith co-opted and wielded by people whose politics I do not share and whose intolerance I abhor. The word Christian belongs to no political party. It's time the quiet majority of believers took it back.
 
It's never too late to start a movement. There are the 2006 elections coming up. But I've always thought activist politics is stronger stuff than electoral politics. The civil rights movement made its gains with activist political activity that put the pressure on the politicians to abolish segregation and give African-Americans the vote. The politicians didn't just do this out of the goodness of their hearts, it was pressure.
 
:up:

nice to see someone harnessing the potential for actual liberation imbedded within any sort of religious system.

and thank you for the article, Mrs. S. i particularly enjoyed how it spells out a very good definition of "Christianism." many posters in FYM use that term, along with "Islamism/ist," in order to make critical distinctions between some of the very thoughtful, informed Christians here in FYM and the intolerant, hateful, paranoid Christian voices in the media. unfortunately, it seems as if some have misunderstood the term and objected to it without pausing to examine what it really means. so i am delighted that someone has spelled it out more eloquently than i could have:

[q]The distinction between Christian and Christianist echoes the distinction we make between Muslim and Islamist. Muslims are those who follow Islam. Islamists are those who want to wield Islam as a political force and conflate state and mosque. Not all Islamists are violent. Only a tiny few are terrorists. And I should underline that the term Christianist is in no way designed to label people on the religious right as favoring any violence at all. I mean merely by the term Christianist the view that religious faith is so important that it must also have a precise political agenda. It is the belief that religion dictates politics and that politics should dictate the laws for everyone, Christian and non-Christian alike.
[/q]
 
verso12a.jpg
 
Irvine511 said:

[q]The distinction between Christian and Christianist echoes the distinction we make between Muslim and Islamist. Muslims are those who follow Islam. Islamists are those who want to wield Islam as a political force and conflate state and mosque. Not all Islamists are violent. Only a tiny few are terrorists. And I should underline that the term Christianist is in no way designed to label people on the religious right as favoring any violence at all. I mean merely by the term Christianist the view that religious faith is so important that it must also have a precise political agenda. It is the belief that religion dictates politics and that politics should dictate the laws for everyone, Christian and non-Christian alike.
[/q]
In Islam proper there is no distinction so the division seems to be more one of literalism and adherence verus soft blasphemy.
 
Harry Vest said:
Too little too late.

Calvinists have been some of the most liberal, forward-thinking Christians since the 1500s! :lol:

I like how the media JUST NOW discovered that normal people DO in fact exist in this country.
 
nbcrusader said:


Is Theocracy Watch a principle, or a political statement?


i reject the two choices you've presented.

Theocracy Watch is a vigilant organization dedicated to finding examples of the intrusion of the church onto state.

i take your question to be a mask for another question, so what would that be?
 
Irvine511 said:
i reject the two choices you've presented.

Theocracy Watch is a vigilant organization dedicated to finding examples of the intrusion of the church onto state.

i take your question to be a mask for another question, so what would that be?

No mask, just plain and simple. Is all intrusion of church into state worthy of "theocracy watch" (principle) or are some intrusions deemed acceptable (not worthy of "theocracy watch") when the intrusion is in line with political beliefs (political statement)?
 
nbcrusader said:


No mask, just plain and simple. Is all intrusion of church into state worthy of "theocracy watch" (principle) or are some intrusions deemed acceptable (not worthy of "theocracy watch") when the intrusion is in line with political beliefs (political statement)?



yes, i thought this is what you were getting at, as you've brought this up before.

to my knowledge, there is no one on the "christian left" with the power to approve or veto potential SCOTUS nominees or administration social policy or even the science of sexual education in the way that the "christian right" is currently able to within the bush administration. the day that Howard Dean starts to sound like a left-wing version of Tom DeLay or when John Kerry starts talking about how God told him to run for office and that he's certain that God is on our side is the day that i will start calling out leftist religious intrusion.

it has nothing to do with the political belief itself, but the manner in which specific religious groups have coordinated themselves with certain politicians.

i have no problems with Christians in politics. have problems with Christianity/Christianism in politics.
 
Irvine511 said:
yes, i thought this is what you were getting at, as you've brought this up before.

to my knowledge, there is no one on the "christian left" with the power to approve or veto potential SCOTUS nominees or administration social policy or even the science of sexual education in the way that the "christian right" is currently able to within the bush administration. the day that Howard Dean starts to sound like a left-wing version of Tom DeLay or when John Kerry starts talking about how God told him to run for office and that he's certain that God is on our side is the day that i will start calling out leftist religious intrusion.

it has nothing to do with the political belief itself, but the manner in which specific religious groups have coordinated themselves with certain politicians.

i have no problems with Christians in politics. have problems with Christianity/Christianism in politics.

Yes, we've gone around this one before.

The "approval or veto potential SCOTUS nominees" is a gross mischaracterization of the Harriet Miers nomination - but one on which we will continue to disagree. The point of contention does not seem to be the existence of religious influence in politics (however that is measured), but the effectiveness of such influence.

I would expect an equally vigilant response to any Christian based "solutions" to poverty, health care or the environment.

Having a problem with Christianity in politics is rarely consistently applied.
 
nbcrusader said:


Yes, we've gone around this one before.

The "approval or veto potential SCOTUS nominees" is a gross mischaracterization of the Harriet Miers nomination - but one on which we will continue to disagree. The point of contention does not seem to be the existence of religious influence in politics (however that is measured), but the effectiveness of such influence.

I would expect an equally vigilant response to any Christian based "solutions" to poverty, health care or the environment.

Having a problem with Christianity in politics is rarely consistently applied.



we can continue to agree to disagree, though i'm a little worried that the breaking down of church and state is understood as little more than one stripe of Christianity being more "effective" than another -- it's as if the walls are viewed as mere obstacles to circumvent rather than principles to uphold.

and, yes, i would argue for the removal of the tax-exept status of any church that told it's congregation to vote for a particular candidate in 2008 the way that churches in Ohio were able to swing 59,000 votes for George W. Bush.

why don't you take this upon yourself -- when you see the theocratic intrusion of left-wing Christianity breaching the walls between church and state, why don't you call it out for us? i've done the best job i know how with the right wing stuff, since that's the most obvious given the fact that all branches of the government are controlled by Republicans and that most politically organized Christian institutions have chosen to align themselves with the Republicans. hence, there are simply more examples to choose from.

understanding what is and what isn't a "problem" with Christianity is often a matter of what is most convenient for the observer.
 
Irvine511 said:
why don't you take this upon yourself -- when you see the theocratic intrusion of left-wing Christianity breaching the walls between church and state, why don't you call it out for us? i've done the best job i know how with the right wing stuff, since that's the most obvious given the fact that all branches of the government are controlled by Republicans and that most politically organized Christian institutions have chosen to align themselves with the Republicans. hence, there are simply more examples to choose from.

Principly, I don't see it as a problem from a political viewpoint. There are many influences on politics - to try and bar one voice from the debate is inappropriate.

Overall, I will highlight inconsistencies from a theological viewpoint, and I will engage in the political debate.

When I see the government trying to establish religion (such as proscribing what prayers should be said in school), then the wall, as described by the Constitution, has been breached.
 
nbcrusader said:
When I see the government trying to establish religion (such as proscribing what prayers should be said in school), then the wall, as described by the Constitution, has been breached.



would you describe the requirement that a SCOTUS nominee be a Christian and pro-life to be an establishment of a specific religion?
 
If such requirements existed, I'm not sure either violate the Establishment Clause.

As a political position, "pro-life" may influence such appointments, just as "pro-choice" affects the appointments. The public is well aware of such litmus tests and they are frequently used as short-hand for reaching various voter groups.
 
nbcrusader said:
If such requirements existed, I'm not sure either violate the Establishment Clause.

As a political position, "pro-life" may influence such appointments, just as "pro-choice" affects the appointments. The public is well aware of such litmus tests and they are frequently used as short-hand for reaching various voter groups.



it was a two-pronged requirement -- Christian and pro-life.
 
nbcrusader said:

The "approval or veto potential SCOTUS nominees" is a gross mischaracterization of the Harriet Miers nomination - but one on which we will continue to disagree. The point of contention does not seem to be the existence of religious influence in politics (however that is measured), but the effectiveness of such influence.



and as it turns out a Texas Supreme Court judge gave over 120 interviews on the down-low to leading Christianists reassuring them of Harriet Miers' evangelical credentials:

[q]Texas Supreme Court justice admonished
By CHUCK LINDELL
Cox News Service
Wednesday, May 24, 2006
AUSTIN, Texas — Texas Supreme Court Justice Nathan Hecht crossed an ethical line last year when he quietly assured conservative leaders about high court nominee Harriet Miers' views on religion and abortion, a judicial review panel concluded.

Hecht also erred in coordinating his advocacy of Miers, a controversial and ultimately unsuccessful nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court, with the White House — providing daily reports of his media contacts and allowing administration officials to send reporters his way, according to a public admonition by the State Commission on Judicial Conduct.

[...]

When asked by an unnamed White House adviser, Hecht also agreed to speak to James Dobson — an influential social conservative, radio host and head of the organization Focus on the Family — about Miers' views on religion and abortion, the [State Commission on Judicial Conduct's] admonition says.

Sworn into office in 1989, Hecht is the most-senior member of the Texas Supreme Court, the state's highest civil court. His reputation as one of the body's most conservative justices also lent credence to his views.

As many conservatives rebelled against Bush's nominee, Dobson became one of Miers' most vocal supporters, cryptically hinting on his radio program that "when you know some of the things that I know, that I probably shouldn't know, you will understand why ... I believe Harriet Miers will be a good justice."

http://www.pulsejournal.com/sports/content/shared/news/stories/TEXAS_HECHT_0524_COX.html

[/q]



in sum: Rove got Hecht to persuade Dobson that Miers was theologically acceptable. not just Christian, but a very specific kind of Christian.

Theocracy Watch marches on ...
 
nbcrusader said:
One question: When did post-nomination marketing become pre-nomination approval?


one does have to go through Congressional hearings, no?

it speaks to the power and influence Dobson has over the Republican party that his disapproval might have derailed her if said politicians had felt that their constituents might not have approved of her nomination. the Republican Party lives in fear of upsetting it's "base" -- the "base" that won Bush the election by 59,000 votes in Ohio in 2004 and the same "base" that threatens to sit home and not vote if they get no payback on their issues (abortion, bash-the-gays, etc.) and remember that "payback" for Bush's election was supposed to come in the form of an acceptable SCOTUS nominee.

i also can't believe that you'd see that as the issue, rather than the down-low politicking and the clear evidence of a religious litmus test.
 
Back
Top Bottom