the end of the Religious Right

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

Irvine511

Blue Crack Supplier
Joined
Dec 4, 2003
Messages
34,521
Location
the West Coast
[q]Friday, Feb. 16, 2007
The Religious Right's Era Is Over
By Jim Wallis

As I have traveled around the country, one line in my speeches always draws cheers: "The monologue of the Religious Right is over, and a new dialogue has now begun." We have now entered the post-Religious Right era. Though religion has had a negative image in the last few decades, the years ahead may be shaped by a dynamic and more progressive faith that will make needed social change more possible.

In the churches, a combination of deeper compassion and better theology has moved many pastors and congregations away from the partisan politics of the Religious Right. In politics, we are beginning to see a leveling of the playing field between the two parties on religion and "moral values," and the media are finally beginning to cover the many and diverse voices of faith. These are all big changes in American life, and the rest of the world is taking notice.

Evangelicals — especially the new generation of pastors and young people — are deserting the Religious Right in droves. The evangelical social agenda is now much broader and deeper, engaging issues like poverty and economic justice, global warming, HIV/AIDS, sex trafficking, genocide in Darfur and the ethics of the war in Iraq. Catholics are returning to their social teaching; mainline Protestants are asserting their faith more aggressively; a new generation of young black and Latino pastors are putting the focus on social justice; a Jewish renewal movement and more moderate Islam are also growing; and a whole new denomination has emerged, which might be called the "spiritual but not religious."

Even more amazing, the Left is starting to get it. Progressive politics is remembering its own religious history and recovering the language of faith. Democrats are learning to connect issues with values and are now engaging with the faith community. They are running more candidates who have been emboldened to come out of the closet as believers themselves. Meanwhile, many Republicans have had it with the Religious Right. Both sides are asking how to connect faith and values with politics. People know now that God is neither a Republican nor a Democrat, and we are all learning that religion should not be in the pocket of any political party; it calls all of us to moral accountability.

Most people I talk to think that politics isn't working in America and believe that the misuse of religion has been part of the problem. Politics is failing to resolve the big moral issues of our time, or even to seriously address them. And religion has too often been used as a wedge to divide people, rather than as a bridge to bring us together on those most critical questions. I believe (and many people I talk with agree) that politics could and should begin to really deal with the many crises we face. Whenever that happens, social movements often begin to emerge, usually focused on key moral issues. The best social movements always have spiritual foundations, because real change comes with the energy, commitment and hope that powerful faith and spirituality can bring.

It's time to remember the spiritual revivals that helped lead to the abolition of slavery in Britain and the United States; the black church's leadership during the American civil rights movement; the deeply Catholic roots of the Solidarity movement in Poland that led the overthrow of communism; the way liberation theology in Latin America helped pave the way for new democracies; how Desmond Tutu and the South African churches served to inspire victory over apartheid; how "People Power" joined with the priests and bishops to bring down down Philippine strongman Ferdinand Marcos; how the Dalai Lama keeps hope alive for millions of Tibetans; and, today, how the growing Evangelical and Pentecostal churches of the global South are mobilizing to addresse the injustices of globalization.

I believe we are seeing the beginning of movements like that again, right here in America, and that we are poised on the edge of what might become a revival that will bring about big changes in the world. Historically, social reform often requires spiritual revival. And that's what church historians always say about real revival — that it changes things in the society, not just in people's inner lives. I believe that what we are seeing now may be the beginning of a new revival — a revival for justice.

The era of the Religious Right is now past, and it's up to all of us to create a new day.[/q]


so is it? yes? no? did Bush destroy them? did they eat themselves? did they evolve? is Wallis wrong?
 
macaca may have done them in
(George Allen was their best candidate)


they do not have a true candidate

in the GOP primaries, now

and depending who gets the nom

there may even be a good old Evangelical Christian - true pro life, pro family (anti fag), pro gun third party candidate


there is some thought

to give up the WH for 4 years
and then they will have a clear path in 2012
to throw the Sodomites out.
 
Sounds great and I certainly hope (and pray :wink: ) that he's right. But if he is why are so many Republican Presidential candidates already pandering (for lack of a better word) to them? Maybe they just don't realize yet that it's over.
 
I'm a member of the so called religious right, and I'm so glad to see this happening. I hope to see the church get back to the kind of political activism associated with charity and love.

I would love to see them mobilize on those values, and not what the TV evangelists push.

Yay!
 
I just saw this and was going to post it.

I think Wallis is right. From what I sense among Christians, especially those in the 18-34 bracket, he's right. We're tired of being misrepresented as Christians and tired of the faith being misrepresented. It shouldn't be used for political gain. It's disgusting.
 
Kind of thought from your previous posts, you might be pleased by that, Coemgen. I remember your frustration.
 
I'm so glad my fellow Catholics are returning to the notion of the common good and are no longer reducing being Catholic to a few rigid definitions. It's time for Pax Christi style Catholicism. I've been a member of Pax Christi for years and it's good to be on a winning team.
 
Good news, I hope it's true. Like Madelyniris, I'm a pretty traditional Christian, but liberal in that I don't believe my personal Christian values have any place in the political sector.

I had a long talk with a friend the other day, and while we both grew up in conservative communities and are pretty traditional, we are appalled at the amount of time, space, and energy the Religious Right has wasted on non-political issues like abortion, sex education, gay unions, etc. What about true Christian concepts like universal health care (or at least some type of access to health care for everyone), foreign aid, establishing peace in the middle east, Darfur, etc.?

One can practice more traditional worship styles and impose more restrictive personal values without demanding cult-like domination over the political realm.
 
MadelynIris said:
I hope to see the church get back to the kind of political activism associated with charity and love.

I would love to see them mobilize on those values, and not what the TV evangelists push.

Yay!

I can agree with this, it's been too long.
 
But BVS, I also feel weird about limiting anyone's right to organize and mobilize, even if it's based on religious values.

The beauty of our constitution/system of gov is that is should basically keep it from going to far....
 
MadelynIris said:
But BVS, I also feel weird about limiting anyone's right to organize and mobilize, even if it's based on religious values.

The beauty of our constitution/system of gov is that is should basically keep it from going to far....

True. People should learn how to limit themselves, no matter what it's based on...
 
MadelynIris said:
But BVS, I also feel weird about limiting anyone's right to organize and mobilize, even if it's based on religious values.

The beauty of our constitution/system of gov is that is should basically keep it from going to far....



i don't think anyone's talking about limiting right to organization, but i do think we have a problem when people like James Dobson are given veto power over SCOTUS nominees and people like Mitt Romney are free to talk about the need for a religious litmus test to run for higher office (hint: no atheists need apply).

and religion is treated differently. it always has been. no one wants a theocracy, even if the majority of a people in said country might actually vote a theocracy into place.

you know, like in the middle east.

or if "Jesusland" were to break free from the Blue States.
 
i don't think anyone's talking about limiting right to organization, but i do think we have a problem when people like James Dobson are given veto power over SCOTUS nominees and people like Mitt Romney are free to talk about the need for a religious litmus test to run for higher office (hint: no atheists need apply).

I hear ya irvine, but it's all talk. Politicians have used litmus tests in one way or another, to include religion. Many other tests/filters are used ever day, based on all lot more attributes and religion is just one of those.
 
MadelynIris said:


I hear ya irvine, but it's all talk. Politicians have used litmus tests in one way or another, to include religion. Many other tests/filters are used ever day, based on all lot more attributes and religion is just one of those.



could you describe other litmus test/filters? are any of them analagous to religion? do we have racial litmus tests? gender litmus tests?
 
do we have racial litmus tests? Yes, I believe so.


gender litmus tests? Yup, I think this exists also. Neither of these are overt though, still held close I think.


These are fluid though, and obviously mucho progress has been made to eliminate these.

Still a little tricky for a catholic or mormon to be elected president. Likewise somone who is a conservative muslim. Unlikely that a professing satanist will be appointed as a judge too. Super ultra anti-cuban neocons with moustaches are unlikely to represent us at the UN anytime soon.

The parties still look to present the most "sellable" candidate.

Maybe its a 'clean and articulate' black guy from Illinois or a hard charging woman from Arkansas.

Will they pass the 'litmus test'? Dunno.
 
But I think that most litmus tests today are about how a candidate presents themselves, speaks, looks, dresses, who they are married to, etc... even more than the above. Wouldn't you agree?
 
MadelynIris said:
But I think that most litmus tests today are about how a candidate presents themselves, speaks, looks, dresses, who they are married to, etc... even more than the above. Wouldn't you agree?

The last two elections wouldn't.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


The last two elections wouldn't.

Well, in 2004, any decent competition would have beaten Bush. Gore and Kerry have enough combined charisma to possible toast a thin bagel...lightly.
 
Back
Top Bottom