How Liberals Abandoned Religion to the Fundamentalist Right

[cbayer]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/05/11/how-liberals-abandoned-religion-to-the-fundamentalist-right.html

Christopher Moraff

POLITICS 05.11.14

By rejecting all acknowledgement of belief in the public sphere, progressives have unwittingly helped fundamentalists take over America’s religious conversation.

Last week the Supreme Court stretched the boundaries of religious expression in the public sphere when it ruled—in a 5-4 decision split largely along ideological lines—that municipalities are constitutionally permitted to commence their official meetings with overtly Christian benedictions.

Writing for the majority in the case of Greece v. Galloway, Justice Anthony Kennedy called legislative prayer a benign and enduring part of the American tradition. So long as it does not “denigrate, proselytize, or betray an impermissible government purpose,” he argued, public prayer “lends gravity to public business, reminds lawmakers to transcend petty differences in pursuit of a higher purpose, and expresses a common aspiration to a just and peaceful society.”

It’s a lovely sentiment, if only it reflected the America in which most of us live.

Rather than serving as a unifying force, the public dialogue around faith has become increasingly contentious over the past 40 years. If religious expression was once the glue that bound men together, today it is just as likely to be the cudgel that breaks them apart.

Secularists have created their own form of intolerance by reducing religion to its most illiberal elements.

moe at link

[mmonk]

1. Moral Mondays? What about that?

[cbayer]

2. Oh, I think we are taking it back, but we have got to stop our

own side from beating down liberal/progressive people and groups of faith who are fighting for our side.

[skepticscott]

4. And what exactly is "our side"?

Why do you constantly stump for the injection of one type of religion into every aspect of society and social "movements", while rejecting another type? Why does belief in supernatural beings (with all of its attendant hazards) have to take any part in social movements at all?

[FrodosPet]

59. The sky daddy believers have GOT to go!

As Richard Dawkins said...anyone who believes in a sky daddy needs their beliefs to be ridiculed.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2012/03/26/149310560/atheist-firebrand-richard-dawkins-unrepentant-for-harsh-words-targeting-faith

The Democratic Party should be a party of reason and science, not superstitions. And if we are to follow the teachings of the alpha atheist, Mr Dawkins, then we not only have a right, but an obligation, to humiliate the faith of believers in the supernatural.

[MellowDem]

16. You don't even aknowledge religious privilege...

Or understand how privilege works. Many on the left who are underprivileged in other ways use their privileged position as religious people to beat down atheists and other religious minorities. Until you understand that, you won't understand why saying that atheists beat down religious people is about as stupid as saying homosexuals beat down straights.

I see plenty examples of homosexual "oppression" all the time according to the right. And atheists too. We're very oppressive. Some of us criticize belief systems. I mean, wtf? Progressives, on the other hand, they never criticize any ideologies or belief systems out there.

[yeoman6987]

26. If we want the House back

Anytime in our lifetime, we should stop name calling those who believe and accept their opinion.

[cbayer]

27. Fully agree. And that goes both ways.

We should tolerate no prejudice against those that do not believe.

It's a big tent and I wouldn't want it any other way.

[AtheistCrusader]

40. And if their opinion is 'my faith holds same-sex marriage to be unacceptable'?

You know what's a better option than accepting that bullshit?


Killing gerrymandered districting. No faith based nonsense required.

[cbayer]

44. Totally with you on killing gerrymandered districting.

[yeoman6987]

53. Gerrymandering was a good thing at first

Both side do it. It helps nancy Pelosi for example not to have to campaign every 2 years for six months or more and concentrate on her job. Also this was do to ensure minority voters had a voice.

[AtheistCrusader]

54. It's double-edged.

Cuts us just as easy as it cuts them.

[skepticscott]

3. So he's blaming secularists

and calling them intolerant because of the bigoted extremism of religious fundamentalists and the apathy and moral cowardice of liberal religionists that has allowed it to flourish? Talk about a tortured argument.

And I'd love for him to show us a time where "religious expression" was ever "the glue that bound men together". It has only ever "bound together" those who practiced the religion that held social and political sway at any given time, and excluded, or at best tolerated, all of the others.

[rock]

5. I thought it was because

they felt humiliated acting like they really believed in such childish fairy tales. The CONservatives being such hypocrites don't mind at all.

[cbayer]

6. Are you saying that all believers, including the liberal/progressive people

on this site, really just believe in childish fairy tales and should be humiliated?

If so, I think this article is speaking directly to you.

[Bluenorthwest]

7. I'm saying Uganda and face it, Christian leaders are inciting violence and calling for horrible

things, they have forced a minority group into hiding like Anne Frank and the leaders doing this include Bishops of the RCC. Yet daily 'liberal believers' post positive things about Francis, who speaks only of money as his Bishops demand murder and tell their congregations to turn their gay children into the police for life in prison. Francis refuses to object to such rhetoric spoken by Bishops in the name of his Church.
I don't think a person can be progressive or liberal while in any way obscuring such truths. So folks who don't want to be seen as associated with pogroms and hate should simply refuse such associations, not pretend that their leaders are good people when they are doing what can only be called evil.

[cbayer]

11. I posted an article that does a good job of outlining the atrocities

that are being promoted by US religious organizations yesterday.

I hope you got a chance to read it.

[skepticscott]

8. If they believe that an invisible being is watching over them

and controlling events in our world to any extent at all, if they believe that a person died and then came back to life...what else would YOU call that? I know you like to pretend that no one really believes that any more, but to do so is to call billions of believers dishonest and to minimize their "deeply held beliefs". Just what you're accusing others here of doing.

Even self-righteous and "tolerant" Liberal People get chuckles from or are downright outraged and insulting towards the things you describe, even to the extent of calling them "a bunch of dumbasses". Finger-pointing and brick-throwing doesn't become such people.

[rock]

9. Yes, I think that's a fair statement

n/t

[cbayer]

10. Thanks! That's going to work out real well when we are focused on GOTV.

[muriel_volestrangler]

12. "consigned discussions of religion and its impact to the supper table, the church pew and Fox News"

Who knew that this Religion Group didn't even exist? It turns out that we don't discuss religion at all. Those things you thought you read on the internet, in blogs, on sites like CNN, or Patheos, or saw on any channel apart from Fox - Bill Maher, any mention of religion on the Sunday talk shows? They're all figments of your imagination.

" teaching it (religion) as a humanistic subject" . What universe does this guy live in? There's all that resistance to teaching science as science, thanks to right wingers' denial on subjects like evolution and climate change. They politicise history teaching. You think America could manage to teach religion as a humanistic subject? The disruption by the right wingers would be ten times worse than now.

The problem is the right wingers. Encourage the teaching of religion in schools, and you'll just give them another platform. They wouldn't try to be balanced for a moment. A secular approach to education follows the First Amendment, which was a bit of wisdom from the early American politicians - they knew religious fundamentalists wanted power, and that hasn't changed since then.

[cbayer]

13. The press pays little to no attention to what goes on within the progressive/liberal

religious community. It's just not as sexy as what the religious right does.

And if they did pick up on this group on this site, they would likely notice right away that there is derisive contempt among some "liberal/progressive" people towards all people of faith. So that would pretty much support what the author is saying.

As to the teaching of religion, I agree that that is problematic and am not in agreement with his proposing this as a front line solution. OTOH, I think if people knew more about religion from a humanistic perspective, it would lead to better understanding, tolerance and decrease bigotry and prejudice.

The religious fundamentalists have succeeded in gaining a great deal of power. What shall we do to counter that. I agree with the author that we essentially pave the way for them at times.

[trotsky]

14. And if they did look in this group, they'd find contempt for non-believers too.

For you to endlessly cling to your agenda of claiming that it's entirely the fault of atheists and other secularists that the progressive religious community can't get the traction you think it should, is really sad.

[AtheistCrusader]

23. " It's just not as sexy as what the religious right does. "

That's because there's very little controversy.

You can see examples of it in the religious left right here in this folder. People who have faith, but have let go of religious doctrine that is today understood to be sexist, misogynistic, or homophobic, etc.

No controversy, no headline.

"The religious fundamentalists have succeeded in gaining a great deal of power. What shall we do to counter that. I agree with the author that we essentially pave the way for them at times."

The only way for the religious left to change a 'faith' that includes doctrine of the sort I mentioned, really, is to leave it and find greener pastures in keeping with their faith.

Members of the catholic church that find something as un-controversial as contraceptives as acceptable, is actually HIGHER than the average US citizen's acceptance of same. Members of the RCC appear to have very little pull to change the official doctrine of the church on contraceptives.

If you can't change it, and individuals seek to either change it, or find other faith communities in which their values are respected, they are under no obligation to stay put and suck it up, where they can neither change it, or feel welcomed for their values. It would be a special kind of sadistic torture for outsiders to demand they do so.

[cbayer]

24. Well, it's also because they have clear cut objectives that are rather absolute

and dogmatic. And they are much better at outrage than we are.

People are leaving these churches and many are clearly searching for just what you describe - greener pastures in keeping with their faith. Let's support them instead of telling them that they should abandon their beliefs completely.

Give the RCC a chance. There is a lot going on. LIttle or nothing may come of it, but there is a lot of pushing going on from the inside and we may be pleasantly surprised. I personally don't want to see those fighting from the inside leave. In fact, I think that's the worst possible solution.

People are generally not under either the obligation to stay or leave the institutions they attach themselves to. It would be a special kind of sadistic torture for outsiders to demand they do either.

[trotsky]

25. Why would the "worst possible solution" be Catholics leaving their corrupt, conservative church...

for more liberal denominations?

I would think the "worst possible solution" would be for the Catholics who want change to simply remain in the church, their objections accomplishing nothing. The status quo is unacceptable.

[AtheistCrusader]

34. Your response is confusing to me.

"Let's support them instead of telling them that they should abandon their beliefs completely."

I do. Their beliefs are, by definition, not a problem, because they have dropped the items I called out (for the most part anyway).
Yet, I have encountered resistance for encouraging people to leave the RCC.

Edit: In fact, you specified it right there. I cannot reconcile that with the bit I quoted above.

I can't have it both ways, as I encounter resistance one way or the other.


As I have mentioned, I'm perfectly fine with people having religious beliefs, so long as they keep them out of government.

[cbayer]

36. You really have no business encouraging anyone to leave anything unless you

think they are too stupid or somehow otherwise too impaired to make their own decisions.

Your answer is not the one way, it's just the answer that suits you individually.

As I have mentioned, I'm perfectly fine with people having religious beliefs or no religious beliefs, as long as they don't try to tell me that I should be like them because they are right and I am wrong.

[AtheistCrusader]

37. Why not?

You've never had a conversation wherein you cover some ground an individual that is a member of an org never considered?

Leaving an institution can be mentally challenging/work. Some people just don't want to deal with it.
I don't think it's unreasonable to point out to an individual, 'hey, I know you don't believe X, why remain within an org that holds X to be true, and works to lobby and legislate based on X?'


I've totally had that conversation with people.
Sub 'deny same sex marriage' for X as a doctrine/legislative lobbying effort, for example.

What do you mean I have no business encouraging that? What business do you have telling me I have no business, etc.

[cbayer]

42. But you are contradicting yourself.

You said you have no problem with people's individual beliefs as long as they don't try to impose them into government.

Then you go one to basically say that you want to "save" people from the organizations that they have attached themselves to because the organization has a piece of doctrine they don't agree with.

I am and have been a member of lots of organizations that have certain platforms I don't agree with. I generally stay in because those particular issues are not paramount for me or I believe I have an opportunity to change them.

I would greatly resent someone questioning my decision and suggesting that I get out. It's pretty arrogant to do so.

You want people to keep their beliefs out of your face? Why don't you try doing the same? I don't think you are winning a lot of converts with this whole crusader thing.

[AtheistCrusader]

45. Do you give money to said orgs?

Do said orgs then spend that money lobbying?

I've shown you lobbying $'s from religious sources on progressive issues in the past. That comes with consequences.
If someone is a member of the RCC, AND supports same sex marriage, I think they are paddling upstream, when you can get a lot more mileage flowing with a different current. (Finding a faith/church construct that agrees with that person's actual beliefs.)

There are also consequences to orgs with membership rates alone. Let's say you are a member of an org like the NRA. Most members only throw money at it to renew membership. Only a subset donate for political action. And of course, not all vote WITH the nra on issues. But it makes for a convincing argument to a legislator when they get a visit from a lobbyist that claims "I have X dollars and Y members behind me, which translates into a certain political reach and number of votes".

Said arguments can be quite convincing, actually.

[cbayer]

46. I absolutely do give money and they absolutely do lobby.

And I do what I can, which is in the past been a great deal, to shape an agenda that is as close to my own as I can get it.

If you find an organizations that is not completely single issue that you are in agreement with all the way down the line, let me know. I've never seen such a thing.

This call for purity is so off-putting. You do not know better than others what they should support or in what way they should do that.

[AtheistCrusader]

48. I don't think it's unrealistic or 'off putting' to suggest someone find a path in keeping with

their beliefs, both spiritual and political.

I sure as hell know better than someone who supports keeping SSM illegal. Hell yes.
And if someone supports legal recognition of SSM AND also belongs to a church like the RCC, I don't think it's wrong to suggest they re-evaluate whether they are in the right place.

Again, I cite my earlier point about contraception, in that doctrine flows from top-down, not membership-up in the RCC, so there is little hope of change in that regard. It's possible, I suppose, with Francis calling for clergy to debate and review these issues, and issuing surveys to the membership. He MIGHT be holding out hope to the members for member-driven change.

But I'll believe it when I see it.

Meanwhile the RCC is ACTIVELY LITIGATING on issues like the ACA on religious grounds on behalf of it's members. Members that, for all I have seen, are actually likely to support the ACA.

That's a cognitive dissonance issue that I would hope people are seeking to resolve.

[cbayer]

50. I again question why you think it is within your purview to suggest

to anyone that they find a path in keeping with their beliefs.

Would it be ok with you if I said that in light of your stated positions on some things, I think you ought to join the UCC church? They share a lot of your same agenda and you might even find god there!

Resolve your own cognitive dissonance, because all of us have some. Once you are completely free of them, which will never happen, then you may be in a position to "save" other people from their own.

[AtheistCrusader]

51. People here HAVE suggested I go check out a UU church.

So uh...


I don't see why you seem upset of this, like I've offended someone by suggesting they find a faith/church in keeping with their own spiritual (and possibly also political) beliefs.

You act like this is an affront. What the hell?

[cbayer]

52. I saw that, but, IIRC, it was in response to you inquiring about the UU church.

It certainly wasn't in the context of trying to convert you.

Sometimes when people respond as if something is an affront, it is because it comes across like an affront.

[AtheistCrusader]

55. Ok, to borrow your words, what business do you have interpreting a comment about

suggesting to hypothetical members of the RCC that they seek a faith that is in keeping with their values as an affront?

I mean seriously, shouldn't it be for one of the example members of the RCC in this forum to express that, if it is indeed an affront?

[trotsky]

56. The Arbiter of All Things has spoken.

No one should ever even suggest to someone that there might be a church more welcoming of their views, and more supportive of their goals. How very DARE you!

I thought this group's mission indicated that all viewpoints are welcome, but clearly some think they make the rules.

[MellowDem]

15. Religious expression was never a glue that bound men together...

It was just the vast majority were all one (similar) religion. But religious privilege makes these naive think people like the conservative Justices think back in the day didn't find religion oppressive. Only now do people, mostly those who are the most privileged in society, feel safe openly standing up to the immense privilege of religion.

Religion is inherently, terribly divisive. Only intellectual dishonesty and watered down religion can become somewhat more tolerant.

Your constant, unwavering defense of religious privilege continues. Next time a white, educated, wealthy, gay male tells you about the privilege of being straight, I think you should tell him that he's too privileged to talk.

[Prophet 451]

17. I think "stretched" is being kind

The SCOTUS decision blew a massive hole in Jefferson's "wall of separation". I would suggest that it's in our, yours and my, interest to rebuild that wall. As a liberal Christian (you) and a Luciferian Satanist (me), we would be numbers 2 and 1 respectively onto the pyre.

I also think this rather ignores the culpability of the media in all this. If the public face of Christianity has become that of the Religious Reich, it's largely because media has uncritically allowed them to speak for Christendom and teh reasons are relatively simple. The media doesn't have a liberal bias (quite the opposite) but it does have certain biases and one of those is sensationalism. Pat Robertson saying something outrageous makes for a better story than Rev Jim Jones collecting blankets for the homeless. There are 10,080 minutes that each network needs to fill every week and if there's no big story to drive coverage then Robertson can always be relied upon to have said something offensive recently.

Where I would suggest liberal theists can learn from the Religious Reich is in both it's organisation and it's use of media. The left is famously disorganised but compare it to the right. Which of spokesman can be accorded the same kind of recognition as a Robertson or a Falwell? That disorganisation is both a strength of teh left but also our undoing in that it prevents us from having someone to speak for us. In terms of media coverage, the right understands that all publicity is good publicity. Yes, they might bitch and moan about some fantastical "lamestream media" but they're always careful not to drive the media away entirely.

[cbayer]

19. I agree that it is in everyone's best interest to rebuild that wall and that we are

most likely to do it by working together.

BTW, I am not a liberal christian. I'm a nothing, but I am an advocate for liberal/progressive people of faith and non-believers.

There have been quite a few articles posted here about the various factors that have contributed to this situation, and the press is always noted to be a factor. You are right - Pat Robertson makes for much sexier news than Bill Moyers.

The right's ability to organize also reflects their ability to highlight very specific issues like GLBT marriage and abortion. They know that their community will walk in lockstep on these issues and that they are not complicated.

OTOH, the left has a much more "mushy" agenda and there is rarely even agreement on the specific agenda items.

And then there is the very serious problem of us eating our own and the destructive nature of anti-theism and anti-atheism within the party.

[trotsky]

21. Do you have any data whatsoever to show that "anti-theism" is destroying the Democratic Party?

Or "anti-atheism" for that matter?

Any at all? Or is it just something you believe, but have no actual facts to support?

[AtheistCrusader]

38. I've noted that threads about religion that get posted to GD usually get

ripped to friggin' shreds in minutes, before the mods lock or move the thread.

Some people describe the climate here in this folder as 'hostile' to religion, but yeah, good luck with that, contrasting to the populace of GD.

[LostOne4Ever]

18. Secularists have created their own form of intolerance?

Last edited Mon May 12, 2014, 08:30 PM - Edit history (1)

Bullshit.

To begin with, Religion did not act as the glue that held society together. It has always been the cudgel. It has been doing all in its power to tear us apart for centuries.

Have we forgotten what JFK had to go through to get elected simply because he was a Catholic? Or how about the wars between Catholics and Protestants? Christians and Muslims? The discrimination of against the Jews? Or how about the witch hunts that took place in Salem?

Sure its good for uniting people who happen to have the correct religious privilege, but THAT IS EXACTLY THE PROBLEM! If you are part of the privileged class then it won't have any affect upon you. Everyone else's rights get obliterated. And inevitably, the elites among the privileged will try and have themselves put at the top and force their views on everyone else.

History is full of examples of this. The Christians of ancient Rome went from the minority to the majority and then used their seat of power to persecute the other religions. The Catholics persecuted the protestants when in power and the protestants persecuted the Catholics. Confucianists persecuting Buddhist and Buddhist persecuting Muslims. Its endless.

Secularism, is, has been, and will continue to be the solution to the divisiveness caused by religious intolerance. Real secularism, not the cartoonish character drawn by this article. Tolerance and secularism go hand in hand.

Why have some many of these believers silenced themselves if there are so many of them? Simple, because they too believe in secularism and understand its not right to force policy on others that they don't believe in. Rather, it is better to find non-religious reasons for running society that we, the people, can all support.

To try and talk about the role of religion in "liberal" tradition and to deny the role of secularism is misleading if not out right false. It was seeing how religion divided people that led the liberals of the colonial times to support secularism. Now the SCotUS has blown a huge hole in the wall of separation.

This article is nothing more than a gigantic strawman to promote the conservative position of legislating religion. Secularism does not keep people from discussing religion in all corner of the "public sphere," rather it restricts it from being promoted or enforced through law and legislation.

Ultimately, this article purpose is to argue for religious preference and if someone of the religious left wants that....then they are no better than the religious right and I will oppose them both. What the left needs to do is to show people why the ruling was bad and how it discriminates and get more "believers" to stop supporting fragrant violations of the first and fourteenth Amendment like this.

[cbayer]

20. Do you not see the "secular" intolerance towards religious people or do you not feel

it is significant or what? It's no more acceptable than religious intolerance of the non-believer

Perhaps not in your experience or community, but religion is often the glue. One example - I drove through the tornado ravaged parts of Missouri a couple a years ago just days after the storms. The churches were the places providing support, shelter, food and comfort. Other examples abound, not the least of which is the role black churches took in the AA civil rights movement. I don't deny that religion can and has often been a cudgel, but to say it always is has no basis in fact.

FWIW, in all of these examples, "glue" was provided whether you had religious privilege or not. Again, I don't deny that there is significant religious privilege in this country, but it is confined to christians and is exercised against not just the non-religious but against the religious who don't fit in their group.

The issue of how the religious left become marginalized, and worse yet how they became lumped together with the religious right, is complex and includes many factors. I've never seen progressives argue for prayer in schools, and to say that is the straw man, imo.

There are good cases to be made from both religious and non-religious POV"s for civil rights, social justice and caring for the most marginalized among us. Where is comes from is much less important than the causes themselves and we have an opportunity for believers and non-believers to form a united front against the religious right.

Finally, there are many, many examples of how the religious left is standing up against this SCOTUS ruling. Articles about this have been posted in this group. In short, they are doing exactly what you suggest.

[LostOne4Ever]

60. "Secular" intolerance

No I do not see "secular" intolerance.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/secular

1Denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis:
secular buildings
secular moral theory
Contrasted with sacred.
MORE EXAMPLE SENTENCES
SYNONYMS
2 Christian Church (Of clergy) not subject to or bound by religious rule; not belonging to or living in a monastic or other order. Contrasted with regular.
MORE EXAMPLE SENTENCES
3 Astronomy Of or denoting slow changes in the motion of the sun or planets.
4 Economics (Of a fluctuation or trend) occurring or persisting over an indefinitely long period:
there is evidence that the slump is not cyclical but secular
MORE EXAMPLE SENTENCES
5Occurring once every century or similarly long period (used especially in reference to celebratory games in ancient Rome).

Obviously we are talking about definition 1. If that intolerance is being directed toward the religious then it definitely does have a religious basis and ipso facto is not secular.

Thus why I called it a "cartoonish character" of secularism. Anti-religious intolerance would be "anti-religious," not secular.

I went into this when I said:

This article is nothing more than a gigantic strawman to promote the conservative position of legislating religion. Secularism does not keep people from discussing religion in all corner of the "public sphere," rather it restricts it from being promoted or enforced through law and legislation.

Attacking secularism is attacking the position that we should not be basing our laws on religious beliefs, but rather that those laws should have a basis in secular reasoning. If the only purpose of a law is to enforce a religious doctrine on people whether they believe in that religion or not then that is not a good law. But if the purpose of the law is to serve a secular purpose and it just happens to co-inside with a religious precept while not trampling on the rights and beliefs of others, then that is fine.

Lets say that someone's religion demands that cows be treated as sacred and to do everything in your power to see that they are treated that way. If a law was passed because that person's religion demanded it, that would be a bad law. But if a law forbidding animal abuse was passed because the public was concerned about animal rights that would be non-religious in nature and would just happen to co-inside with that person's religious beliefs.

So, again, no I don't see secular intolerance at all. I see no attempt to make religion illegal or ban the religious from any position in society by supporters of secularism.

As for your example of churches helping after a tornado, okay I concede to it not always being a cudgel.

However, I do not accept it as a glue in those situations. The community would be coming together regardless in those situations. They do this in similar situations all through out the world. A farmer could be providing their barns to shelter people just as well and often do depending on where the incident happens. Community centers and hospitals have also served in those situations.

The issue of how the religious left become marginalized, and worse yet how they became lumped together with the religious right, is complex and includes many factors. I've never seen progressives argue for prayer in schools, and to say that is the straw man, imo.

Sorry, I misread that section. I read:

Walter Feinberg and Richard Layton explore this contradiction in their recently released book For The Civic Good, which makes a progressive case for teaching religion in pubic schools.

As:

a progressive case for prayer in pubic schools.

I will make the appropriate correction and delete that sentence. I thought that was way out there but given the rest of the article I was not surprised especially after it started in on all the stuff about Christmas.

Finally, there are many, many examples of how the religious left is standing up against this SCOTUS ruling. Articles about this have been posted in this group. In short, they are doing exactly what you suggest.

For those standing up against this ruling I applaud them, but this particular article is arguing against secularism which is going in the exact opposite direction. Again, Secularism is not trying to remove religion from the public. It is not keeping schools from teaching children about the different religions in the world in an objective and informative fashion. Further, many of the examples that are brought up are real problems. Christmas time in particular is exclusionary to many people, and the article treats their concerns as mere annoyances.

If you want to give the author the benefit of the doubt, it is possible that he does not mean secularism and is using the wrong word, but as long as this article calls it secularism it is arguing against one of the major pillars of liberalism itself.

[AtheistCrusader]

22. This sounds a lot like the anti-chickenpox vaccine argument I got into last week in GD.

Poster contented that it was the vaccine's fault for the uptick in shingles in older people, because when young people get it, and are exposed to older people that once had it, it boosts their immunity to shingles.

So poster posited that the vaccine was a bad thing. Nevermind there is ALSO a vaccine for shingles, that long term BOTH chickenpox and shingles will die off, and the boosting effect is disputed anyway.

I don't think it was valid to blame people for vaccinating against chickenpox, as if they had some social obligation to catch it for the benefit of a nebulous, claimed boosting effect for older people who had it once in the past.


In this case, it's 'what obligation to secular liberals have to be religious, to rein in the right-wing religious?'.

Answer? Same. No obligation at all.

[Kelvin Mace]

28. Sorry, are we supposed to issuee engraved invitations to various

religious groups of supposed liberal views to come do what their doctrine tells them they should be doing?

Other than the Society of Friends and the Unitarians, I haven't seen many "liberal" religious groups I want to associate with.

[cbayer]

29. Then you haven't been paying attention.

You can start here:
http://notalllikethat.org

Then perhaps go here:
http://www.moralmondayga.com

And then there is that lawsuit just filed last week in North Carolina:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/29/us/churchs-lawsuit-challenges-north-carolina-ban-on-same-sex-marriage.html

And if you need more, I can get you lots and lots, including all the religious organizations involved in OWS.

No one needs your invitation, btw. They are already part of the party, but you might want to get out of the doorway.

[CJCRANE]

30. Bear in mind that the Religion forum is for discussing and debating religion

not promoting religion, nor even for promoting liberal ideas per se.

So don't feal discouraged by the pushback you get here.

It may be more appropriate to discuss and promote liberal interpretations of religion in the Christian Liberals & Progressive People of Faith Group.

[cbayer]

31. I beg to differ. It's very much for promoting liberal ideas and the liberal/progressive

people of faith within the party.

Where did you get the idea that it wasn't?

I don't feel discouraged at all.

[CJCRANE]

32. Religion (Group): About This Group

Statement of Purpose

Discuss religious and theological issues. All relevant topics are permitted. Believers, non-believers, and everyone in-between are welcome.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=about&forum=1218

[cbayer]

33. Are these not religious issues? Is this not a relevant topic?

I'm not really getting your point.

This is the religion group on a site dedicated to promoting the Democratic Party and it's candidates and doing so primary from a liberal/progressive perspective.

Why are you telling me what I can and can't post here and where I should be posting it?

[CJCRANE]

35. I didn't tell you what you can and can't post.

I agree with your point about uniting liberal christians and other progressives against RW christians.

I'm just pointing out that you won't get much agreement about that in this forum because posters are here to debate religion in general, they're not here to push liberal points of view.

(You might also get more positive reactions in GD or Good Reads).

[cbayer]

39. Ok, I hear you, but I actually get lots of good conversation in here.

I just don't deal with the anti-theists who I think are destructive to the goals you and I apparently share.

As for GD and Good Reads, there are prohibitions about posting religious topics there and I don't want to run afoul of the hosts of those groups.

I'm not necessarily looking for positive reactions as much as sharing of information in the hopes of increasing tolerance and understanding. I would like to see more promotion of coalitions between people of many faiths and people who do not believe.

While this may seem rather Don Quixotic, I think there are moments of success here.

We have a common enemy in the religious right and their infiltration of our government. We have an opportunity to confront them as a much more solid bloc.

[AtheistCrusader]

41. Hahaha

"As for GD and Good Reads, there are prohibitions about posting religious topics there and I don't want to run afoul of the hosts of those groups."

Yes, there is a prohibition in GD, but have you ever observed a religion thread in GD?

People say the tone is acerbic toward believers in HERE.. Hang on to your ass in GD.
Really puts things in perspective.

[cbayer]

43. I think it's often worse in GD because those that stand up for believers and most believers

themselves avoid those threads completely, so the ugliness generally goes unchallenged.

There are good reasons for keeping religion out of GD and I support the prohibition.

I will fight for what I think is right in this group, but I very rarely take it out there. Not worth it.

[CJCRANE]

47. Fair enough. Keep at it.

There have been some small signs of progress lately and it's heartening to see liberal believers waking up and trying to reclaim their voice.

[cbayer]

49. It is heartening and I think they are taking it back, though the press seems

totally disinterested.

Thanks for the input and suggestions. Sorry if I came across defensively, but I wasn't at all sure where you were coming from.

[rurallib]

57. maybe we should start public meetings with a civics lesson

it doesn't seem like it is being taught any place else.
I'd suggest the first lesson be on church and state

[cbayer]

58. Instead of a prayer!!:

Excellent idea.

:toast

[Humanist_Activist]

61. Religious expression was never the glue that held America together, look up the Protestant vs.

Catholic riots, yes fucking riots, over school prayer. And that was in the United States!

Keep religion out of the public square, is that too much to ask?