’)I’m extremely skeptical of these new efforts to create a “religious left”, not just because such things have to be organic, but because the religious left already exists in the black church and is the backbone of the Democratic party. Without the black vote, there’s no Democratic party, and the Dems wouldn’t be in contention in any national election. And those black Americans are among the most devoted churchgoers around. The MSM buys in wholesale to the con caricature of the left as secularist coastal elites, but the truth of the matter is the church is central to the left’s political force. It’s not a coincidence that the greatest ever American advocate for human rights happened to be a left-wing Baptist pastor.
I actually wonder why there’s not a hugely successful “actually pro life” third party, which is against abortion, the death penalty, the war, and spends a great deal of its efforts attempting to provide social services for the poor. How “religious” gets swallowed up by the right is an interesting topic, when the “WWJD” platform falls mostly to the left (yes, I know there are exceptions).
I grew up going to a liberal church in Nashville, where the preacher was quite focused on the immorality of Reagan’s Contra support. My great-grandfather was a Methodist minister who moved around the South, and got a cross burned in his yard in Monroe, LA for preaching desegregation in the forties. It’s impossible to separate Southern liberalism from religion, just as it’s impossible to separate Southern conservatism from race, even though they tell themselves their ideology’s “color-blind.”
Then who are the leaders, Oliver? I realize I’m not their target audience, but I’m curious as to who they are…
J.
Actually, Frank, that sounds a bit like the Catholic Church. I think they hit all four of those points.
I think it was Lenny Bruce who speculated on where Christianity would be today if Christ had gotten 10-15 years, with time off for good behavior…
And perhaps it’s hard to take “the Religious Left” seriously when the leaders are such fine, outstanding, noble characters as Jesse “who’s your daddy” “shakedown” Jackson and Al “Tawana” Sharpton.
On the other hand, the Right has Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson… no wonder I’m an agnostic.
J.
They are only supposed leaders because the right and the MSM assume so. The guy in front of the camera isn’t always the leader.
I actually wonder why there s not a hugely successful actually pro life third party, which is against abortion, the death penalty, the war, and spends a great deal of its efforts attempting to provide social services for the poor.
Because there is no religion that finds all those positions compatible.
Of course, the Catholic Church opposes the death penalty. What is Frankie smoking?
The catechism is quite clear; it essentially says the death penalty can only be applied if there exists no other method to protect society. As PJP the Deuce and many Cardinals have noted, the penal system is more than adequate to protect society.
Of course, JayIDTea exhibits his profound ignorance by offering the Catholic Church is liberal except for the small facts that they believe women are second class citizens, believe sex is reserved for procreation, think gays are perverts, and have some wacky ideas about Jews and science. Other than that, the Church is pretty liberal.
There is, then, at least two religious lefts. The left that is involved in liberation theology, same sex marriage etc. and yours “because the religious left already exists in the black church and is the backbone of the Democratic party.”
Funny, I think grass roots black and white religious movements have a lot in common. But the first movement, the libertaion theologists,are IMO just as blindly faithfult to their (really) secular ideology as the most fundamental of Fundamentalists. I wouldn’t want to live in a world ruled by either.
Dugger
The Catholic Church is not opposed to either capital punishment or “just war.”
Pope John Paul II excoriated the liberation theologists who thought that what Jesus would do would be to side with with leftist armed revolutionaries.
ah, shit. meant to say:
over here
Oliver, I can’t believe that you’re actually trying to argue that because black people tend to overwhelmingly democratic, that they are somehow the “backbone” of the democratic party. You could make that argument about any group tht tends to vote exclusively for one party or the other. It’s absurd.
The back-bone of the democratic party is a liberal ideology steeped in tolerance and the belief that we should help each other out, which is, as far as I’m concerned, a more “christian” than the hateful rhetoric that is spewed by right wing fundies on a daily basis.
Furthermore, democrats tend to actually believe in the separation of church and state, so I think our religious beliefs tend to manifest themselves in a different ways than they do with republicans. And JayTea, if you were actually paying attention to what’s going on, you’d realize that Al Sharpton is actually making more sense than a lot of politicians out there, and your cheap shots only expose you as being the intellectual equivalent of of a tape recorder.
Frank, you said against “the war.” I think the Vatican has said it is naughty in their eyes. And maybe I’m thinking of the most prominent American Catholic leaders, who denounce the death penalty.
The Left tends to go ape over the Catholics, seizing on their birth control and other women’s issues and overlooking at how most of the rest of their doctrine tends very much towards the liberal bent.
J.
FrankD:
“Because there is no religion that finds all those positions compatible.”
There is, and never has been, an established economic system defined in the Constitution. Socialism is on equal footing with Corporatism – the economic system we have now.
Oh yeah, when Jesus comes back sign me up for the nailing party.
There is, and there has never been, an established religion in the United States. The First Amendment was put in place to prevent another Church of England. Mission Accomplished, there is NO state sponsored religion. That does not mean a cross cannot be on state property anymore than it prohibits a menorah (sp) from being lit on state property.
Socialism Rules!!
Just look at all the success it has achieved!
I am named after Tommy Douglas, who was a Baptist minister before he got elected Premier of Saskatchewan in 1944:
Douglas and the Saskatchewan CCF then went on to win five straight majority victories in all subsequent Saskatchewan provincial elections up to 1960. Most of his government’s pioneering innovations came about during its first term, including:
* the creation of the publicly-owned Saskatchewan Power Corp., successor to the Saskatchewan Electrical Power Commission, which began a long program of extending electrical service to isolated farms and villages;
* the creation of Canada’s first publicly owned automobile insurance service, the Saskatchewan Government Insurance Office;
* the creation of a large number of Crown Corporations, many of which competed with existing private sector interests;
* legislation that allowed the unionization of the public service;
* a program to offer free hospital care to all citizens the first in Canada.
* passage of the Saskatchewan Bill of Rights, legislation that outlawed discrimination based on gender and race (this preceded the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nations by 18 months).
Thanks to a booming postwar economy and prudent financial management, the Douglas government slowly paid off the huge debt left by the previous Liberal government, and created a budget surplus for the Saskatchewan government.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Douglas
Hey Sundown do you ever notice, like me, that the rightist monkey assholes that post on liberal blogs ALWAYS say the stupidest things?
In all of recorded history all progress in human rights and liberrties has ALWAYS been fought for and WON by liberals. Conservatives are ALWAYS the bad guys.
So DCPanic are you a good guy or a bad guy?
You actually are correct, DCPanic, despite your lame attempt at sarcasm.
Norway consistently ranks at or near the top of rankings on quality of life, and other Scandinavian nations rank quite highly as well.
Are you saying there are no white leftist religious people?
Of course there are white leftist religious people. They see their faith as something spiritual, personal and and beyond their ego. Their religion is not some idiotic expression of a dirtbag socio-political identity.
Anyone who has read the new testament knows that Jesus taught liberal values.
Trustme…
The back-bone of the democratic party is a liberal ideology steeped in tolerance and the belief that we should help each other out…
I’ll spot you the tolerance on general principle, but regarding “we should help each other out…”: many of the most politically active Republicans I know are also very active in charity work. My step mother, for example, divides most of her time between her local Repoublican Party and her local children’s hospital. The distinction you may be trying to describe actually focuses on where the money comes from: does the government take it by force from taxpayers, or is it collected and applied through the good works of citizens and–gasp–churches.
“In all of recorded history all progress in human rights and liberrties has ALWAYS been fought for and WON by liberals. Conservatives are ALWAYS the bad guys.”
I would like a list please. I’ll wait b/c I’m sure a record of all recorded history will take you a while. Also, please ask the former member of the KKK Mr. Byrd, a member of your tolerant party, his ideas on human rights.
To answer your question, I’m a good guy.
simianceo: [How aptly named] In all of recorded history all progress in human rights and liberrties has ALWAYS been fought for and WON by liberals. Conservatives are ALWAYS the bad guys.
That is a tautolgy. Progress is achieved by the combined efforts of prosletyzing and acceptance by everyone.
If you wish to view the prosletyzers as liberals, then of course, those who counsel caution are the “bad guys”.
When Columbus came to America, I guess the Indians were the “bad guys”. After all, he was selling “progress’, and they were “opposed”, were they not?
JadeMold, as usual, talks as if he knows everything, when he is consistently wrong about everything. Hence, the undocumented, unsupported statements he flings like so much confetti:
http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/36491
That was a military academy you claimed to have attended, not a seminary.
I don’t think Frame knows what a rapier is, don’t make fun. He is also enamored by shiny objects.
a rapier thrust from Frank
ignatz: I hope I understand you correctly as pointing out the double standard, whereby the “religious left” gets a pass on “separation of church and state”.
The CBS News article about the religious left is basically horseshit, and still a good sign anyway.
It’s horseshit because there is nothing new about there being a religious left. But it’s a good sign because it means that the press is finally noticing that they exist.
The America media do not report: they repeat narratives and tell the stories that they want to tell. There has been a religious left for YEARS. But the many, many things that they do have gotten almost NO coverage. They are routinely treated by the press as though they didn’t exist, no matter WHAT they do. I have personally been at religious/political events that drew tens of thousands of people, almost ALL church groups – but from the press coverage, you would have no clue that they WERE church groups. Just standard liberals making noise again.
See, when right-leaning churches do something political, the press treats it primarily as a religious action. But when left-leaning churches do something political, the press treats it ENTIRELY as a political action, and doesn’t even MENTION the religious angle.
This article does not mean that religious left is suddenly politically active. It means that the media is suddenly starting to recognize that that politically activity IS religiously inspired, and is part of the narrative, and is actually worth covering.
It’s about frigging time.
“a rapier thrust from Frank”
And the circle jerk continues …
Frame…
Wrong sport.
Frank: Nobody “gets a pass” on Separation of Church & State. Separation of Church & State is NOT “Separation of religion and politics.” Church & State are organizations – religion and politics are things that completely permeate people’s lives. You can’t separate religion and politics anymore than you can separate politics and anything else. It’s like claiming that one must separate business from politics – doesn’t happen and can’t happen.
Religions and religious organizations – right and left -are allowed to rally, express their belief and politick. The folks on the right have a tendency to demand that the Government endorse their particular religon, and exclude other religions, as well as excluding those who practice NO religion.
The problem is not separating religion and politics. The problem is with those who would make their own personal religious values into law when it concerns personal decisions, regardless of whether they be right or left.
You’ve provided the evidence yourself, frameone the furious fulminator (question: Can you get through ONE post without calling somebody an idiot? Your father must have called you that a lot… Just couldn’t please him, eh? And we’re all paying for it).
all Frank has done is conveniently collapse freedon of speech into the church/state equation
So explain why, when the right has a complaint about government policies that infringe on their right to practice their religion, OR, when they make a statement about the fact that something is sinful, they’re “pushing their religion down our throats”, BUT when left wing religious speakers tell us the government has to do something about “injustice and inequality”, that’s freedom of speech?
“I don t think Frame knows what a rapier is, don t make fun. He is also enamored by shiny objects.”
You guys are too much. Frank makes some stupid ass statement and Dugger backs it up without question. Do you see why you morons are so consistently wrong so often? It’s the neverending right wing circle jerk.
Frank asserts that the religious left “gets a pass on the separation of church and state.” Does he offer any evidnce? Does he present any actual instance of this? No. As Ignatz points out, all Frank has done is conveniently collapse freedon of speech into the church/state equation to make a wholly ideological and moronic point.
And witness our good friend Jay Tea. Moron that he is, he holds out classic right wing caricatures of Jackson and Sharpton and then asks:
“Then who are the leaders, Oliver? I realize I m not their target audience, but I m curious as to who they are& ”
Well if Jay were so fucking curious, why didn’t he just read the CBS article that started this discussion?
Seven paragraphs in we find this:
“But the left has its own Evangelical leaders, such as the Rev. Tony Campolo.”
Here’s two other other names cited in the article as representatives of this “movement”:
Dr. Bob Edgar, General Secretary of the National Council of Churches
Rev. Jim Wallis, a Christian activist.
Now is Jay stupid, lazy or both? You tell me. Wait. No you won’t. Because you’re part of the vast right wing circle jerk. You didn’t bother to ask more of Frank or Dugger, so why would you ask more of Jay. Or yourselves for that matter.
You sure like the term “circle jerk” Frame.
Why is it that when Kerry essentially had a political rally in Church not one peep was heard from the left. If Bush had done the same thing there would have been outrage. The left and right are treated differently where religion is involved.
See previous post.
Actually wacked it is more complicated. churches are tax-exempt, if they then go to be primarily political organizations…it becomes a problem, as the government is essentially “paying” them by not charging them taxes like the rest of us.
Oh, and don’t forget Al Gore and the Buddhist Temple of Doom in LA….that nifty little tax-free fundraiser…!
“Can you get through ONE post without calling somebody an idiot?”
Can you guys put up one post in which you don’t sound like idiots? Case in point:
“So explain why, when the right has a complaint about government policies that infringe on their right to practice their religion… ”
When and where has the government ever imposed a restriction on the free practice of someone’s religion? Got any actual examples of that?
On your point about “left wing religious speakers” would also like to point out any actual example of a left wing religious leader advocating that the government endorse a specific religion or religious tradition?
You see, Frank, prayer in school is a violation of church and state. Advocating for national health care based on religious conviction is not because national health care, in and of itself, does constitute the endorsement of any religious tradition, practice, theology or anything.
And DC, name me a presidential who hasn’t made a speech in a church? It is, as Bushwacked points out, a question of religion and polictics v. church and state. Courting religious voters is not a violation of the separation of church and state. Advocating that the state endorse specific religious practices and traditions is. Can you see the difference?
Talking about apples and oranges. There is nothing wrong with someone campaigning for office speaking in a church.
If you want to go there then ….You better talk to your own party leadership about asking for church roles, or churches handing out “voter guides” which conveniently endorse all republican issues, while not specifically mentioning candidate names.
if they then go to be primarily political organizations&
sorry guess you missed that line
Oh and thanks for setting a few other things straight. I never knew that advocating for national health care was just like replacing worship of god with worship of the government. I didn’t even know that god had a health care plan. Tell me, is everyone eligible or just Christian Scientists? Does god cover prescriptions?
Oh I see, Frank. So you don’t have any actual examples. You are relying entirely on your own, private disortions and lies. Good to know. Thanks for clearing that up.
Advocating for national health care based on religious conviction is not
But advocating for prayer (any prayer) in school, is.
Riiight.
Separation of Church and State means the State shall not establish, or endorse the establishment of a Church.
If you choose that the Church and the State must be separate on all occassions, for all reasons, then I don’t want to hear from left – wing preachers trying to force their “religion” of Gummint worship down my throat.
Examples, my tuchus.
You’re right, frameone, the only “evidence” I have is a statement I made. The only “evidence” you have is
Oliver, I agree with your general point that there is a religious left, and that the Black churches are an important element of that part of the liberal community. As a proud UU, I think that there are other progressive religious traditions too. The general media treatment of religion in our national political conversation is disturbing because there seem to be so few journalists who are comfortable with the idea of faith. Instead we get horserace/power analyses of those who claim dominion in the political realm. Since that reflects ignorance, perhaps there is something we can do about it. On the other hand, to the extent that people addressing this matter are simply stupid or ideologically blind, the best thing to do is leave them alone.
“Examples, my tuchus.”
And there we have the glory of conservative “thinking” in a nutshell: “We don’t need no stinking facts! We have our guts!”
I’m not getting into megaword argument with you over the meaning of semicolons and ampersands.
I was commenting on one thing, and one thing only: The possible meaning of Ignatz’ statement that left wing clergy can comment on anything they choose, and there is nary a peep about “separation of Church and State,” even though they are trying to influence the state with religious pressure.
But when the right does the exact same thing, there’s talk about the “imminent theocracy”, religion being crammed down people’s throats.
Examples:
Fr. Drinan
Fr. Greeley
Rev. Coffin
Rev. Jackson
Rev. Sharpton
Now go running to your NYT CyberNavigator…
Frank,
If a minister argues that Jesus would have protected the poor as a moral justifcation for medicare or food stamps or whatever, he is not advocating for the State to adopt or recognize any particular religious practice or tradition. He’s arguing for the state to fund medicare, a policy which is not religious in nature in anyway whatesoever.
If a minister stands up and argues that the ten commandments should be placed in every courthouse in the land, well, that’s different. That’s advocating for the state to adopt or recognize, in an official capacity, one religious tradition over all others. That’s a violation of the First Amendment because the Ten Commandments are nothing if not a religious symbol.
The fact that you can’t see the difference between the two only proves just how distorted and twisted your world view really is. And why, yes, it is pointless to discuss anything with you because you’re simply too far gone for reason.
frameone, your response doesn’t surprise me. It’s you that has the closed mind
He s arguing for the state to fund medicare, a policy which is not religious in nature in anyway whatsoever.
Then what’s the significance of suggesting that Jesus would support it? You mean the support of a wandering Jewish preacher who lived 2000 years ago, is important?
Don’t be naive…
What about when a minister gets up and says the Bible says gays shouldn’t be married?
Can we say “he is not advocating for the State to adopt or recognize any particular religious practice or tradition. He s arguing for the state to [adopt a policy] which is not religious in nature in anyway whatsoever”?
You can pose it anyway you want, but the left gets to put religious “muscle” behind their policies, and there’s never an accusation of “violation of the sepation of the church and state.”
How about when the leftist ministers opposed the war in Vietnam? Were they trying to influence policy or not?
You’re wr… wr… wr… wrong!
Once again you’re comparing apples and oranges.
Yes, if someone is arguing that Jesus compels us to care for health and welfare of the poorest among us it is attempting to legislate morality, although I can think of any number of secular humanist reasons why such a policy is a good idea.
At the same time, if a minister wants to argue that the Bible forbids granting basic civil liberties to gay people that too is an act of legislating one’s personal morality that isn’t a violation of the separation of church and state, per se.
It’s just politics. The fact that I find such a position abhorrent doesn’t mean a minister can’t advocate it.
What you have yet to show is any example of someone on the left pushing a policy that is clearly a violation of the First Amendment. The right, on the other hand, has made violating the First Amendment a vertiable plank in its platform from school prayer to the Ten Commandments issue.
What about when a minister gets up and says the Bible says gays shouldn t be married?
Can we say he is not advocating for the State to adopt or recognize any particular religious practice or tradition. He s arguing for the state to [adopt a policy] which is not religious in nature in anyway whatsoever ?
Absolutely. Though there aren’t really any good secular reasons to ban gay marriage, and, IMO, the minister’s being a bigot and an asshole; but you can say what you’re saying right there. (In short, pretty much what frameone said).
Abstinance only education is also an example of a potentially religiously motivated policy that doesn’t violate separation of church & state. It’s still a bad idea, but it’s technically doesn’t violate this separation (unless, of course, they hand out bibles or something).
oqishxtmw szcxf aicy njwley nayobr zadxls rkuja