What progressives need to defeat Trump: populism and religion

[guillaumeb]

From the article:

Religion and populism have become dirty words in progressive circles, but despite common assumptions, their combination could serve as a resource for the sort of democratic renewal many societies need.

There is plenty of evidence to support the view that religion and populism are bad enough in themselves and even worse when combined. The so-called “Christian-Democracy” of Viktor Orbán’s Hungary, widespread support of Donald Trump by white evangelicals in the United States, the Hindu nationalism of Modi, and the Islamo-Kemalism of Erdoğan are all examples that seem to prove the point. Perhaps as a result, most journalistic and academic work on populism focuses on nationalistic, often anti-democratic strains that conflate the people of God with a Volk or nation imagined in homogeneously ethnic or racial terms.

As true as this all is, there is no inherent relationship between religion and anti-democratic forms of populism.

In fact, historically, it was the interaction of religion and democratic populism that generated some of the most vital moments of democratic change in the modern era. And there’s reason to believe they could do so again today.

To read more:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/24/religion-populism-progressives-trump?fbclid=IwAR3sdgdQpUKluWYmkYwxuasyDtlqPDbI9E5y8S7gRBNMougc5ON9hDMhSFA

[bitterross]

1. Religion is antiquated and quaint. Not a winning thing. NOT Progressive.

People are leaving religion because they are more educated in science over mythology.

There is no such thing as "progressive religion." All religions are regressive and backwards.

[marylandblue]

2. "There is no such thing as progressive religion."

Well that's demonstrably false. All you have to do is look at things like Unitarians, Reform Judaism and African American churches. Or take gulliameb himself. Whatever his other faults are, he is a progressive religionist.

[bitterross]

3. The terms are mutually exclusive.

There is no such thing as a progressive religion because the terms are mutually exclusive. You cannot be truly progressive and believe in ancient mythologies.

[marylandblue]

8. Why not?

One is politics. The other is metaphysics. If someone takes 100% progressive political positions, does it matter if they believe in Inanna? How many civil rights activists would be there be according to your definition?

[bitterross]

21. Yes it matters.

It matters right at the moment they feel the need to enlighten you to the mysteries of Inanna.

You also misunderstand my argument. I said there is no such thing as a progressive religion. I stand by that statement because I feel that any belief in supernatural beings is mythology and is not relevant in today's world. Resorting to supernatural explanations of things just because we cannot explain them at the current time with our current knowledge is really not progressive at all. It is falling back upon the old, regressive ways of our society.


I did not say there is no such thing as a progressive theist. There may exist people who hold very progressive views and ideas of how our politics and society should operate who also believe in mythological beings. Those two things are not mutually exclusive.

[marylandblue]

22. "belief in supernatural beings" and "belief in mythological beings?"

The first is bad but the second is okay? A progressive can believe in mythological beings but not be a member of religion that has a belief in such beings? And who said a religion even has to be about explaining anything or even have a concept of the supernatural? Buddhism doesn't require any supernatural beliefs. Unitarian Universalism does not require it either. Reconstructionist Judaism doesn't care if you believe in God or not. And if I fall back on any "old, regressive ways of our society," I am not a progressive? Does that mean I can't join the Society for Creative Anachronism? What if I start a new version of an old religion? Neo-Paganism maybe?

Your correct I misunderstand. Because it's a bundle of contradictions. Progressivism is a political philosophy. What I choose to do on Sunday morning, whether it's pray, meditate or perform pseudo-paleolithic ceremonies in the back of caves has absolutely nothing to do with do with it. Unless I want it to. With your approval or without. Based on my understanding of religion, not yours.

[gtar100]

17. I would have to disagree. I believe in many ancient mythologies.

I thoroughly enjoy the work of Joseph Campbell, Huston Smith and others. The Vedic teachings are endlessly fascinating and insightful. Taoism and Buddhism are full of wild and crazy stories full of insight. Indigenous cultures throughout history and across the globe have amazing knowledge in their myths which I think if we could learn to understand them in a modern frame of reference could save us from ourselves (much of it dealing with right relationship to the natural world that we modern humans seem so estranged to). I recognize too that it's not everyone's cup of tea either. But categorically dismissing myth as false is throwing out a tremendous amount of knowledge that our ancestors passed onto us.

And I happily identify as a progressive.

[bitterross]

19. It seems you support the principles and teachings. Not the mythology.

Those two things are not mutually exclusive. Do not confuse a formal meaning of believe with a colloquial meaning of believe. We believe many, many things in a colloquial fashion. I believe the sun will rise tomorrow. I believe that when I release an object from my hand the effect of gravity will cause it to collide with the earth.

One can easily believe in feeding the poor and assisting the ill without having to believe that a Rabbi existed named Yeshua who performed miracles and was crucified and rose from the dead.

One can believe in the moral and logical teachings of just about any mythology as many of them present quite good moral and ethical ways to exist together as humans.

There is no need whatsoever to believe in supernatural beings though.

[qazplm135]

49. What?!

I can easily find ten far left progressives who believe in ancient crystal healing or some other sort of old timey mystic stuff.

So your position is the only true progressives are agnostics or atheists??

So Bernie Sanders is not a true progressive in your mind.

[bitterross]

50. I said that "progressive religion" is not possible

I didn't say there can be no religious progressives.

There is a difference.

[qazplm135]

52. buddhism?

Please, it's a silly argument, just stop.

Anytime someone says something can never be X or is always Y, the odds are really high there's an exception.

[bitterross]

54. Buddhism is not a religion

It's not a silly argument to say any religion based on faith in supernatural beings cannot be progressive.

It is not progressive to return to fairy tales to explain life.

[sprinkleeninow]

12. Izzit possible for me to claim being a Christologically theistic

naturalist and existentialist?

[I mighta concocted some non-words here..🤔😊.]

[marylandblue]

14. Sure, just build an open air church and pray to the Father, Son and Holy Nothing

[bitterross]

20. You may claim to be whatever you like.

I fail to see how it is relevant to the topic.

[marylandblue]

23. Your title is the answer to your text.

[bitterross]

27. Trump Claims to be a stable genius.

I don't believe that's possible either.

[marylandblue]

32. Relevant and possible are two different things.

[Major Nikon]

24. Progressive religion is an oxymoron

Without doctrine and dogma you don't have a religion worth discussing and those two things are always backwards looking. Progressive ideology requires reason based solutions, not abandoning reason in favor of mythology. So while you might find examples of religions which favor progressive politics, theology by it's nature isn't progressive. Some are just less regressive than others.

[marylandblue]

33. "religion worth discussing"

If we cut out actual religions to include only those "worth discussing" then the thesis becomes meaningless.

[Major Nikon]

37. "actual religions"

Do you know of any? It would look something like we don't believe in anything and there's no rules to follow.

I don't know of any, but I'm not discounting the possibility. Either way it isn't worth discussing because arguably it isn't a religion at all.

[marylandblue]

46. I consider a religion to.be a set of beliefs and/or practices

intended to produce spiritual experiences. Spiritual does not mean supernatural, but specialized emotional states. Some religions claim that the practice itself creates the special states, so there is no need to believe in the teachings, just participate in the rituals.

Religions that don't have dogmas but could qualify under this definition include Buddhism, Taoism, ancestor worship, Unitarian Universalism, Reconstructionist Judiasm, shamanism and animism.

Other religions might have limited dogmas that have no direct ethical consequences or only progressive ones. Transcendalism might qualify. It's only belief seems to some type of pantheism, and adherents can draw their own conclusions from that, but they tended to be progressive, since oppressing someone else is like oppressing God.

[Major Nikon]

48. All of the things you mention have barriers to progressivism

Whether or not they have both dogma AND doctrine is debatable, but all have at least one or the other with some providing the ability to opt out of one or the other while still remaining in the club. Regardless without either you don't have religion or anything remotely recognizable as religion.

The only difference is the barriers to some aren't as high as others. It may even be true that the barrier is so low it doesn't present any significant hindrance to the application of progressive policies, but neither does it provide any inherent benefit.

Progressivism as an ideology requires solutions for reform that are bounded by reason. When you incorporate theology that departs from reason, you haven't introduced anything productive and have instead introduced an element that at least has the potential for hindrance whether or not it's realized. In other words, whenever you introduce metaphysical hocus pocus to a reason based approach, you aren't helping regardless of how benevolent those motives might be.

[Brainstormy]

51. see, this is why I like Facebook

because if you had posted this there I could at least give you a "like," or probably a "love" heart. YOU NAILED IT!

[marylandblue]

59. Religion's contribution would be about motivation, not necessarily solutions

And for progressive atheists, all that really means is that you regard progressive religionists as political allies, nothing more or less. That's effectively the situation we are in now, as black churches play an important role in representing progressive ideas and getting out the vote in their communities.

[Major Nikon]

60. You could say the same about anarchists

That doesn’t necessarily mean I’d want to ally with them.

[marylandblue]

61. Anarchists have very different political goals so they are uncertain allies at best

But religious and atheistic progressives share the same political goals.

[Major Nikon]

62. I suppose it depends on what goals you mean

If the political goal is to elect more people with a D after their name, then that goal would seem to be shared by anyone who votes for more people with a D after their name.

If the political goal is to make government more secular, then I’d think anarchists would be more certain allies.

[marylandblue]

65. Alliances are always situational and temporary

Often the goal is to vote Dems into office. Right now, that alliance includes all anti Trump people, including some pretty far to the right.

For secular government, most progressive religionists seem to believe in separation of church and state, but I can also disagreement there in some cases.

Anarchists are problematic because they push for radical anti-government solutions. I don't see them sticking with progressives very long or being willing to compromise.

[Major Nikon]

66. The GOP started allying with the religionists back in the 60's

Last edited Thu Nov 29, 2018, 12:47 PM - Edit history (1)

Now they run the party.

Noam Chomsky describes himself as an anarchist, which is a far more nuanced position than the vandalizing shitheels who gather the most publicity. I am somewhat an anarchist in that I believe all government power should be perpetually justifying itself or dismantled. I don't feel that's all that radical, but the problem with allying with such folks is the shitheels will always find ways to worm their way in. The same can be said for trying to ally with religionists.

Alliances aren't always situational and temporary. The suggestion the OP makes has about as much chance as a fart in a whirlwind, but what happens if it actually was successful? Once the GOP's religionists start to loose influence, they will undoubtedly seek it on the other side. If anyone wants to vote for democrats, I say if it feels good do it. That doesn't mean I want to be their allies.

[marylandblue]

69. I don't see old right wing evangelicals joining the Democrats

It's more likely to be their progressive children. Could it be problem years down the road? Sure, a lot of other problems could break the coalition too.

I think the article exaggerates the case. It's not like we will all unite under a religious banner. It's more like religious people repelled by the right will find a home with the left.

[Major Nikon]

70. It wasn't that long ago they WERE democrats

To the detriment of the party.

When the GOP meets its inevitable demise, there's little doubt they will try to make a home back on the left and with it they will once again demand regressive policies. As you say this will be more of an effect than cause.

[violetpastille]

4. That's about as far as I got into that article. tbh.

I'm not into populism.

Do not want any more of it, thanks anyway.

But, I can get behind Reverend Barber. If religion is about helping the poor, the vulnerable, the exiled, I'm all for it.

Sure. Why not?

[marylandblue]

9. There is such a thing as progressive populism

[violetpastille]

10. What is an example?

[marylandblue]

11. Grassroots movements. The Women's March.

The unprecedented Democratic activism and turnout in this midterm. And, dare I say it, Bernie Sanders? Or maybe Howard Dean before he got steamrolled by the stupid media. How quaint that scandal is now!

[violetpastille]

16. Well..

There are people/things that I like on that list.

And there are some things that I want nothing to do with.

Howard Dean we can agree upon completely, although I hadn't ever thought of him as a populist.

[MineralMan]

31. The organization of the Women's March has come under a lot of fire

recently. It looks like some have tried to mold it into an exclusive group that doesn't necessarily reflect many women's views.

The devil is always in the details. I'm skeptical of "movements." They often tend to become ideologically narrow and restrictive.

[marylandblue]

34. If a movement doesn't develop strong leaders, it go off the rails

Which looks like that is happening with the Women's March. On the other hand, it created a burst of energy at the beginning that bore fruit in otjer ways, so maybe it has served its purpose.

[MineralMan]

35. As a spontaneous protest, it did a great job.

It was after that when the battle began to organize it for the future. That's when the factionalization set in, as it usually does.

Sometimes, the strong leaders are who send things off the rails, unfortunately.

https://www.vox.com/identities/2018/3/7/17082030/womens-march-louis-farrakhan-tamika-mallory-anti-semitism-controversy

[marylandblue]

36. Maybe I should say "strong and ethical" leadership

[MineralMan]

38. I don't follow the women's movement closely, but

I do know that it has factions that often don't agree with each other. I'm not a woman, so I don't keep up with it on a regular basis.

[Act_of_Reparation]

40. Much of the trouble stems from connections to the Nation of Islam

One or more prominent Women's March organizers have connections to Louis Farrakhan, which understandably does not sit well with Jewish Women's March supporters.

Odd that religion, the progressive panacea, has been something of a detriment to that movement.

[MineralMan]

41. Yes. I linked to an article about that upthread.

Tying populism to a religion is a common thing, but it almost never turns out well. Given the exclusive nature of religions in general, it sets up an "us vs. them" issue every time.

Here, Donald Trump is a great example. He tied his clearly populist political campaign to the conservative fundamentalist Christian bloc. We can see how well that turned out.

Our OP has a blind spot regarding religion. He cannot, or will not, see the evil that is done by religious groups. Religion, for him, is always benevolent and kindly or something.

Populism almost always has a scapegoat group it targets. That group is held up to be the cause of all ills. Religions are quick to identify "others" as the problem as well. The combination is toxic all but members of the "in" group.

A pox on religious populism.

[Act_of_Reparation]

42. A blind spot, indeed.

Like many religionists, he is quick to take vicarious credit for social progress made in the late 19th and 20th centuries because other religionists were involved in the struggle, but he is keen to avoid discussion of the fact this progress was won from people no less religious. He doesn't want to talk about religious opposition to these social movements, and how that religious component to conservatism has made injustices all the more tenacious and difficult to combat.

[NRaleighLiberal]

5. Oil and water do not mix.

[Squinch]

6. Uhhh... no. Add racism and sexism, and you can just call yourself a trumper.

[guillaumeb]

55. So all theists are Trump voters?

If that is how you view the world.....

[Squinch]

58. Well, I never said anything of the sort, but if you must set

up lame straw men...

[Eko]

7. Its amazing how fast those two things

can lead to authoritarianism, so I vote absolutely no.

[trotsky]

13. The "nones" are now the largest voting bloc when it comes to religious groups.

Why do you want to alienate them?

[guillaumeb]

56. Why do you want to alienate progressive theists?

The smaller tent strategy?

[Squinch]

63. You keep setting up these ridiculous straw men. Do religious people get points for manufactured

martyrdom?

[trotsky]

68. They get awesome Internet points, I guess.

[guillaumeb]

73. Read trotskys comment.

And apply your same logic.

[Squinch]

74. Now you're not even trying to make sense.

[trotsky]

67. Such a weak attempt at reframing.

I think we should unite around our progressive political goals.

You think everyone should unite around your (progressive) religion.

Yes, one of us is going to alienate people. Which one do you think it is?

[Act_of_Reparation]

71. So progressive theists are going to jump ship if we don't sufficiently kiss their asses?

Hm. Not very progressive, then, are they?

[Voltaire2]

15. I want my secular republic back.

[Adsos Letter]

18. Amen

Me too.

[Major Nikon]

25. Yeah, just what we need

Climbing into bed with people who favor mythology over reason and have an inherent inability to compromise their dogma and doctrine.

Pretty much the only thing Goldwater got right was pointing out how bad of an idea it is.

[trotsky]

28. Yes please.

After thousands of years of being unable to solve our political problems, perhaps religion needs to step aside.

[Act_of_Reparation]

26. Religious populism is the cure to religious populism?

Fuck that noise.

[trotsky]

30. The fervor of a fanatic.

"MY religion is awesome and everyone needs to follow it! No trust me, I'm totally not like those other guys who say their religion is awesome and everyone needs to follow it!"

[Major Nikon]

43. All we need to keep us safe from the gun nuts are more gun nuts

It's just another example of someone ate up with the Law of the Instrument.

[MineralMan]

29. "Gott mit Uns"

No thanks. That's already been done, and it didn't work out so well.

[MineralMan]

39. The most successful populist in recent history was Adolf Hitler.

Not a model I believe we should follow. He, too, linked religion to his populism. He lied, of course, but populists are famous for lying.

Perhaps some investigation into the subject of populism would be beneficial to your understanding.

[Major Nikon]

44. Populism is just a polite word for demagoguery

It paves the way for orange men who shit on gold toilets yet pretend to be a man of the people by appealing to emotion rather than reason.

[MineralMan]

45. Exactly.

[trotsky]

47. Here you go, g-man. Someone who shares your concerns about the left lacking religion.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/11/atheists-liberal-elite-ignore-traditional-religious-belief/

[AlexSFCA]

53. you cant be religious and call yourself progressive

two completey mutually exclusive concepts. Progressives make decisions based on science and data which is complete opposite of any religion. We are a secular nation of secular laws, no religion should even be discussed by any government officials, let alone using it as a guidance for decision making. The freedom of religion is severly limited by secular laws in the US. But we do have freedom from religion which is key to any progress. The future of human development has no place for religion.

[guillaumeb]

57. Many theists disagree with you.

China is a majority atheist country.

[Act_of_Reparation]

64. What is your problem with the Chinese?

You keep bringing them up.

[guillaumeb]

72. Apart from the concentration camps, and the severely repressive

government, and that hatred for minorities?


On the other hand, I do like Dim sum.

[Act_of_Reparation]

75. So the Chinese people build concentration camps and are generally repressive?

But you like their food!

That's very nuanced of you.

[guillaumeb]

77. Do yuo distinguish between the Chinese Government and

its citizens?

If not, that might explain the apparent confusion.

[Act_of_Reparation]

78. Do you?

If so, I'm curious to know how China's atheist majority is relevant to this discussion.

[OneBro]

76. If the believers don't believe . . .

People are leaving organized religion because the people who organize religion clearly do not practice the principles underlying their own religion, particularly self-described “christians” who reject anything Christ-like.