From an email: Democrats Need a Religious Left

[pagerbear]

(Please don't scoff without reading the entire article.)

The Democrats Needed and Need a Religious/Spiritual Left
November 3, 2004

Warm greetings to friends of the Tikkun Community!

Democrats Need a Religious Left
By Rabbi Michael Lerner

For years the Democrats have been telling themselves "it's the economy, stupid." Yet consistently for dozens of years millions of middle income Americans have voted against their economic interests to support Republicans who have tapped a deeper set of needs.

Tens of millions of Americans feel betrayed by a society that seems to place materialism and selfishness above moral values. They know that "looking out for number one" has become the common sense of our society, but they want a life that is about something more-a framework of meaning and purpose to their lives that would transcend the grasping and narcissism that surrounds them. Sure, they will admit that they have material needs, and that they worry about adequate health care, stability in employment, and enough money to give their kids a college education. But even more deeply they want their lives to have meaning-and they respond to candidates who seem to care about values and some sense of transcendent purpose.

Many of these voters have found a "politics of meaning" in the political Right. In the Right wing churches and synagogues these voters are presented with a coherent worldview that speaks to their "meaning needs." Most of these churches and synagogues demonstrate a high level of caring for their members, even if the flip side is a willingness to demean those on the outside. Yet what members experience directly is a level of mutual caring that they rarely find in the rest of the society. And a sense of community that is offered them nowhere else, a community that has as its central theme that life has value because it is connected to some higher meaning than one's success in the marketplace.

It's easy to see how this hunger gets manipulated in ways that liberals find offensive and contradictory. The frantic attempts to preserve family by denying gays the right to get married, the talk about being conservatives while meanwhile supporting Bush policies that accelerate the destruction of the environment and do nothing to encourage respect for God's creation or an ethos of awe and wonder to replace the ethos of turning nature into a commodity, the intense focus on preserving the powerless fetus and a culture of life without a concomitant commitment to medical research (stem cell research/HIV-AIDS), gun control and healthcare reform., the claim to care about others and then deny them a living wage and an ecologically sustainable environment-all this is rightly perceived by liberals as a level of inconsistency that makes them dismiss as hypocrites the voters who have been moving to the Right.

Yet liberals, trapped in a long-standing disdain for religion and tone-deaf to the spiritual needs that underlie the move to the Right, have been unable to engage these voters in a serious dialogue. Rightly angry at the way that some religious communities have been mired in authoritarianism, racism, sexism and homophobia, the liberal world has developed such a knee-jerk hostility to religion that it has both marginalized those many people on the Left who actually do have spiritual yearnings and simultaneously refused to acknowledge that many who move to the Right have legitimate complaints about the ethos of selfishness in American life.

Imagine if John Kerry had been able to counter George Bush by insisting that a serious religious person would never turn his back on the suffering of the poor, that the bible's injunction to love one's neighbor required us to provide health care for all, and that the New Testament's command to "turn the other cheek" should give us a predisposition against responding to violence with violence.

Imagine a Democratic Party that could talk about the strength that comes from love and generosity and applied that to foreign policy and homeland security.

Imagine a Democratic Party that could talk of a New Bottom Line, so that American institutions get judged efficient, rational and productive not only to the extent that they maximize money and power, but also to the extent that they maximize people's capacities to be loving and caring, ethically and ecologically sensitive, and capable of responding to the universe with awe and wonder.

Imagine a Democratic Party that could call for schools to teach gratitude, generosity, caring for others, and celebration of the wonders that daily surround us! Such a Democratic Party, continuing to embrace its agenda for economic fairness and multi-cultural inclusiveness, would have won in 2004 and can win in the future.

(Please don't tell me that this is happening outside the Democratic Party in the Greens or in other leftie groups--because except for a few tiny exceptions it is not! I remember how hard I tried to get Ralph Nader to think and talk in these terms in 2000, and how little response I got substantively from the Green Party when I suggested reformulating their excessively politically correct policy orientation in ways that would speak to this spiritual consciousness. The hostility of the Left to spirituality is so deep, in fact, that when they hear us in Tikkun talking this way they often can't even hear what we are saying--so they systematically mis-hear it and say that we are calling for the Left to take up the politics of the Right, which is exactly the opposite of our point--speaking to spiritual needs actually leads to a more radical critique of the dynamics of corporate capitalism and corporate globalization, not to a mimicking of right-wing policies).

If the Democrats were to foster a religions/spiritual Left, they would no longer pick candidates who support preemptive wars or who appease corporate power. They would reject the cynical realism that led them to pretend to be born-again militarists, a deception that fooled no one and only revealed their contempt for the intelligence of most Americans. Instead of assuming that most Americans are either stupid or reactionary, a religious Left would understand that many Americans who are on the Right actually share the same concern for a world based on love and generosity that underlies Left politics, even though lefties often hide their value attachments.

Yet to move in this direction, many Democrats would have to give up their attachment to a core belief: that those who voted for Bush are fundamentally stupid or evil. Its time they got over that elitist self-righteousness and developed strategies that could affirm their common humanity with those who voted for the Right. Teaching themselves to see the good in the rest of the American public would be a critical first step in liberals and progressives learning how to teach the rest of American society how to see that same goodness in the rest of the people on this planet. It is this spiritual lesson-that our own well-being depends on the well-being of everyone else on the planet and on the well-being of the earth-a lesson rooted deeply in the spiritual wisdom of virtually every religion on the planet, that could be the center of a revived Democratic Party.

Yet to take that seriously, the Democrats are going to have to get over the false and demeaning perception that the Americans who voted for Bush could never be moved to care about the well being of anyone but themselves. That transformation in the Democrats would make them into serious contenders.

The last time Democrats had real social power was when they linked their legislative agenda with a spiritual politics articulated by Martin Luther King. We cannot wait for the reappearance of that kind of charasmatic leader to begin the process of re-building a spiritual/religious Left.

*************
respectfully sent to you by Rabbi Michael Lerner.

Rabbi Michael Lerner is national co-chair (with Cornel West and Susannah Heschel) of The Tikkun Community, an interfaith organization that seeks to build on the political vision articulated above and more fully explained in our Core Vision which you can read at www.Tikkun.org; editor of TIKKUN, a bimonthly Jewish Critique of Politics, Culture and Society, author of Spirit Matters: Global Healing and the Wisdom of the Soul, and rabbi of Beyt Tikkun synagogue in San Francisco. www.tikkun.org
[e-mail]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
P.S. DON'T DESPAIR--YOU COULD HELP US BUILD THIS NEW APPROACH TO AMERICAN POLITICS

P.S. HERE IS WHAT YOU CAN DO:

1. Send this message to everyone you possibly can think of.
2. Call the media and demand that they cover this perspective and ask them to contact Tikkun to do interviews with us (they can call Jordan Pearlstein at 510 528 6250 to get interviews set up.
3. Join (yes you personally) The Tikkun Community, the organization that is taking the lead in trying to create this very kind of direction in liberal and progressive politics. Become a dues-paying member to make it possible for this view to get heard. The organization we are creating has as its first and foremost responsibility to create this kind of discourse in American politics, not only by challenging the Right but also by challenging the anti-spiritual biases and demeaning attitude toward those who don't agree with the Left that prevails in too many parts of the liberal and progressive world. So we need you not only to join, but to help us spread this new way of thinking. To understand it more fully, we urge you to read and then create a study group with friends on the book The Politics of Meaning or the book Spirit Matters: Global Healing and the Wisdom of the Soul. You can join The Tikkun Community on-line at www.Tikkun.org, or by calling Liz or Stephanie at 510-644-1200 between 9:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. Pacific Standard Time. If you can't join, you could still make a tax-deductible contribution to support this work--we can't get transform these ideas into a force capable of changing society unless we have serious financial support (know anyone in a foundation that you could approach for help? or someone with more money? could you do a fundraiser in your community? whatever you can raise will be most appreciated).

Tikkun Magazine and The Tikkun Community need (unfortuantely unpaid) interns and volunteers at our national office in Berkeley, California, and volunteers and interns to work on logistics and organizing for our East Coast conferences in NY and D.C. (working initially out of our apartment at NYC). If you'd like to volunteer either place, contact [e-mail]


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

************
We are up against a very difficult period ahead. There will be struggles to end the war in Iraq and to protect us from what is likely to be very scary moves to limit civil liberties, decrease social supports for the poor and the powerless, increase militarization and even new wars. If we face all this with the kind of liberal and progressive movements that we've been relying on the past, we are likely to continue to be very ineffective. That's why taking the Tikkun ideas and building a new kind of social change movement is such a pressing priority. We are not asking people to become religious or spiritual if you are not; we are asking for a new sensitivity to this arena, and new ways of talking to people and new ways of framing progressive ideas, and a new sensitivity to awe and wonder to replace a narrow utilitarian way of approaching other human beings and nature (an idea already accepted in many ecologically-sensitive circles). Please help us! It's not enough to support our ideas--we need your more active support. If you can find a more powerful strategy, more psychologically sophisticated and more compassionate in its approach to the people who need to be won over to the side of progressive social change, let us know what it is. If not, join and help us build this strategy!!!

In peace,

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rabbi Michael Lerner
Tikkun Magazine
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
email: [e-mail]
phone: [phone]
web: http://www.tikkun.org

[skooooo]

1. I think he's exactly right..

..If the liberal religious don't mobilize in the next few years, we'll never get rid of the kind of people we have in office now.

[puddycat]

2. If someone was truly Christian, they WOULD be liberal.

Isn't that the whole problem, that we have a religous extremist right which has distorted and twisted and made a mockery of Christianity? And the true Christians of the left have let them do it!

NO true Christian would vote against health care for everyone
NO true Christian would vote for a man who mocked a woman he was about to put to death (like Bush did to Tucker)
NO true Christian would vote for a man who took us into war on false pretenses and murdered over 100,000 innocent women and children and old people.

So, I don't think these right-wing extremists are Christians at all. They are poseurs. And I don't think the solution is to try to understand them. Its like trying to understand evil. Its dangerous and may send you into the pits of hell yourself.

[pagerbear]

3. I see your point, but

...the right-wing "Christian" organizations seem to appeal to a need many people have. The article is about how we on the left need to show people that true Christian/Godly love is about social and economic justice for all.

The evil ** regime would be tree worshipers one and all if they thought it would advance their political agenda.

[sangh0]

4. We need to offer them an alternative

that's more consistent with the teachings of Jesus Christ

[puddycat]

27. true, we need a liberal Christian media outlet, and we also need

to be in the face of these right-wing Christians, telling them that they are supporting a man who in every way has acted in an un-Christian way. If they want to be Christian, they should start acting like one, which means following the teachings of Jesus Christ and not Pat Robertson.

[sangh0]

41. Try www.sojo.org

liberal Christians

[puddycat]

54. thanks. but they don't seem aggressive enough.

This is not the time for namby-pamby liberalism. We need to counteract the constant hatred of media forces like the 700 Club. This will mean getting aggressive in our quest for justice. NOT being all conciliatory, etc. This is BS and hasn't worked. It will mean telling the right-wing wackos, outright, that they AREN'T acting like Christians.

[morcatknits]

26. More Dumbing Down

When you studiously let education deteriorate and cater to the lowest common denominator, you don't have to do that much to fool them. As GW said, "You can fool some of the people all the time, and those are the ones we have to concentrate on." Anyway, that's how it works in Texas.
morcatknits

[pagerbear]

31. Care to elaborate on that?

I don't quite understand what you're saying.

[msgadget]

51. I disagree

It's not dumbing down to speak to the more spiritual of the party. That's how the right got to black ministers, by taking them seriously.

[Lindacooks]

64. MY dh has a book written about how the fundies are WRONG

I keep posting this everywhere there's any discussion of the Bible and the Christian wrong.

Please, anybody with a publisher/agent contact, let me know!

[DBoon]

5. And we need to build a social service network around our religion

We should join liberal congregations and support childcare, education, help for the poor, and other social safetynet programs.

Apply for "faith based" funding.

I think we all regard religion too intellectually. It's really all about people helping each other.

This is how we recruit people. This is how we build a base.

[DBoon]

6. So what denomination should we join?

Unitarians?

Quakers?

Is there any established church with liberal politics we can get behind?

[quaoar]

9. The Methodist Church

is fairly progressive, despite the fact that Bush claims to be a member. Methodist Church leaders tried to talk to Bush before the war started to urge him not to do it, but he refused to even meet with them. And yet people think he is such a righteous man.

But with the Methodist Church, like many others, it depends on which congregation you visit. Some are quite progressive, others are not.

[pres2032]

11. Catholicism?

That's what I am and I certianly see a strong connection between the social justice platform of the Democratic Party and the social justice beleifs of Catholicism. Yes, I know that our leaders aren't the greatest, but Catholicism in general is certianly a very liberal religion.

[DBoon]

38. Been there

Was raised Catholic.

Is Catholic Worker still around?

[pres2032]

60. i don't know

Probably. i'm sure you search for it on the internet. I know that the Jesuit Volunteer Corp, which I'm seriously considering joining, is the largest Catholic service group in the world.

[pagerbear]

22. If you're going to join, choose a congregation, not a denomination

I've seen much wider variation within denominations than between them.

[topherX]

29. Go Unitarians

I recently started attending a Unitarian Universalist church near my home. I've been very happy there. The church is made up of a very diverse group of people with varying religious beliefs. Some members are Christian, pagans and atheists and other faiths.

We stress the importance of caring for our fellow woman and man. We learn about religion and how it plays a part in our lives and others. We use a variety of texts in our services, as opposed to singling out the Bible.

I grew up going to Catholic church. I've also attended church with my wife at a fairly progressive Lutheran church. I prefer going to the Unitarian church because they are so welcoming, active and liberal. The church that I attend doesn't spend much time talking about God or Jesus specifically. If you prefer the language of Christianity then you may be served better elsewhere.

In the big picture, every church has it's own personality. While evangelical church's get a bum wrap (and sometimes deserve it), that doesn't mean that every congregation is filled with people who follow the Christian right's lead.

Take care & fight the good fight.

[mzmolly]

44. The UCC is pretty rational.

UCC = United Church of Christ.

They are pro-choice, pro-human rights, pro-environment etc...

They are very active in these issues of justice/peace and the environment. Howard Dean and Bob Graham are both members of the UCC.

Here is their official position on choice:

Reproductive Rights

But Jesus said, "Someone touched me; for I noticed that power had gone out from me." —Luke 8:46

God has given us life, and life is sacred and good. God has also given us the responsibility to make decisions which reflect a reverence for life in circumstances when conflicting realities are present. Jesus affirmed women as full partners in the faith, capable of making decisions that affect their lives.

If the full range of options available to women concerning reproductive health are compromised, then women’s moral agency and ability to make decisions consistent with their faith are compromised. Furthermore, poor women should have equal access to full reproductive health services, including abortion and information on family planning.

The United Church of Christ has affirmed and re-affirmed since 1971 that access to safe and legal abortion is consistent with a woman’s right to follow the dictates of her own faith and beliefs in determining when and if she should have children, and has supported comprehensive sexuality education as one measure to prevent unwanted or unplanned pregnancies. (General Synods VIII, IX, XI, XII, XIII, XVI, XVII, and XVIII)

Also many of the churches are "open and affirming"

Open and Affirming is the way many in the United Church of Christ (UCC) declare their welcome and inclusion of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) persons into the full life of the church. The message of love and compassion, justice and peace are at the very core of the life and ministry of Jesus. Open and Affirming (ONA) ministries and resources are rooted in that Gospel message. The testimonies of these ministries proclaim the truth of God's power to transform cultures of hate and violence into communities of healing and reconciliation. They give witness to the ways in which the gifts of God are being liberated for service in the world.

http://www.ucc.org/lgbt/

More here:

http://www.ucc.org/aboutus/index.html

[HFishbine]

7. That makes sense today

But after four more years, America may be dying for a secular president.

[JerseygirlCT]

14. No, I don't think so

Americans are widely and deeply religious. Even when they hold to no particular church or creed, they are a very religious people. They will look for that kind of spiritual leadership.

The fact is that the liberal message works quite nicely with the basic underpinnings of all the major religions represented in this country. We haven't made the case for that successfully yet, while ceding religion to the right -- where the religion itself has been molded and distorted into a message of hate.

Religion and religious people are not the enemy. They are motivated and involved. They care about things outside themselves. They are a great hope for the future of the country and for the future of liberalism in this country. We continue to ignore them, or seat them at the end of the table, at our peril.

[oly]

8. Southern churches were pivotal in the Civil Rights Movement.

[SeanQ]

21. As was the Unitarian Universalist church.

[morcatknits]

32. Some churches supported civil rights

Not the evangelicals, though. I remember the pastors of the Baptist churches preaching against integration Sunday after Sunday, and today few southern congregations are integrated. In fact, I would go so far as to say that an undercurrent of racism permeates the evangelical churches in the South.
morcatknits

[oly]

59. Black Southern churches did most of the heavy lifting, of course.

Bible belters (white) for the most part, thought all was well under Jim Crow. Many would not support the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Many don't today. They could not see any bigotry in their own thinking -- much like today's fundies, who can't see bigotry in their thinking today -- regarding gays, women, blacks. Guys like Falwell and Robertson and Rove and Bush easily manipulate these folks and laugh their asses off at them after the bible babbling services.

[in_cog_ni_to]

10. We won the election.

Changing our positions on ANYTHING is NOT going to win an election as long as we have Electronic Voting Machines. We can be EXACTLY like the RWers and still lose. GET RID OF ELECTRONIC VOTING MACHINES if you want to win an election. I'll be damned if I am going to compromise MY position on ANYTHING for those RW religious zealots just so they can turn around and hack a voting machine in order to win. I refuse to do it.

[pagerbear]

24. This is not about changing position

It's about changing marketing strategy.

The liberal way is the way of compassion and love. Whether someone is religious or not, s/he has to understand that.

[democratreformed]

34. Exactly. I was thinking about that last. Our marketing strategy

was ineffective and did not work. Somehow, we didn't get it across that warmongering is not very ethical and does not fit into their "moral value" rhetoric.

[Paxdora]

49. But most people around the world already KNOW

that Jesus himself WAS a liberal, in all his words and deeds. The whackjob Evangelicals distort the Bible with all kinds of personal interpretations, preaching and teaching their followers "how" to interpret the parables and verses. Hell, they even change the translations of original words to turn them into completely different words.

The message, the MEME, that liberals ought to promote is the fact that the Bible SHOWS how liberal Jesus was. There are literally hundreds of stories and verses that prove it.

"Jesus Was a Liberal" makes a great bumper sticker or button. It's also a good sig line to use in certain situations.

[democratreformed]

50. I agree. We must get that message out. n/t

[JerseygirlCT]

12. Absolutely correct. nt

[H2O Man]

13. We will need a structured "religious left"

that is capable of helping young men get CO status when the draft begins. Why is this an important example? I think it shows one area where we can find a mutual respect amongst religious people on the left and on the right. Traditionally, even conservative republicans respect the religious beliefs of young, left-leaning COs.

We need to take this simple, common-sense example of a successful way to find common ground between our divided peoples, and build upon it. In my opinion, one of the most offensive behaviors of both the left and right is when people on either side insult and discredit the other side's religious views. That is a form of ignorant behavior that we can no longer afford.

We need to find common ground. We may not agree on certain lables or words, but we can still find common ground. One may use the word God, or Allah, or Jehovah, but share many of the same values. One may not believe in an "individual" God, but still believe in family values, clean water, and telling the truth. Common ground.

This country is not going to survive our focus on differences, and our constant creation of false divisions. We will either learn to live together as the human family, and do that very soon, or we will indeed die the lonely death of fools that people like King warned us of.

[JerseygirlCT]

16. Yes. nt

[mzmolly]

48. I totally agree!

Beautifully said.

[LTRS]

15. Oh please, the right has hijacked religion

And convinced people that hating liberals, blacks, gays, muslims, and the French is a Christian value.

And sorry, but this: "a religious Left would understand that many Americans who are on the Right actually share the same concern for a world based on love and generosity that underlies Left politics" is just complete and total bullshit.

In our dreams would that be true. But whoever wrote this obviously hasn't spent a second of time in the bible belt.

[JerseygirlCT]

17. Those people ARE there.

They're being led around by the nose by people in love with the power of their pulpits. But there are many, many sincere people who've simply been led to believe that they are representing their religious beliefs by buying the conservative agenda.

Are there a good number who are just plain happy to be given license to hate? Sure.

But there are also many others who need to be led away from this false religion. They can be.

[Rob H.]

18. I have a slight problem with this statement

Imagine if John Kerry had been able to counter George Bush by insisting that a serious religious person would never turn his back on the suffering of the poor, that the bible's injunction to love one's neighbor required us to provide health care for all, and that the New Testament's command to "turn the other cheek" should give us a predisposition against responding to violence with violence. (emphases added)

I know that people like me are in the minority, nation-wide, but I'm non-religious and I believe in all those things. For me, it comes down to doing good based on whether an action is good on its own merits, not based on what a book (written by, let's face it, fallible humans) tells me to do.

This is the same core issue I have with religious fundamentalists, namely that I know I can live an ethical, moral life without having to go to church or read the Bible. I'm willing to work to help Democrats and Liberal progressives, but--and I don't mean this in a hostile way, believe it or not--I get enough proselytizing from my fundie relatives, thank you very much.

[H2O Man]

19. That is simple:

Focus on sharing the same values. Do not focus on the things that divide. When people do that, it doesn't "change" them; rather, it allows those intent on converting them to one church or another to change.

[Rob H.]

23. Wise words, H2O Man

Thanks. :) I hadn't looked at it that way before.

[H2O Man]

55. Many of my good friends who are

"atheists" have stronger moral convictions than most people who identify themselves as "very religious." One of the things that has made the strongest impression on me is when they do not feel a need to point out what makes them distinct from the religious folks. They love their children just as much. They believe that telling the truth is just as important. They do not steal. They do not beat people up. But it's not because they believe there is a individual "God" keeping watch. It is their internal, core beliefs. (I happen to call that "God," just as I think Truth is God, clean water is God, and little children are God.)

Most Christian's concepts of God are merely an adult version of Santa Claus. They are not much more developed than that. If we are in the room with little children near the holiday season, and they are giddy with anticpation of getting FREE STUFF just for being good, we need not tell them we do not believe in Santa. It's better for all if we share in the joy of the holiday season, and are fully confident that as they mature, they will grow beyond the Santa worship.

[pagerbear]

28. This is not proselytizing

The writer is not suggesting that to live an ethical life means to be religious--rather, to claim to be religious should force one to live an ethical life.

[Rob H.]

39. I don't think I was being clear...

...and that's totally my fault. I didn't mean that the author was proselytizing. It would've been clearer had I said I'd be more comfortable working with an interfaith organization like the Fellowship of Reconciliation or maybe a congregation such as the Unitarian Universalists or the Religious Society of Friends (aka Quakers).

As for your reply, what can I say but another very wise response from a fellow DUer. No wonder I like it here so much. :)

[SeanQ]

30. I sympathize with your position, but but

we NEED to use language that resonates with a wider portion of the citezenry. We are ceeding votes to the republicans. Is it worth loosing 25% of the country to not make 10% a bit uncomfortable?!?! This is a seriouse problem with liberal organizations.

I certainly do agree that it is possible to live a moral and ethical life without the bible. And I don't feel comfortable with anyone who insists that you only can through the bible. But by making it OK for us to work with faith based communities (not just Christian), and to use religios works to illustrate our point, we can welcome back millions of people who believe substantially the same things we do. Let the GOP keep the fundies. Let's bring home the rest of the people of faith.

[Redbear]

33. Christians are being led to believe voting Democratic equals Voting Satan

When the opposite is true. That idea is what we have to attack and turn around.

I am sitting on the buckle of the Bible Belt and I know dozens of people who agree with 99% of what John Kerry says. However, they voted for Bush because they felt Bush was "christian."

[Native]

57. Exactly!

I'm in Florida and that is all I ever hear. Bush is a good Christian. When you mention that Kerry is Catholic (and therefore a Christian), they say, "what do you mean"? It is un fucking believable!

[msgadget]

52. I see your point

but it's as if, in that example, Kerry was fluent in a language only Bush was assumed to know. And, it'd be like calling George out, if you will, onto turf he thinks is his alone. After demonstrating this fluency my preference would be that he put the end the argument with secular, inclusive terms, however.

So, I guess our prime candidate needs to understand, respect and speak the languages of the far right and the far left.

[SeanQ]

20. This is definately a big part

I've mentioned this (along with other ideas) in a few threads recently. Actually a bunch, but I keep hitting spellcheck which has been crashing my browser since features were disabled. :(

[KittyWampus]

25. Rabbi Lerner Is One Of The Most Enlightened Human Beings

I've ever encountered.

[morcatknits]

36. There is one organization

www.Faithfulamerica.org

During the election, one of their goals was to demonstrate that all people of faith don't share the same opinions, and they represent many different religions and sects. Like most such groups, they seem to suffer from a shortage of funds.

The South can be won back, but it will have to be a longterm goal.
morcatknits

[Hamlette]

35. this paragraph struck me:

Yet to move in this direction, many Democrats would have to give up their attachment to a core belief: that those who voted for Bush are fundamentally stupid or evil. Its time they got over that elitist self-righteousness and developed strategies that could affirm their common humanity with those who voted for the Right. Teaching themselves to see the good in the rest of the American public would be a critical first step in liberals and progressives learning how to teach the rest of American society how to see that same goodness in the rest of the people on this planet.

Like it or not, the vast majority of Americans are religious. I know some at my work and a few of them I dearly adore. They are truly wonderful people but I'm sure they are against gay marriage and voted for Bush.

some here have talked about cutting all republicans out of their lives but I've been arguing for just the opposite. Hear me out. You should NOT discuss religion or politics with them but you should find some common ground. A guy in my office is interested in my hobby. I should offer to teach him how and give him what he needs to get set up. One shares my love of books, I should set up a book club with her, not just my liberal friends. One is a hiker. I'll keep looking for common ground with her. (I'm asportual.)

What we need to do is see each other as human beings not the characatures each side has created of the other. Next time when Rush says Femanazi one of them might think: "my friend is a feminist and a very decent human being." Eventually they turn off the TV.

There is a book called Bowling Alone. He says we are more polarized now because we don't have a "neutral" frame of reference for relating with each other. Before the 60s people had bowling leagues and bridge clubs. They came to know, and like, people outside of their political beliefs. (He also argued religion was a good place but my sense is churches are polarizing now. I could be wrong. Maybe some of you who believe in god should/could become active in a church if you are not already or in a church that is more right wing. It's asking too much of me. But I might think of joining with the Unitarians just so as to not be so marginalized and maybe through that group have some voice.)

Everyone should adopt a couple of republicans. NOT with the intention of converting them. With the intention of finding common ground OUTSIDE of religion and politics. If the subject of politics or religion comes up, set up the ground rules. Say, I'm too old and set in my ways to change. Let's make a pact to not talk politics or religion and just be friends.

Its gonna take a few more days before I stop waking up with this over powering sense of doom and depression. But I know it will get better. Then I'm gonna take on Mike and Robyn and Michelle. I'll keep you up to date.

[Patiod]

63. I've done more good in book club than lecturing people

I've introduced one or two good, readable, non-didactic books a year, like "Nickeled and Dimed to Death in America" or "A Hope in the Unseen", which stunned my silver-spoon republican girlfriends with their depiction of a life that they had never imagined.

I can't and don't talk politics with these folks (even though they love to goad me) but introducing them to concepts like the need for a safety net or the need for better public education can be done through the back door.

[Coyote_Bandit]

37. I Absolutely Agree

My comments from another thread:

It used to be that the Christian church here in the United States (broadly speaking) was responsible for leading many of our social and economic reforms. While I admire the willingness of the liberal church to accept and affirm all, I most definitely question the long-term preference for warm fuzzies over social and economic justice. The liberal church has largely chosen personal affirmation over social and political confrontation. Some might even suggest that personal affirmation has become more of an agenda in the liberal church than the more traditional issues of social and economic justice. Fundamentalists clearly have an agenda. Why do liberal Christians fail to directly confront that agenda? The word "christian" is now understood in our country to refer as much or more to fundamentalist political views than to faith. I simply do not understand why those who believe that Scripture calls for social and economic justice would allow that perception to go without challenge. There have been more intense arguments within christendom over sprinkling or dunking in baptism. Go figure. I live in JOklahoma, the Armpit of the Bible Belt. It is impossible to live here and not be acquainted with at least a few fundamentalists. Most of the sheeple are sincere and well-intentioned in their beliefs - unfortunately, the teachings of their clergy go largely unchallenged. To contend for the votes of the sheeple, I sincerely think that the "christian" agenda must be criticized from a basis of faith rather than reason. After all, their actions are faith driven. Do liberal Christians really not understand that? Just my opinion....

[taxismom]

42. My thoughts

exactly. I have been considering doing some church shopping in the next couple of weeks.
The church I attended while growing up is an option, but I'm going to spend a few Sundays cruising around the county hitting some different ones. See what they're talking about from the pulpits.
I remember the 60's, the liberation theology that came from the churches was one of the driving moral forces behind the anti-war movement.
"Blessed are the peacemakers"

[AspenRose]

40. Amen and amen

"Rightly angry at the way that some religious communities have been mired in authoritarianism, racism, sexism and homophobia, the liberal world has developed such a knee-jerk hostility to religion that it has both marginalized those many people on the Left who actually do have spiritual yearnings...."

Well-said.

[HoosierClarkie]

43. Agree 100%!!

[mzmolly]

45. Sojourners magazine had a similar commentary, though not as eloquent:

It is now key to remember that our vision - a progressive and prophetic vision of faith and politics - was not running in this election. John Kerry was, and he lost. Kerry did not strongly champion the poor as a religious issue and "moral value," or make the war in Iraq a clearly religious matter. In his debates with George Bush, Kerry should have challenged the war in Iraq as an unjust war, as many religious leaders did - including Evangelicals and Catholics. And John Kerry certainly did not advocate a consistent ethic of human life as we do - opposing all the ways that life is threatened in our violent world.

We didn't lose the election, John Kerry did, and the ways in which both his vision and the Democratic Party's are morally and politically incomplete should continue to be taken up by progressive people of faith.

http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=sojomail.display&issue=041103#3

I don't totally agree with the sentiments of the author above, but I do agree that we needed to approach this election more from a moral perspective (both calling * on his hypocricy and touching on the issues mentioned above.)

For the record I don't blame Kerry, he is an intellectual and approaches things from that perspective. No one forsaw what happened before it happened.

[jonnyblitz]

46. yes blur the line between religion and politics like the wingnuts do.

if you can't beat them, join them. have fun. I won't be around for that...

you are asking the wrong people to be "sensitive". It has always been hard for me to muster "sensitivy" while at the receiving end of the boot of chrisitianity" implanted firmly up my ss. "Cum-by-fucking-ya"

and not only that Rabbi Michael Lerner is a very ANNOYING person. I will never forget his "issue" with ANSWER at the beginning of the anti-War events:puke:

[Native]

58. Excellent Point.

[sangh0]

61. Like the way you blur the difference between

values and religion?

[oc2002]

47. ..this should not be the issue..

I am perplexed on this issue as well, as I am a Catholic and a liberal. I see no problem with being both; the only issue is abortion, which I am against personally, but do not see why my opinion should be a part of a political platform to be imposed on others that disagree.

Last I checked there was no anti-god clause in the Democratic platform, although there is one in the Constitution on the separation of church and state.

I therefore partly disagree with this letter

Tens of millions of Americans feel betrayed by a society that seems to place materialism and selfishness above moral values. They know that "looking out for number one" has become the common sense of our society, but they want a life that is about something more-a framework of meaning and purpose to their lives that would transcend the grasping and narcissism that surrounds them. Sure, they will admit that they have material needs, and that they worry about adequate health care, stability in employment, and enough money to give their kids a college education. But even more deeply they want their lives to have meaning-and they respond to candidates who seem to care about values and some sense of transcendent purpose.


Funny. The Christians I know are very, very trapped by materialism. Most of them are hypocrites and only go to church to redeem their own self worthlessness and ego’s.

Just because a minority of religious zealots are baited by propaganda and anti-gay, anti-abortion ballot initiatives to come out and vote Republican, does not make them more deeply spiritual.

That issue should of been neutralized by Kerry, and he failed to do it.


Yet liberals, trapped in a long-standing disdain for religion and tone-deaf to the spiritual needs that underlie the move to the Right, have been unable to engage these voters in a serious dialogue. Rightly angry at the way that some religious communities have been mired in authoritarianism, racism, sexism and homophobia, the liberal world has developed such a knee-jerk hostility to religion that it has both marginalized those many people on the Left who actually do have spiritual yearnings and simultaneously refused to acknowledge that many who move to the Right have legitimate complaints about the ethos of selfishness in American life.


So, should Democrats or Liberals start praying during meetings, have a stigmatic convulsions and pronounce miracles when they meet or something instead of addressing the affairs of government policies and social welfare instead?

This is lunacy and pandering to the religous right, we may as well throw in the towel and become Republicans. We should not throw our principles away to embrace the religous zeolots who preach the comming of christ and the end of days, which gives no importance to any other issue. Why care about unemployment, the poor, Iraq war, its will all be over as soon as christ comes anyway.

[Paxdora]

53. re: abortion

There is NOTHING in the Bible that mentions any particular stand on abortion - I looked very hard, as have thousands of othere - to prove that Jesus defended the "lives" of unborn foetuses (dang, I almost wrote "feces" there, as a deliberate Bushism.

If you know of one, please do enlighten me. Otherwise, I cannot understand why any religion would impose its own non-scriptural definitions of "living" or "life" or "alive" on any person outside of the faith.

[GreenPoet64]

56. Thank you for posting this article!

I agree wholeheartedly. The fundamental right wing proselytizes. It's a 24-7 year-round effort to convert others to their cause. Our best GOTV efforts can not stand up to a religious movement no matter how misguided that movement is.

I won't repeat my feelings about how dangerous and misguided Christian fundamentalism is. My story is here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2590164

[starroute]

62. Lerner is right to a degree but also terribly wrong

Lerner seems to think the Democrats have chosen to champion "materialistic" issues out of a fear of invoking religion, leaving the Republicans in undisputed possion of the spiritual battleground. And his remedy is for the Democrats to somehow attach the language of tradition religion to issues like helping the poor.

But as a non-believer, I see things very differently. To me, everything is myth -- and the "culture wars" are actually a war between two radically different spiritual systems.

Evolution is the most obvious key to the nature of this spiritual warfare. The real reason the fundies hate evolution is not because it undermines the truth of the Bible. The fact is that in the 19th century, most Christians had given up literal belief in the Bible, replacing it with a sort of vague non-dogmatic faith in God, the soul, and some kind of afterlife. It was only after the theory of evolution appeared that people who felt threatened by it fell back on the Bible as their only alternative.

And why is evolution so threatening? Evolution presents us with two overwhelming statements. One is that we humans are nothing special and have no privileged place in the universe or guarantee of cosmic favor. The other is that everything changes, everything we know is destined to be swept away and replaced by something more advanced, and that what we pride ourselves on today will be of no account tomorrow.

These statements are deeply spiritual. They or closely equivalent statements are at the heart of every genuine religion. But as the West rose to global domination in the 18th and 19th centuries, Western religion forgot these truths. It began to preach of a world in which human beings were the special children of God and present-day Western middle-class humans were the final and most perfect among those children. That false teaching is what the fundamentalists are trying to cling to.

The real spirituality of the progressive left is based on an evolutionary belief that if we aren't continually upgrading ourselves and our actions, we are (to use old-fashioned religious phraseology) turning away from God. On a belief that we who inhabit this cosmos are all God's children and no one of us is any more special and privileged than any other. On ecology and multiculturalism and tolerance of difference and support of the underprivileged. On judging people by their spiritual worth and not by their race or belief-system or sexual preferences.

Our spiritually is truer and deeper and realer than their self-favoring religiosity. And there is no reason that we should try to twist our spirituality into something that resembles their religiosity to make them feel more comfortable with it.

There may be some more spiritually open individuals on the right with whom we could open a meaningful dialog. But on the whole, this is a battle that has to be waged, and there is no way to paper it over. What I would like to see instead is Democrats starting to speak frankly in the language of this new spirituality instead of watering it down -- that would go a long way towards curing the reeking hypocricy of contemporary liberal politics.