religious left will only replicate the misdeeds of the religious right.

[dajoki]

NYT
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/02/opinion/02loconte.html?th&emc=th

Nearer, My God, to the G.O.P.

By JOSEPH LOCONTE
Published: January 2, 2006
Washington

NANCY PELOSI, the Democratic leader in the House, sounded like an Old Testament prophet recently when she denounced the Republican budget for its "injustice and immorality" and urged her colleagues to cast their no votes "as an act of worship" during this religious season.

<<snip>>

A look at the tactics and theology of the religious left, however, suggests that this is exactly what American politics does not need. If Democrats give religious progressives a stronger voice, they'll only replicate the misdeeds of the religious right.

For starters, we'll see more attempts to draw a direct line from the Bible to a political agenda. The Rev. Jim Wallis, a popular adviser to leading Democrats and an organizer of the Berkeley meeting, routinely engages in this kind of Bible-thumping. In his book "God's Politics," Mr. Wallis insists that his faith-based platform transcends partisan categories.

"We affirm God's vision of a good society offered to us by the prophet Isaiah," he writes. Yet Isaiah, an agent of divine judgment living in a theocratic state, conveniently affirms every spending scheme of the Democratic Party. This is no different than the fundamentalist impulse to cite the book of Leviticus to justify laws against homosexuality.

[madeline_con]

1. I see a difference.

If the "religious agenda" is about tolerance and true Christian beliefs, there would be no problem.

It's the hijacking of the teachings that basically say to love one another that has caused the trouble we're in where the RW "Christians" are concerned.

Fewer people would be intolerant of Christians if they only knew a few real ones. O8)

[RC]

2. There in is lies the problem

"Fewer people would be intolerant of Christians if they only knew a few real ones."
So may "real" Christians, so few follow Christ.

[Dongfang Hong]

62. No true Scotsman...

[dajoki]

4. if it is kept out of politics...

we don't need two political parties fighting over who the "real" Christians are.

[madeline_con]

6. Fair enough.

Maybe we need some Christians to advocate separation. ??

[dajoki]

8. i agree n/t

[Bridget Burke]

51. Some Christians already advocate separation of Church & State

From the United Methodists: The United Methodist Church has for many years supported the separation of church and state. In some parts of the world this separation has guaranteed the diversity of religious expressions and the freedom to worship God according to each person's conscience. Separation of church and state means no organic union of the two, but it does permit interaction. The state should not use its authority to promote particular religious beliefs (including atheism), nor should it require prayer or worship in the public schools, but it should leave students free to practice their own religious convictions.

We believe that the state should not attempt to control the church, nor should the church seek to dominate the state. The rightful and vital separation of church and state, which has served the cause of religious liberty, should not be misconstrued as the abolition of all religious expression from public life.

http://archives.umc.org/interior.asp?ptid=1&mid=6384

The United Methodists also favor social justice. And they were against invading Iraq. Supposedly, this is Bush's denomination. Perhaps the found the Methodist too "leftist"?

The Methodists remember when there was an Established Church. They didn't like it then & don't like it now. I doubt they are the only denomination to feel that way.

[TheFarseer]

60. yeah, that would be unbearable

Everyone fighting over who the real Christians are and no one acting in a "Christian" way.

[formernaderite]

35. Have you ever been in a black pentecostal church?

There's little tolerance....but they are democrats.

[Charlie Brown]

3. I disagree

So far, the progresive religious factions in this country appear to be supporting a better, more impartial society for all, regardless of creed or ideology.

If Laconte views that as no different from the religious right's condemnation of gays, then he has a serious lack of perspective.

There is nothing wrong or unconstitutional in deriving legislation from strongly held religious beliefs, if those beliefs demand a just, compassionate society.

[madeline_con]

9. But, as has been pointed out to me...

the definition of a just society is left up to the person espousing a particular brand of a certain belief set.

[Charlie Brown]

17. That is why we have a Bill of Rights

Religion can only be cited in legislation so long as it falls within the criteria for freedom embedded in the Constitution.

If a religious doctrine supports and nurtures the rights implanted by the Founders, it has a place at the table, just like Jefferson and Franklin utilized their deist beliefs.

Since all Christianity is essentially about helping those less fortunate and setting an example of charity (that's the way I learned it, at least), I see no problem with embracing this side of faith in politics.

[bluerum]

5. The bible is a source of religious inspiration. Using it for anything

else is a mistake. Those who have any interest in the bible and biblical research owe it to themselves to read "Misquoting Jesus" by the New Testament scholar Bert Ehrman.

The Bible has been copied, re-written, edited and changed many times over the centuries. Keep in mind that all copies of the Bible that existed before the printing press (about 1450) were created by hand by scribes who may or may not have had an agenda or been carrying out the agenda of others. Ehrman's book states that in many many cases existing biblical manuscripts are contradictory and differ from eachother quite substantially.

Basing a system of government on literature from sources that are uncertain and unverifiable is not a strategy that should be embraced.

[Charlie Brown]

25. MLK based most of his advocacy for social change on religious beliefs

If people of faith want to utilize government to help and relieve those less fortunate (many progressives fall into that camp), they should not be prohibitted from doing that. If people like Jimmy Carter or Al Sharpton, who see religion as a central part of their identities, are told they must leave their beliefs at the door, it would take something very special away from them. That goes for people of all religious beliefs: Hindu, Daoist, Mormon, etc. Without a heart and soul in the secular state, it will never reach its full potential to secure the blessings of liberty.

We do not have to sacrifice the social consciences of people of faith to support an impartial society as laid out in our Constitution.

[bluerum]

31. Spirituality and religion are not rational belief systems. Not that

there is anything inherently wrong with being spiritual or religious. My objection is in using such systems to form a basis for government or manipulating government. It leads to inflexibility and alienation. Non-believers are left outside the circle and are lesser beings or poor savages in need of reformation.

But here again, there needs to be a distinction between the rule of law in a secular state where religious beliefs are accepted as the norm, and a "secular state" where "my soul tells me so" is the basis of law. I am sure our current president can easily rationalize his behavior through his beliefs, as can many suicide bombers. This argument quickly degrades.

And yes, at some point you may need to leave your beliefs at the door and accept the fact that there may be good people who do not believe what you believe. This does not mean that you are abandoning your beliefs. But if a belief system does not allow for the possibility that it is not inviolate, not inerrant, and that it may not be right in some situations, then its not very forgiving and ultimately not very useful.

[UrbScotty]

7. There's a difference between living Christ's teachings...

...and shoving what you perceive to be 'Christian' values down people's throats.

[madeline_con]

10. Yes, but those who are presently doing a lot of shoving ...

truly believe they are living Christ's teachings. There's the rub...

[UrbScotty]

42. Yes, but just because THEY think they're right...

...doesn't mean many Christians agree with them.

[LittleClarkie]

11. I disagree

we cannot allow the right to "own" God. And I see the things that the Democrats stand for as being much more Christ-like than what the other side stands for.

I don't think it should be used politically, but neither should it be hidden.

[NativeTexan]

12. But the Religious Left.......

....has so many fewer leaders that want to bypass the Constitution, than the religious right does. I am from the political and religious middle, for the most part. I am a church/state separatist. I don't agree with much from EITHER extreme. But at least the religious "left" does live by the Christian belief of helping those who can least help themselves....and love thy neighbor, don't judge him by his wealth, politics, or sexual orientation.

Religion will always be a part of politics.....the main thing should be to keep it as small as possible, and hope that it leans toward people instead of primarily politicians.

[Cocoa]

13. what's Joseph Leconte's record on criticizing the Christian Right?

wild guess, here, he has a somewhat less than consistent record...

[Joe Chi Minh]

72. Bingo. He's transparent, isn't he?

[ladjf]

14. We shouldn't allow superstition from the left or the right to run

this country.

[dajoki]

16. we should not...

allow religion to run this country or any extreme set of beliefs for that matter, but i think superstition is the wrong word. by saying that you are belittling many people with strong beliefs.

[ladjf]

18. Any belief that was formed by purely subjective processes is

superstition. Religion is a 100% form of superstition. I chose my word carefully. The quickest road to annihilation for any species is to rely in subjective beliefs.

Just because people's religious beliefs are "strong" does not make them valid.

[dajoki]

26. whether valid or not...

the quickest way to alienate people is to discount their belief system as worthless. i agree it has no place in government, but we need as many people on our side as possible.

[ladjf]

27. I agree with your argument as it relates to the practicalities of

politics.

[Bridget Burke]

28. I only judge a belief system by the results.

Did Jesus exist? Did Krishna exist? Did Mohammad really say all those things? (We know he lived & wrote down the Koran; but his sayings are also part of Islam.) Who knows?

How do members of various religions express their beliefs in public? By trying to live as Jesus recommended? Or by trying to force the whole country into a twisted version of the Old Testament?

(I'll give extra points to any religion that produces good art.)

[dajoki]

38. Catholic...

DaVinci, Michaelangelo, etc.

[ladjf]

44. I support any system that generally enhances quality of life over the

long term.

[Douglas Carpenter]

19. Religious left people are not theocratic extremist

that is a major difference.

The simple fact is (and I say this as a nonreligious person) it is a mathematical impossibility to build a progressive majority without the help of lots and lots of religious people. It simply cannot be done.

Do we eject the American Friends Service Committee from the progressive movement?

[ladjf]

23. The political reality of your statement is true. I regret that it is.

Religious dogma does not produce good government.

[rman]

36. But true (religious) compassion might well produce good government

If the religious Right gets its way, the law of their wrathful god would be the law of the land.

For the religious Left otoh, their faith is merely the inspiration for their compassion and sense of justice. They want laws that are compassionate and just - as opposed to wanting to have the law of god be the law of the land.

Also the religious Left tends to be progressive, and progressiveness doesn't go well together with dogma of any kind.

[Douglas Carpenter]

68. absolutist dogma does not produce good government

Stalin, Mao and Hoxa (Albania) all stamped out religion. They were all absolutist atheist. They did not produce very good government either.

[rman]

34. Depends how that superstition is used to run the country.

In spite of the article i somehow am getting the impression that the religious left and the religious right don't want the same things for the country.

Not being religious myself, i think it is excellent that people are reminded of that other interpretation of the bible; that people are reminded of the compassionate god/jesus - in contrast to the hateful and vengeful god/jesus.

[Hyernel]

15. If christian nutjobs ever get any influence in the Democratic Party...

...I'll never vote Dem again.

Our goal should be to secularize through education. NOT to adopt the same ignorant fucking brain disease that the GOP is using to control the voting morons in this country.

Reality...not fantasy.

[rman]

37. Are you aware of the differences between the religious Right and - Left?

Or do you think all religious people are equally nuts?

[Hyernel]

39. If you believe in a medieval supernatural cloud being...

...you are a nutjob....in this day and age. And prone to de-evolve into the same fundimentalism as the religious right.

[rman]

45. Does it not depend on how one acts on the belief?

Should we not judge people by the fruit of their labor, rather then by anything else?

[Douglas Carpenter]

47. then 94% of Americans are nutjobs????

Published: December 13, 2005 12:15 PM ET

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001659292

"NEW YORK A new Gallup survey released today finds that four decades after the "God Is Dead" controversy was first noted, Americans retain a strong belief in a higher power. Some 94% think God exists.

Only 5% feel God "does not exist" -- and even most of them "are not sure" of that. Exactly 1% are certain there is no God.

But how strongly do the believers believe? Nearly 8 in 10, in fact, say they are "convinced" God exists, although Gallup does not ask them why that is."

[Hyernel]

48. Yes...Apparently 94% of Americans are intellectual cowards...

...when it comes to superstition.

Which is sad. Because it doesn't have to be that way.

[dajoki]

54. what does that mean?

it's your way or no way?

[QC]

75. Sounds a lot like Falwell, doesn't he? n/t

[Hyernel]

78. Hey , hey, HEY!!

Let's not hit below the belt.

:)

[Bluerthanblue]

80. may god, or whatever name you want to put there save this world

from 'intellectuals'- be they cowards or otherwise.

Using your intellect alone- leaving out any other influence be that emotion, morals, experience, character you name it, is being ruled by a robot-

F...k that- count me OUT.

Human beings are FAR more complicated,and beautiful than intellect alone.

THAT would be sad- sadder than anything you could possibly come up with using 'intellect'- but no less a hell.

Intellect is cold, unfeeling- unimaginative- rigid- empty- inhuman.
Dreamers are those who step outside the KNOWN- and wonder about the unknown.

Intellect says the bumble bee should not be capable of flight.

[BoneDaddy]

56. atheistic elitism?

The funny thing is that I think the religious right wing nut jobs have more in common with the rabid ultra rationalist atheists than they do with left wing religious. Each side dismisses the other as nonsense without ever entering into dialogue. The religious see a godless heathen and the atheist sees an ignorant fool who believes in superstition.

I am wary of anyone who is so "clear" of what the truth is and I think many atheists on this board seem as absolutely certain of what is as the religious right fundies.

The danger isn't the content, the danger is the surety and certainty of the answers being given.

And all of this adherence to science as being the absolute. Tell that to the newtonian physicists who were devastated by Einstein's revelations. Science is an unfolding mystery. As we continue on this exciting course of human consciousness and evolution, our concepts will become obsolete and will need to be replaced in both religion and science.

Like the two sides of our brain, human functioning depends upon both the abstract/symbolic and the rational/logical. We lose who we are when we exercise only half of our brain ability. Let's not be so foolish to think one aspect of our humanity much more valuable or important than the other.

[peacebaby3]

70. WOW!!! One of the best posts I have ever read on DU!!! I agree with you

100%!!!!

The two extreme sides of this issue are destroying our country.

They will both lose in the end.

Thanks for such a great post and hello! :hi: I haven't seen any of your posts before.

[BoneDaddy]

76. Thanks

Thanks for the support!!

[dajoki]

40. i agree with you...

however any extreme is not good.

[rman]

46. How is the religious left extreme?

I'd say it is not.

[Hyernel]

49. It's not that the "religious left" is extreme...

...but the mechanism (belief in a non-existant deity) is there just waiting for some clever manipulator to steer them towards corrupt ends, whether it's the lust for political power (what the GOP has done) or the lust for money (what so many asinine evangelical preachers have done.

Once you have demonstrated your willingness to reject reality in favor of a fantasy...for whatever reason...you become a tool for one type of evil, or another.

The Left should be dedicated to building a society based on what actually is -- not what one wishes was. Reason....not the mind slavery of Religion.

[rman]

50. I'm not so sure religious folks are more prone to corruption

then non-religious folks.
Do you have any evidence that the religious left is corrupt, or that they are prone to corruption, or that they are or could become a tool for evil?

[The Straight Story]

69. You mean like math and science?

How long did it take to prove fermat correct? No one could but mathematicians believed he was - and how about prime numbers? They still have not proven Riemann's theory but -believe- it to be true and base other things off that belief.

To some religion is the same way - you believe and seek out your own proof, and hedge your bets you are correct.

Yes we are evolving creatures - in our intellects and search for answers. We don't have em and to simply dismiss something because you don't believe it is in a sense a sort of belief. You believe data points in one direction, other people in other directions.

But then too politics and philosophy are just made up ideas by people, they lack a central figure but still change and evolve over time (as has religion, there is a diversity of it from various sects to totally different beliefs).

One wonders if atheists are so much more commone sense and smarter why ain't they running the world ;)

[dajoki]

53. i wasn't necessarily...

referring to the "religious left", as much as any extreme.

[rman]

55. So your remark does not necessarily bear any relevancy to this discussion

about whether or not the religious Left is as bad as the religious Right?

I mean this remark by you: "any extreme is not good."

And why are you being ambiguous about it? "not necessarily" is like "maybe, maybe not" - i mean can't you make up your mind about it?

[dajoki]

58. any extreme...

including religious left. what i mean by not necessarily is not only. i should have made myself clearer. and you should take a chill pill and cool down.

[rman]

59. But it's a hypothetical (non-existent) extreme religious left?

Is that why you say you don't necessarily mean that the religious left is in fact extreme?

[dajoki]

61. if, in fact...

it is hypothetical it may not even exist, so in that case something that doesn't exist cannot be extreme.

[rman]

63. Do you or do you not think the religious left is extreme?

[dajoki]

64. i don't even know if there is a "religious left"...

that is why i started this thread, because i never heard of it and i wanted other DUers opinions. i have not yet formed my own, that's where the not necessiraly comes in.

[rman]

66. See the link in my sig

and this one:
"Faith and progressive policy"
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=86591

Progressive Religious Links
http://www.opencirclechurch.com/links.htm

google:
http://www.google.nl/search?q=progressive+religious

[dajoki]

67. thank you very much...

i bookmarked it and will study it.:hi:

[Douglas Carpenter]

20. I certainly hope all progressive people of faith always feel welcome

here on DU, the progressive movement and the Democratic Party.

Imagine a progressive history without Martin Luther King Jr.

And I say this a very secular person.

[Lerkfish]

22. As long as people like you are here, we do.

but there are many kinds of people in this party, because it is a big tent, I think its a bit common for those who feel strongly against religion to mistake their personal convictions as de facto automatic indictments of people of faith.

[Douglas Carpenter]

24. I have my problems with certain religious elements too

I grew up in a fundamentalist family and frankly some of it was very damaging. But there are religious people--strengthened and motivated by religious faith--who have given their whole lives for social justice.

The abolition movement, the civil rights movement, the peace movement --none of these would have gotten off the ground without the help of lots and lots of people who were strengthened and to a large extent motivated by faith. It may not be my thing. But I welcome any influence that works for a more just and peaceful world.

[Lerkfish]

21. here's the dilemna, as I see it: progressive christians believe in the

separation of church and state, but in protecting the rights of individuals and the welfare of the downtrodden. Ultimately, as the state (republican state as it is now) continues to erode protections previously taken for granted for those unable to care for themselves or too powerless to defend their personal rights, the conviction of the christian runs counter to that separation.
Whereas the religious right have no problem with attempting to take over the govt. to achieve their own myopic utopia, a progressive christian is highly relunctant to be vigilantees.
If you believe in compassion, and equality and tolerance, eventually a state that abuses its own citizens in those regards will force you into some sort of stand, one way or another.
Personally, my preference is maintain a strict church/state separation, even to the point of not mentioning the religious beliefs of candidates, for to me, it shouldn't matter. However, the religious right have forced this awareness upon us in their pogrom to control politics so much so that it would be unwise to allow it to continue unchecked.

But how to do that?

Many chide the progressive christians that they must "make a stand" against the religious right, as if they would listen to us...
but if we DO "make a stand", it puts us into a prickly conundrum regarding our strongly held views that no one should be coerced by the beliefs of another.

[Ladyhawk]

65. That was well-put.

I'm going to add that into my personal thoughts on this issue. The reason many on the religious left don't say anything is that they are reluctant to shove their beliefs down others' throats. I am an atheist. The severe fundamentalist brainwashing I received as a child has made me reluctant to force my beliefs on others, as well.

Most of me is convinced that it's impossible to change others anyway and that my responsibility is to change myself and live my beliefs to the best of my ability. :shrug:

The left--religious and non-religious--are reluctant to force their ways on others; therefore, those who have no scruples are the ones with the loudest voices. What a quandary. :(

[Bridget Burke]

29. Joseph Loconte is a Fellow of the Heritage Foundation

Mr. Loconte previously served as deputy editor of Policy Review, where he wrote widely about religion and politics. He is especially interested in new models for church-state partnerships, efforts to protect religious liberty at home and abroad, international human rights, just war theory, and the relationship of Islam to democratic freedoms.

www.heritage.org/About/Staff/JoeLoconte.cfm

He's already railed against the "Christian Left" in the Wall Street Journal.

First, they're composed mostly of mainline clergy and church elites who are often culturally out of step with the rank and file. They're leaders with no obvious grass-roots constituency. Second, they treat traditional religion with either suspicion or outright contempt. Believers who raise concerns about complex social matters--such as embryonic cloning or the role of condoms in fighting AIDS--are dismissed as crazed theocrats. Third, religious progressives are often allied with left-wing partisans such as financier George Soros, MoveOn.org and Pax Christi, all of which loathe the Christian Right as much as radical Islam.

www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110006897

On CNN, he explains what's wrong with the evolutionists.

I think there are at least three things that the evolutionists are arguing that are deeply mistaken. They forget that the people who gave birth to modern science were people of deep religious commitment, Christian commitment. So when they looked into nature, they saw evidence for design and they gave birth to modern science to begin with. That's the first point that the evolutionists forget. They owe their very profession, really, to people of faith commitments.

In one sense, this is nothing new that people with faith commitment are introducing an alternative scientific theory to the origins of life. The second point is that I think what we're seeing here is a kind of puritanical approach to science in the sense that the high priests of evolution, they want to burn at the stake anybody -- any scientist who dissent from their Darwinian dogma, so there is no room for dissent within the scientific community.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0209/29/sm.16.html

I take many writers with a grain of salt. Until the Biblical archaeologists dig up the remains of Lot's Wife--there ain't enough salt to deal with this bozo.

[QC]

74. Good catch! n/t

[Blue_Tires]

79. wow...my brain stopped working after reading that one

"I think there are at least three things that the evolutionists are arguing that are deeply mistaken. They forget that the people who gave birth to modern science were people of deep religious commitment, Christian commitment. So when they looked into nature, they saw evidence for design and they gave birth to modern science to begin with. That's the first point that the evolutionists forget. They owe their very profession, really, to people of faith commitments."


Because as we all know, NO NON-CHRISTIAN EVER MADE A WORTHWHILE SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY!
:sarcasm:

[Jeffersons Ghost]

30. Good for her...

Comments like hers are the only thing that will sway the majority of voters in America. Do you want more of the same thing we've suffered through for years from the next (R) dictator?

[rman]

32. Sure, dwell on superficial similarities between the methods

The author of the article seems to be pretending there's no difference between the agenda's of the religious Right and the religious Left. In fact he seems to think the agendas and the results are irrelevant.

[TayTay]

33. Heritage Foundation guy, no wonder he's afraid

The Democratic Party has a long history of enlisting religious morality in it's fight to bring fairness to the workplace, care for the environment and ensure the equality before the law of all people. (See just about anything said by Dr. ML King.)

This guy wants to pre-empt the Dems from re-claiming it's own heritage by saying that it is wrong to link theology with government. That's the wrong idea. The right idea is to state when morality learned at a church or synagogue or temple should enter the public sphere as part of the whole voter.

No wonder they want to cut this off before it can become a potent force. I don't think it will work.

[Joe Chi Minh]

73. Spot on.

[txaslftist]

41. Everything I've read in the four gospels impels me be a Democrat.

Take the gospels out of my history, and I'd be a very different person. Christ talks about Republicans, when he says, "And He spake this parable UNTO CERTAIN WHICH TRUSTED IN THEMSELVES THAT THEY WERE RIGHTEOUS, AND DESPISED OTHERS (if he's not talking about the fundie right-wingers there, who is he talking about?): Two men went up into the Temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this Publican. I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all I possess. And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes untion heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me, a sinner. I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted." -Luke 18; 9-14; KJV

I'm a public defender, and my clients are poor people and criminals. Christ came to help and savel the poor and the sinners. If I was not a Christian, I would probably not do the work I do; because it is by Christ's example that I work for the people I serve. If Christ had not washed his disciples' feet, giving the example of service, I would probably not know what service really means.

I've got nothing against non-believers, but if I weren't a Christian, I probably wouldn't be a Democrat. Everything Christ said is Democratic Party stuff. He stood for tolerance, forgiveness, understanding and love. Now the apostle Paul I've got a few problems with...

Be that as it may, the practical reality is that we need believers to advance a progressive agenda; Christ would have supported a progressive agenda, and this writer is a known Republican hit man.

Should anything he says really be taken seriously?

[GreenPartyVoter]

43. Baloney. When we draw from the Bible like that it's to get the Moral

Majority to hear us, not to knock down the wall between church and state.

Besides which, that which is best in the Bible is best in all morality.. feed the poor, be kind to others.. these are universal truths, not Xn ones.

[AlabamaYankee]

52. Read Slacktivist's take on Loconte

Basically, he's a sloppy partisan hack http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/2006/01/joe_loconte_doe.html

Actually Slacktivist is a "must read" for everyone who has an interest in following the religious right. And his every Friday chapter-by-chapter smackdown of "Left Behind" is priceless.

[Douglas Carpenter]

57. some people are simply not serious about building a progressive majority

In a society where 94% of the population believes in God/80% are certain and only 1% are convinced atheist it is ludicrous to imagine that a progressive majority can be built without the support of lots and lots of religious people. See Gallup poll:http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001659292

Furthermore, many of the largest Religious Left groups are decidedly on the progressive/left end of the political spectrum. This is the reality.
Religion may not be my thing. But that's besides the point. The abolition movement, the civil rights movement, the peace movement and almost every other movement for social change in American history could never ever have gotten off the ground without their help:

Again I hope that progressive religious people always feel welcome here on DU. the progressive movement and the Democratic Party

Websites:

Sojourners Movement:

http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm

The Christian Alliance:

http://www.christianalliance.org

The American Friends Service Committee

http://www.afsc.org/

The Catholic Workers Movement:

http://www.catholicworker.com/

[Joe Chi Minh]

71. But the Democrats' "spending schemes" are for the benefit of

the American people, at large; the Republicans and their putatively Christian religious right spend the public's tax dollars like a drunken sailor on their own private social-welfare schemes for the rich.

[alarimer]

77. We do not need more religion in politics

that's for sure. From any side. Anyone who does it is just pandering to the religious flavor of the month.

[ulysses]

81. hooey.