There is a large movement in the Democratic Party to put on a religious sack cloth in order to fight the religious right. It is wrong, misguided and will yield the wrong result even if successful. More significantly, some, namely Rabbi Michael Lerner, Jim Wallis and others are walking around telling us why we need them and why we should surrender our skepticism of religion as a way to create a social movement. Our current problems have more causes in religion than solutions. They have more to do with whether we can restrain our greed, fear and superstitions and proceed rationally to educate our children and ourselves in time to keep from destroying ourselves and most of the life on the planet, things that most religions insist on clinging to.
First of all in the interest of full disclosure, let me clarify my own beliefs, so that the religious people out there will know exactly my personal bias. I believe in some higher consciousness, basically because if I have consciousness with less energy than it takes to light a 15 watt light bulb, a universe made of pure energy probably has some kind of consciousness. Quantum physics basically supports that idea that we may create our own reality, string theory suggests 21 dimensions, and relativity that time and space are but illusions. But while that still leaves me room to believe in a higher consciousness I also believe that if there is a universal consciousness, it probably thinks about mankind and my fate about as much as I think about individual atoms and subatomic parts in my own body.
I believe that we do not fully understand our universe, (a scientific position) and that as we continue to learn more, than we will revise our understanding of ourselves and our universe as we go. I also believe that moral certainty is more a cause than a cure for conflict. To the contrary, the biggest problem for mankind is the inability to integrate new objective information that conflicts with long held religious, political and financial structures already in place into the public decision making process. With the environment, birth control, economic policy being prime examples of the lack of organized religion’s efforts to able to be a leader in the changes necessary for the survival of the human race.
Now, the “Progressive Spiritual Left”, as the like to call themselves, has embarked on a mission to convince us that we need to be more open to them and embrace their message as the path to winning back the country. Whether this is an attempt to make themselves more relevant, boost aging congregations or become more responsible is immaterial. They are not the leaders here. They hold no moral ground which to the rest of left should or need to concede.
Why do many on the left not embrace the teachings of progressive Christians and partner with the progressive churches? Is it arrogance, is it generalized rejection of authority, or is it as Lerner recently posits in a Nation article, “Bringing God Into It”, an investment in what he calls scientism. Lerner says that right and wrong, love, ethics, beauty or why my life is important “are dismissed by the scientistic world view as inherently unknowable and hence meaningless.” He attempts to separate science from those who rely on empirical thought as having a “belief system that has no more scientific foundation than any other belief system.” In other words all theories are equally valid. This is not only misleading and incorrect it is the same argument advanced by the creationists.
Research in the areas of evolution, psychology, anthropology, biology have added hugely to our understanding of what creates feelings of love, beauty, and other things he views as unknowable. Much of this information is well known but not well distributed and accepted because of the conflicts it has with traditional belief systems, not fertile ground for politicians or capitalists to promote. Ethics, right and wrong are well understood constructs of balancing individual and group needs that have evolved to serve the survival needs of group coherency and stability, a whole body of information that is readily avoided in public discussion by mainstream media. As a result accepted practice has fallen behind technological change and discussions of what needs to take place now are drowned out instead by defenses of the deeply embedded irrelevant norms of yesterday.
One could make the case that religion split with science as it began to lose more and more ground to science or to avoid acceptance of inconvenient and uncomfortable scientific findings that lacked the anthropocentrisms of religion. Somewhat like a vestigial tail on humans that is of no use but we still carry around. The difference is that our vestigial tail does not fight to prevent its own eventual disappearance.
Science eventually took its own path, trade and war became the purview of the state, superstition the domain of religion with all three still fighting for control of social norms. Much of today’s cultural battlefield is between reason on one side and fear and superstition on the other. An unwillingness to examine the fears and superstitions central to the maintenance of organized religion by those institutions does not bode well for a long term relationship.
Most of us “secularists” personally reject things the “progressive spiritual left” think we should be comfortable with in politics including public prayer, acknowledgement of a god or at least an anthropomorphic god, the divinity of Jesus and various public religious rituals. The bible is a mix of mythology, history, poetry, parables, social message, and altered state delusional ramblings. Some is helpful advice, some interesting reading and some downright crazy ranting. The evolution of the Christian church in most cases reflects this schizophrenic divergence. Let’s face it while most churches claim an uplifting mission they are anthropomorphic, hierarchical, paternalistic, homophobic, misogynistic, xenophobic, and repressive psychologically, socially and culturally. The problem is that many of us do not want to offer our tacit approval of such things through any kind of participation in its public display. We don’t care if you do it, just don’t impose it on the rest of us. Call it a values thing.
While I believe in the historical Jesus, objective historical study does not support Jesus as son of god, god incarnate, born of a virgin, resurrected, miracle doer, or as a matter of fact almost any literal interpretation of the bible. What I don’t understand is why Jesus isn’t a more compelling moral figure as a man. As a perceptive individual who advanced no theology, hierarchal church, dogma or orthodoxy but had a clear social and economic agenda that is well documented in at least the Sermon on the Mount and many of the parables which there is great agreement about their origin. To me the human Jesus, puts us all on the hook, as does Gandhi to have the moral courage to stand up for what is right. Beliefs he was willing to die for and the recognition that those beliefs could survive death. And guess what, many other people have come to what is right for them and their own, through reason without the assistance of a church, in fact many times in spite of it.
Heaven and hell are other concepts that there is no support for which have been invented by churches as a means of control over the human mind and to get people to accept misery here on earth while the church sold them out to economic and political forces to preserve their own institutional interests. The end days prophecies of current popularity, primarily invented by a couple of nut cases in the 1800’s cause many people to assume that they are inevitable and are not caused and or solvable by man kind, a disastrous self-fulfilling prophecy. Where are the religious voices that loudly decry these dangerous superstitions in the “Spiritual Left”.
While Lerner and others love to point to Martin Luther King, Jr., Gandhi (not particularly religious), and Tutu as examples of religious leadership, they fail to mention that often, the organized hierarchies of their own denominations were against their actions. Far more often religious institutions have been the problem when they held power and when power moved to political-economic entities, organized religions were more than willing to compromise their values and ignore abuses of the people in order to maintain their institutional survival. While the crusades, the inquisition, the excommunication of Galileo are supposedly things of the past, the vast desertion and in many cases outright opposition to progressive solutions by religious institutions on issues such overpopulation, AIDS, catastrophic environmental policies, war, poverty, exploitation and injustice speaks loudly to their lack of relevance to progress.
Churches were once the center of communities both in rural areas and in ethnically driven urban neighborhoods, but they have been become unmoored from broad representation of community interests by technology and mobility like other community institutions. Instead they now represent narrow ranges of political, economic, social, world views and superstitions that only welcome those that agree with them. It is market compartmentalization which is in direct conflict with the kind of pluralism and inclusiveness the left must have to succeed. The attraction of most churches today is the social atmosphere and sense of identifiable community they provide, which if done on a neighborhood/community basis would create more diverse interests that would be able to expand collective political and economic power much more efficiently.
Lerner’s use of Stalinism to demonize the left’s anti-theism is no more credible than the right’s use of Stalinism to discredit socialism. The Orthodox Church’s collaboration with the repressive policies of Czarist Russia were the cause of religious rejection there, and any student of the left can tell you socialism died in Russia the day Lenin dissolved the direct democratic control of the soviets and gave power to the Bolshevik central committee. This was not new behavior, there probably is no greater example of ethical sell out in history than the Machiavellian beginnings of the formal Christian church which combined spiritual belief and secular power by Constantine’s adoption of Christianity, the deification of Christ and the following slaughter of all those who disagreed. Throughout most of history organized religion fought on the side of the rich elites and powerful politics against populists movements because they were seen as a threat to their power base. Even today we see it with the present pope, who declares liberation theology, a heresy.
He further shows his lack of understanding of many religious rejectionists by stating “The idea that people are only motivated by material self-interest became the basis for a significant part of what we now call the political left, or labor movement, and the Democratic Party.” This shows a surprising lack of knowledge of leftist history. The history of the left from the Peoples Party, the Wobblies, the suffragettes, birth control advocates, Socialists, and labor unions have always promoted human dignity, inclusion, social interaction, community cooperation, education, healthcare, and the good of the whole without requirement to believe in any superstition.
The leftist movements of the last two hundred years have always fought to bring back the community and home centered focus of cooperative living. The kind of direct democracy and discussion that probably existed in our ancient past before the evolution of transferable individual owned capital that has splintered our social bonds into a false sense of independent individuality unbalanced by a loyalty to a common good. The substitute is the dogma and legalities of church and state. Religion evolved as a combination of pre literate customs (much of it early practical science about agricultural, astronomy, meteorology, social structure) and superstitions about what they did not understand.
‘What I will not do, and what I urge my friends in liberal and progressive movements not to do, is attribute evil motives to those on the Religious Right or to view them as cynical manipulators solely interested in power and self-aggrandizement. The Religious Right certainly has its share of power mongers and hypocrites. But the vast majority of those involved are people who are driven by principles and who want what is best for the world. We can strongly disagree with those principles, as I do, and we can argue, as I will, that they lead in a very dangerous direction, one that would actually increase the pain and suffering of humanity. But I do not doubt the sincerity or basic goodness of most of those who are involved.’
Rabbie Lerner ( from the excerpt above)
Nice folks are those Religious Right, huh? Their principles are bad but they are good. What a logic! God has both hands and if one hand wants to do masturbation or some other bad things the left hand should not prick it with a needle but rather caress back to the vibrator. There the both hands can do it with mutual respect.
I remember explaining to my child the book ‘To Kill a Mockingbird’. They all read it here. But what is it really about? It is about Death. Tom Robinson died. Mr. Jewell died.
Boo Radley killed a man and that is also Death. Jem would think that he was a murderer and that is Death of the spirit. Death possessed the small Alabama town and the ‘good people’ did not even pray for those dead. Life goes on. Or maybe Death goes on?
We are haunted by Death. Since the Y2001 there were at least 6000 our people killed ( those 9/11 included), 18000 or so wounded severely and will never fully recover. We have killed at least 100000 or more foreign civilians and the killing goes on.
It goes on every day. Seven people who died in ‘cartoon riots’ are the last to die.
People who drew those cartoons were ‘good people’. They did not mean anything.
They did not mean anything and people died. People DIED!
We have to feel the basic goodness of those Religious Right. Rabbie Lerner tells us.
Maybe we should ask them why is that in their goodness they are OK with so much Death? Maybe they should explain to us why is that they call themselves pro-life while they supported and continue to support a vampire and his institutions? Maybe we should ask them what Life is worth saving and what Life is not? Maybe before we decide that they are good we should ask them to prove that ‘goodness’ to us?
You know, folks, it is impossible to gain understanding with someone if you are considered guilty of something beforehand and that person is ‘good by definition’. It is a hopeless endeavor. You can kill yourself trying.
I have a big problem with Rabbie Lerner and people like him. He surely means good. But his desire to do good surrenders you to the enemy. And if he thinks that if they win they would empathize with him and his inner goodness, he is gravely mistaken. If only those good folks get their hands on him, they would get rid of him in a blink of an eye.
Death is their partner and they are not the Right Hand of God anymore. God had gone away. They scared Him. They are the right hand of Satan.
There is as much basic goodness in the Religious Right as in the horse’s ass. But neither are the people who call themselves Progressives ‘good’ either. The difference is very slim. In this country we do not fight for goodness or badness. We are fighting for survival, for the lives of our kids, all kids, even the ones who belong to all those weird Robertsons and Fallwells. We are really PRO-LIFE! They are really PRO-DEATH.
The country is sick and the first thing to do is to show it its face in the mirror. An ugly face, a bloody face, a no- good bastard face. That is the tough love our folks among Religious Right prefer. It is time to take a bitter medicine.
No, I do not think we should follow the Rabbie Lerner’s advice. We better make sure that those folks understand we mean business and that we will fight. Americans respect the fighting spirit. And in the fight you do not care if your adversary gets some bloody nose or feels bad. Their self- esteem is not our problem. Ours is.
by
Mark Sashine (44 articles, 19 quicklinks, 228 diaries, 3265 comments)
on Wednesday, April 19, 2006 at 1:21:22 PM
Has left turned into a bunch of self-righteous baboons
Since when does being left mean being secular? Has the left, become so narrow minded that it can’t accept anyone with a different belief? Isn’t rejection of people with religious beliefs analogous to rejection of religious liberty? What are they afraid of? Why are they being so exclusive? How is this “us versus them” attitude benefiting them?
I happen to be a secular progressive. However, I am appreciative and respectful of the religious diversity of my friends (although I don’t agree or understand them), some of whom are also progressive. I think that excluding their perspective, simply because they believe in something that I don’t, would be a very big loss. Also, I know that I feel insulted anytime someone rejects me because of my belief system. Why would I do that to others?
It’s important to realize that tolerating people with different religious beliefs is not the same as agreeing with them. Their values come from what they call religion, mine come from what I call reason and compassion. A good deal of the time, we agree on what is ethical. On things we disagree, it’s usually not religion based. It’s important to keep in mind that these are not the religious right.
Just remember it is the challenge of diversity that will make us strong. Sitting around and agreeing with those who believe exactly as we do is a downhill slop towards irrelevance.
John Kelly sounds just like Rush Limbaugh: arrogant, divisive, and obnoxious. He doesn’t represent the secularists.
by
Armineh Noravian (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments)
on Wednesday, April 19, 2006 at 3:59:17 PM
Actually there is nothing arrogant at all in John Kelly's article. On the contrary if you read the quote from Rabbie Lerner's book I quoted in my comment, you will see that he directly specifies Religioud Right as some kind of the group of virgins who are pure as snow down below. And we all know that is not true. Now, I do not think there is such thing as secularists either. Too many definitions. What is true is true: Mr. Lerner undermines the movement instead of helping it. And he knows very well what he is doing. He knows that truly religious people are very rare in this country while pseudoreligious are in abundance. He works for them. Now, there is only one way for the people to work together- that is to be equal and have the same goal. The latter one takes place more frequently than the former one. Rabbie Lerner for sure thinks that non- religious people lack morality even compared to Religious Right. Crap. No one owes anyone anything. We are all the same. And if ' religious' are on the wrong side - to Hell with them. And whoever is on our side- let him believe in anything, even the Devil himself.
That is the real point: we are fighting for survival. And after the victory everyone will be able to chooose his path in the Land Of The Free. That is when we are free.
by
Mark Sashine (44 articles, 19 quicklinks, 228 diaries, 3265 comments)
on Wednesday, April 19, 2006 at 7:54:39 PM
response to armineh
Armineh, please read Lerners article and mine again, Lerner discounts scientific fact as no more real than religious belief, suggests that values are dependent on religion, ignores the history of religions (non fundamentalists ones too) collusion with power, suggest the left needs the spiritual leadership of him and other "spiritual progressives". I welcome them to the movement as I said in my article, I just dont think we should adopt the spirituality in order to have credibility which is what he is suggesting. That leaves us with a choice of which theocracy we want to govern. And by the way rush isnt anywhere near as rational as I am.
by (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments)
on Friday, April 21, 2006 at 10:49:53 PM
