Well said. In the African-American community religion continues to play a major role in daily life. I well remember that during Katrina black churches organized to send relief packages to the area. I also remember that Jesse Jackson (much hated by many citizens) was able to get buses into NOLA and rescue stranded college students from a bridge.
The Black church's response to AIDs was slow, but now in many communities churches are doing much more to provide aid and comfort than the oh so caring secular AIDS organizations. These local churches also provide food, clothing, and financial aid to the poor. Churches are also a lynchpin in national communication about issues affected the Black community. Everything from ongoing aid to Katrina survivors dispersed around the country to the neglected case of Latosha Norman a missing Black woman who was not important enough to rise to the level of notice in the secular or MSM world is paid attention to by Black churches across the country.
Despite a deep faith-based community, Blacks vote for candidates who support Gay rights, stem cell research, etc in overwhelming numbers. Any party that tells these voters to "stuff it" when it comes to religion, will wind up with these voters just staying home.
I think that like many Christians, many secular Progressives are full of themselves and openly hostile to people who do not follow there thinking process in chapter and verse. I have zero tolerance for both extremes.

Bev, that's very stirring stuff. In fact it sounds very religious, in that your take on what humanity is and should do is grounded in non-rational foundational convictions about the world. I mean, "progress" toward what? And why that? How do you prioritize our problems, and what convictions do the criteria arise from?

So why is it right for you to "reserve the right to define and determine the priority of humanity's problems according to your own particular lease on morality," but it's not ok for McLaren to do the same thing? He believes he's right, you believe you're right. But there's a lot of political action that you both agree on, so why not cooperate?

I accept that you don't hate "religionists", but you certainly to seem to regard them with contempt. But it's not clear on what basis you're claiming the moral high ground, or how what you do is any different than what those awful religionists do.

You said: "This helps explain why a lot of progressive people who care about justice, the environment, poverty, racial reconciliation, and peace stay far away from “organized religion,”

Thank you.

I was brought up fundamentalist Lutheran (yes, there is such a thing), and decided that I would leave and refuse to attend church as soon as I turned 18 and left the house.
I have remained true to this. But, there are a remarkable number of secular folks who Christians would be proud to call Christian. People with remarkable values. people who hate organized religions with a passion, and people like myself, who tolerate and like well meaning religious folks. I left because of the MASSIVE hypocrisy of the church. I was a little kid and saw it - I didn't know what to call it, but I knew it was dead wrong.
I, personally, welcome you and all those folks like you into whatever group you think we are in.
May the God of all mankind guide us in making the right decisions.

I'll agree with you, BevD, except that I will accept religious people as allies working in and with government to accomplish things that government needs to do for society - with one caveat.

Government is a function that is performed on behalf of all people, without regard to their religious beliefs. Because of this, everything government does must be for rational, explainable reasons and cannot be based on faith.

The rational and explainable reasons that direct what government should do are themselves fallible and subject to error, error that should be quickly recognized and corrected.

Since faith presumes perfection, actions taken based on faith cannot be modified simply because they don't work. That's why religion should not be allowed to control government activities.

That's why I will never support a minister, preacher, or Priest for any government office, even a man like John Danforth. To the extent that he compromises in order to get something done in government, he is compromising his faith. To the extent that he fails to compromise, he is using government, with its police power and courts, to enforce his faith on others.

But I welcome religious allies from outside government who want to get government to take certain actions and can provide a strong, valid and secular case for government to do what they ask. To me, that is the essence of the separation of Church and State, and it will prevent another English Civil War or Thirty Years' War from occurring.

Religions cannot be trusted with police powers or armies, nor can they be given much influence over them (as the Evangelists have been doing with the Air Force Academy and in the military.)

There are, I think, some problems to be faced on both the religious and the secular sides.

This statement only makes sense if you don't believe that secularism is a religion with its own set of beliefs and creeds.

I recently went to a church and had a discussion about "what is church" and I had to bring up Mother Theresa's doubt in god and I asked: "if that's the case, then why can't atheists, agnostics and the devote worship together in one church?"

At that point, I decided that secularism was the greatest religion of all since it embraced all religions.

The reason why, I think, people are progressive is because progressivism is an attempt to make secularism the most diverse religion possible.

i.e. I don't think that "seperation of church and state" is a policy to kill off religion but, instead, to create a superchurch comprised of stubborn and less flexible factions.

It is the belief of secularists that women have rights, blacks are free, etc... Secularism's creed is that "the melting pot works" (belief) and "forms a better, though impure, metal" (faith).

To boldly go...

Well, like Azimov, that is my opinion of religion's effect on culture.

I never, ever would advocate the banning of religion, but I do have an opinion of its ill effects on humanity, and I strenuously object to joining forces with religionists and religious institutions politically.

I truly believe that it is a very bad idea, but I have no doubt that it will occur, and will be seen as politically expedient by the majority.

It appears that Rev McLaren is making an honest attempt to find a way of being that allows for each of us to have a place that works for us, both individually and collectively.

And I thank Rev. McLaren for the opportunity to post here and vent my half century of frustration and anger at the idiocies I have seen committed by so-called religious organizations here in the Bible Belt. As I have said previously, I was willing to live-and-let-live until the Bush administration got into office and showed how truly dangerous these organizations are to America.

I will no longer permit these actions supposedly in the name of God but actually having nothing to do with real religion to pass unnoticed and ignored.

I see religious organizations here in Texas that are part of the Republican political machine, and I can remember my parents telling me in the late 50's about the effort of the John Birch Society to take control of the churches in my hometown. I still see the Southern evangelical churches pushing racism and anti-Gay agendas into the political arena.

Government has no room for the form of irrational and non-logical decision making that is called 'Faith.' Nor, do Churches dare let themselves be coopted by political organizations if they want to survive as religious organizations rather than just a part of some political machine. Both are destructive to each other.

I also see the comparative public silence of the moderate religious leaders as being destructive to the very churches that they do not wish to harm.

What I do not see is a solution, other than simply removing religion totally from government and treating religious organizations just like any other non-profit association. But that ignores the real contributions made by the Black and Hispanic churches to help their disadvantged populations. (I am less familiar with the activities of Muslim and oriental religous organizations, but I'm sure they are doing similar things.)

So other than removing Bush from office and not electing Romney or Huckabee, what can we do? Maybe some in-depth IRS or civilian auditing investigations of the robber baron Preachers? (Using the IRS is dangerous in itself.) Make them publish honest books, even if they aren't tried as criminals?

Dunno.

I don't know if liberal principles are correct. I do know, however, that burials of early humans indicated that the lame and the sick and the injured were cared for - the most common anthropological explanation is that these humans were valuable to the group because of their knowledge and information. That doesn't explain the flowers, though...

We skeptics are asking for something subtler than for you to attempt to hide your beliefs. By all means, speak them. Just don't try to slip them into laws that effect people who don't believe as you do.

I find it interesting that while you criticize the conservative religionists' for their focus on private sexual morality that you stopped far short of saying that they are, indeed, private matters that should be protected against religious intrusion.

Every time I've encountered a progressive christian they have said to put the issues of personal morality aside. What I never see is them making a flat out statement that homosexuality is okay, that homosexuals should be allowed to get married (as recognized by the government) that women should have the right to choose their reproductive future's without bowing to the beliefs of others or that we should pursue stem cell technologies despite the beliefs of people who would be free not to use the resulting medicines if they feel that strongly about it.

Don't tell me that you'll be focusing on other issues so I don't need to worry. Tell me where you stand.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

Dan K seems to be defining rationality as deductive logic and any departure from rationality as religious.  I don't follow it, and it appears to be trying to call any atheist who loves his children inconsistent. It also purports to create a nonreligious argument, by its own definition of nonreligious, for religion, but an argument that proceeds by the assumption of the impossibility of nonreligious justifications for foundations. Religious people are just dandy, but this all feels like special pleading nonetheless. 

Not really the place for this debate, but I'd also find that description of conservative as more like libertarian. I don't mean the line about two axes, with conservatives as libertarian, values conservatives, or both. I could see other arguments against the description, too. For example, Marx would dismiss it as filled with fictions to disguise agendas based on social conventions, accumulated wealth, etc.

From this perspective, conservatives and another kind of liberal could agree that people will seek their individual happiness and liberty, while some superior people might deserve to do better, but that liberty and the pursuit of happiness can't really take place without governments instituted among men, as Jefferson had it, and conservatives deny that to favor privilege for incompetents like Bush. In other words, it's not so much that liberalism requires a leap of faith, but rather that liberalism is required to ensure that tyranny, including religious tyranny, isn't shoved down our throats. 

John 

http://www.haberarts.com/

I find mcs's secularism as a religion too broad to have much meaning. It also comes uncomfortably close to the creationist line that science or evolution is just another belief. 

Suppose we grant religious liberty and grant that people like yourself, Dan K, and our distinguished guest the inspiration and feelings they draw from their beliefs without having to rationalize it. It doesn't feel right, and it comes way too close to the argument that, presumably, our guest is trying to get away from in the first place, that you better believe or else.

John 

http://www.haberarts.com/

I think his idea is very bad. I don't think that a political alliance with religious organizations is a good thing for progressives.

I agree that it doesn't matter where his tolerance comes from.

There has always been a religious left. 

They just haven't tended to wear their religions on their sleeves in the way that the religious right does. 

There's a huge upside to that, but the downside is that many people have gotten their entire picture of religion in the US from right wing spokespeople on TV.  And they believe the hype: conservatives speak for this monolith known as "the religious" (really only the religious people who agree with conservatives), while liberals speak for this monolith known as "the godless" (really all the people, irrespective of religion, who disagree with conservatives).

(These days there are also some religious people who have tended to be in the Republican camp that are finding some common ground with liberals, but that's not the longstanding, traditional religious left that I have in mind.)

What do you mean by "a political alliance with religious organizations"? 

There are already lots of organizations of religious progressives that form coalitions with other non-religious progressive organizations.

Bev - just to clarify a couple things.

First, I should have said
"I can't imagine determining that something is, in fact, the right thing FOR ME to do without bringing what would rightly be called religious elements of my faculties to the determination." I didn't mean that I wanted to use my religious beliefs to force others to act against their will.

Second, in the second paragraph you seem to me to be saying that if we got rid of religious practices, then we'd all share the same premises and reach the same conclusions. Based on my experience in higher education, when I was on various faculty groups with lots of brilliant professors who were atheists, I think that's a bit idealistic.

Third, I agree with you that where religious people have used their religion to slow or stop needed progress in justice, compassion, etc., etc., that's a tragedy.

The idea of a "secular church" is interesting. For people like me, who have no religion and belong to no church, I sometimes find myself envious of the religious, and am aware that churches provide a very strong social foundation and network for cooperative activity, a foundation that a lot of progressives lack. Ihere are progressive civic organizations that help fill the gap on the progressive side, but those organizations don't provide everything that churches do. People who belong to churches, mosques, temples and synagogues have some of these benefits available to them:

1. They meet weekly to renew their bonds with their fellows.

2. They routinely hear talks, sermons or lectures on the meaning of their beliefs.

3. They reaffirm their moral commitments and beliefs in the presence of others who will help hold them to these commitments.

4. They participate in ceremonial rites of passage that solemnize the main transitions in life, and incorporate aspects of their belief systems into the understanding of those transitions.

5. They sing, usually in a group.

6. In some religions, they dance, also in a group.

(Singing and dancing are found almost everywhere in the world, among all ages. And young people do a lot of it in our society. These activities help relieve stress and achieve "altered states" of consciousness. But adulthood in the secular west is seemingly characterized by an uptight, stoical aversion to ecstatic states, and a level of decorum that prevents spontaneous singing and dancing - and replaces it by watching others sing and dance. To a lesser extent, the replacement of participation by watching is part of the modern experience of sport and athletics as well. Given how commonplace singing and dancing are in human cultures, I sometimes wonder whether the relative absence of routine singing and dancing in our society might be related to mental health problems.)

7. They are sometimes encouraged to give "testimony" about their deepest feelings and personal struggles, in a generally supportive atmosphere relatively free of mocking and derision. (Consider the contrast with the attitude toward personal disclosures and expressions of feeling in the typical workplace.)

8. They donate money to the causes they care about, including the cause of supporting their own community.

9. They take time out from the practical problems of workaday life to contemplate the world at a somewhat deeper level.

10. They sometimes dress up, or do other things to recover a sense of dignity from a hard world that tends to strip it away.

11. They participate in rituals that symbolize a connection with a higher plane of existence, and connect them through repetition of symbolic movements and gestures to other people and even to their own pasts.

12. They form resolutions in an environment that is hospitable to contemplation and re-evaluation of one's life.

But most importantly, they dance.

Hell, we can make that happen. Dance party at Dan K's every Saturday!

Secularism as a religion, and interesting proposition. But like some have stated here, there's still something that just doesn't seem quite right there too.

If we could just forget for a moment the supernatural component of religion and strip away the dogma and look at what's left at the core. Would what we are left with be something more akin to philosophy? I know that what we are left with after removing those things isn't religion at all but maybe it represents what religion should or could be. I find for myself that it's much easier for me to define how I personally arrive at what I consider right and wrong as more of a philosophical journey.

It is interesting that Christianity (and before them the Roman and even earlier the Greek) religion viewed the supernatural God(s) as being similar to us not only in appearance but also in their personalities. Granted the Christian approach says that we look like "him" and not the other way around. And it also generally only attributes the best of traits to God and leaves out the less flattering but there is still the general idea of finding this supernatural-ness in us. Or at least that there's a similarity between us and him/them.

I feel that that's a place to start. If we could simply use thought to arrive at ideas that are "good" and not get tangled up trying to assign credit to the act we might begin to make some progress. For example helping someone in need seems not to need anything so involved as a religion to be recognized as a good and therefore right thing to do. It seems to be a universal truth that, if done without desire for compensation or profit, would make anyone "feel" better about themselves. Maybe it's something on a more instinctual level. I don't know for sure. But it's what I like to call just old fashion common sense.

Okay... so if people don't see secularism as a religion it's because secularism has so well disguised its religious attributes? That's a little too convenient, mcs!

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

that's why it's the perfect religion because you're psychologically unaware of it!

in general, I believe that most of us take it for granted that, desite the diversity of 300 million people, the hope of peace (whatever that is) holds us together enough to do "gods work."

most churches are happy if they can get only a handful of people to agree to a common goal based on a shared value.

To boldly go...

Every time I've encountered a progressive christian they have said to put the issues of personal morality aside. What I never see is them making a flat out statement that homosexuality is okay, that homosexuals should be allowed to get married (as recognized by the government) that women should have the right to choose their reproductive future's without bowing to the beliefs of others or that we should pursue stem cell technologies despite the beliefs of people who would be free not to use the resulting medicines if they feel that strongly about it.

I am a progressive Christian.  Homosexuality is okay, and homosexuals should be allowed to get married and recognized by the government, and women should have the right to choose their reproductive futures, and we should pursue stem cell technologies.

You may have encountered a lot more progressive Christians than you realize.

I don't believe that by getting rid of religion we'd all happily agree on anything, but in my opinion, religion is the impediment to any kind of agreement for many reasons.

Care to give some? You also said religion killed curiosity, which Dan K disproved rather conclusively, leaving you with the weak re-iteration of "it's my opinion" and hiding behind Azimov [sic].

Your talk of "superimposition" reveals that you believe there is no God. Not that you are unsure -- you are sure that there isn't. That's a religious conviction. Other people have other religious convictions. Of all these people many have political ideas that are called progressive. Thus, they are called "progressives." Some are Christian, some are Jewish, others are atheist, some haven't a clue. There is no "religionist-progressive" alliance being proposed, an the fact that you try indicates that you think no progressive can also be "religious". You don't get to define that.

There are a lot of people with Christian convictions who would like to be more active in enacting a progressive agenda, but are faced with the open hostility of many people like you. That your hostility seems so irrational makes it all the more ironic.

Care to give some? You also said religion killed curiosity, which Dan K disproved rather conclusively, leaving you with the weak re-iteration of "it's my opinion" and hiding behind Azimov [sic].

I certainly wouldn't say I disproved it. I just gave some contrary evidence drawn from my own personal experience.

I was kind of wondering what McLaren says away from here so I followed his link over to Beliefnet. Get a load if this.

Our friendly, progressive Christian is praising one of the Left Behind authors? Jerry Jenkins has profited enormously from religious bigotry and zealotry. He spent years writing a series of novels that were meant to make rabid believers feel righteous and better than everyone else. He spent years writing "Those heathens will get theirs" wank books and even licensed his properties to a video game that shows the religious faithful shooting heathens who won't convert.

But he's okay in McLaren's book because he gave a good quote?

Brian McLaren should be ashamed to even associate himself with such a hatemonger, but here he is praising the guy. Questionable judgement at best.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

Look further. Universalist-Unitarian church are covenant based and have agnostics, atheists, Christians, Buddhists, etc. attending this church. It is not creed based--you know, the churches that shart everything with "I believe" so you either lie about it or actually believe it.

UU is covenant-based. I don't have the covenant language memorized, but it's essentially that we agree to support the indiviudal in their solo spiritual journey and to be tolerant of one another. It is based on rationality and reason.

My feline associates regard Schroedinger as a moral monster.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Oh that's a downright silly argument. Atheism is non-belief, not disbelief or unbelief. Atheists don't acknowledge that gods exist. I don't have to prove or disprove the existence of a god, I don't acknowledge even the possibility of a god. That's not a religious conviction, it isn't any conviction for or against, it is nonbelief. Atheism doesn't meet any requirements for it to be a "religion". Religion necessitates the existence of faith and while atheists might have faith, it doesn't necessitate the existence of religion. As to the rest of your paragraph, it borders on gibberish. There is no "religionist-progressive alliance being proposed"? Do you not read political and religious commentary in journals and reviews? Have you read articles such as Amy Sullivan's article in "Washington Monthly"? Have you heard of the "New Progressive Alliance" or the "Christian Alliance for Progress or have you heard of the developing strategy of some democrats to woo evangelicals and religionists to the democratic party? Just because you are not aware of it doesn't make it non existent. Do I care to give reasons why religion is an impediment to agreement? Have you watched the news lately? I would say the doctrinal differences between the Jews and Muslims is an impediment caused by religion. Then we have the reason of the religionists themselves who are using religion to promote a political agenda, that would seem to be reason enough. The need for religionists to piusly exclaim their faith at all and any functions to the detriment of agreement or just plain good manners is another.

Dan didn't prove or disprove anything conclusively, of which he would be the first to tell you. There is no proof or disproof of my assertion, (although I can certainly provide anecdotal evidence just as Dan has)it is my observation of the effect of religion on humanity. It is my informed opinion.

As to your last comments, that is nonsense. Do you suppose I stand up in meetings and berate them, call them names, argue the existence of a god or demonstrate hostility to them? Don't be such an ass.
This is an opinion board and an appropriate venue for the expression of opinion. A political meeting or convention would not be an appropriate venue for such expression. Any thoughtful person should be able to distinguish between appropriate and non-appropriate venues.

Am I openly "hostile" to religion? No, what a ridiculous claim on your part. I am resentful of religion's damage to humanity in the same way I am resentful of bigotry, slavery, chauvinism and ignorance. Do I advocate burning religionists at the stake, reinstating the inquisition, societal shunning or excommunication of religionists? Of course not, that would be irrational.

Howard, here is something new that's buzzing the intel com. A'adhamiya Knights. It seems impossible to find any information on them. Iraqis claim they are in the pay of the U.S.

Thought you might like to know.

Dan, what I meant is that noting that ethics is getting away from claims to logical foundations isn't a vindication of religion or an assimilation of philosophy to religion. That's take too many assumptions that don't hold up. Rather it's a healthy skepticism that's thriving of its own in what I'll gingerly still call a postmodern, post-analytic age. 

John 

http://www.haberarts.com/

And I thought I'd dealt with all that grey matter up there with all these years of Guinness consumption, TV and video games. I either didn't spend enough time doing them or they don't work as advertised.

How disappointing!

Atheist is an adjective. Atheism is a meaningless word. An atheist person is not a member of an "ism" group in any way. An atheist person just doesn't take part in religion for whatever personal reasons the person may have. For me religion is a subject of little interest to me other than curiosity. I neither believe nor disbelieve in any "ism". Religion to me is what a tail is to me - something I don't have. It seems to be difficult for those who do have a religion to accept that, and it makes discussions such as this more difficult than necessary.

I don't object to anyone's religious beliefs unless those beliefs are used to disadvantage someone. Even then my objection is the disadvantaging not to the beliefs that lead to that. So, I don't care if a US president is a Mormon or not, any more than I care if he/she is a Catholic or lapsed Protestant or someone without religious beliefs. I do care about what that person does as President, in the public sphere.

I would like to see as many interest groups as possible become allied with the Democraatic Party. Those groups can be Bridge players, Tractor Pull Drivers, Baptists, Marathon runners, Japanese Drum players, or whatever. That is how we grow the party and recover control of the government. It doesn't bother me that the Marathon runners will want to encourage me to walk more than 30 minutes a day, and the Baptists will want me to spend Sunday's in one of their churches. It is up to me to listen or ignore any of them. When one of those groups, say the Tractor Pull drivers, tries to pass laws making me attend Tractor Pulls, then I get concerned.

Hoppy in Sacramento

Everyone doesn't prioritize and define human problems by the authority of a divine being. Many people don't surrender control and authority to a supernatural entity. I have no interest in how people come to their understanding of the advancement of humanity by kindness and compassion, I don't care if they find it written in a grilled cheese sandwich or a box of frozen peas. What worries me is their penchant for claiming a particular lease on a special kind of morality based on belief in divine control of human activities. That is what is meant by "particular lease". That people make judgements and decisions and prioritize their problems according to their own standards of morality is not the point, nor has it ever been.

Once again, it is not the people or the religionists, it is the religion itself, the old narrative supporting a new structure, the application of an archaic power and control system to today's problems as though human beings were the same then as they are now and always will be. I have every encouraging reason to believe that humans are finally beginning to awaken to a new message of hope and belief in themselves, that we're capable of being better than we are. It will no doubt take another 100,000 years, but I think we can do it.

Rereading my post I didn't claim that religion "killed curiosity" I said it limited it. I was quite sure you understood perfectly what I meant. Individuals whether they are religious or not can be very creative and curious, but generally and historically, I think that religion has become limiting to humanity. I didn't think it was necessary to get into the whole Galileo to Darwin to stem cell research thing assuming that you understood that as a given.

I failed to properly present my argument through sheer laziness.

But I wasn't trying to vindicate religion. I was just taking issue with a position advanced by some non-religious moralists. Some of them claim the superior virtue of their own moral views, compared to religiously motivated moral views, lies in the fact that the non-religious views are based on reason alone, while the moral views of the religious are based on faith or respect for authority. What I wanted to suggest is that basis for the fundamental values of non-religious moralists actually lies in sentiment, which is no more a rational justification than is a basis in faith or tradition.

Just don't try to slip [your religious values] into laws that effect people who don't believe as you do.

Every time I've encountered a progressive christian they have said to put the issues of personal morality aside. What I never see is them making a flat out statement that homosexuality is okay,

What does "homosexuality being okay" have to do with slipping religious values into laws?  The relevant issue is whether homosexuality should be legal.  You seem to be making the implication that mere disaproval of homosexuality is akin to making laws against them.

Also, other than gay marriage, the main issue of homosexuality today is whether or not private business owners have the right to discriminate against them.  It is those who favor intrusive antidiscrimination laws who are using the government to force their preferences on others in this case. 

or that we should pursue stem cell technologies despite the beliefs of people who would be free not to use the resulting medicines if they feel that strongly about it. 

You are dodging the issue.  There is currently no proposal that I know of that stem cell research should be banned.  The question is whether the government should foce taxpayers to pay for it, including those who feel strongly against it. 

This is what is frustrating about leftists.  They don't seem ot be able to understand that they are just as guilty of forcing their personal beliefs on religious conservatives as vice versa. 

"You say I'm a dreamer.  We're two of a kind.  Looking for some perfect world that we both know that we'll never find." - Thompson Twins, "Hold Me Now"

My feline associates regard Schroedinger as a moral monster.

yes, indeed!

To boldly go...

I find mcs's secularism as a religion too broad to have much meaning.

and that's why it has power! if it had too much meaning, the masses couldn't universally accept it.

It also comes uncomfortably close to the creationist line that science or evolution is just another belief.

and you've probably seen me argue that evolution is a belief since man obviously enjoys playing the role of intelligent designer. thus, why should I believe that other forms of life haven't played the role of intelligent designer in the past?

they draw from their beliefs without having to rationalize it.

and they'd say that you draw from your beliefs without having to rationalize them.

To boldly go...

I take it you understand that there are an abundance of denominations (not fundamentalists/evangelicals typically) now where women are fully equal, lead and decide the direction the organizations will take and so on.

mistake

Two separate issues spring to mind here for me.

Why do people have to think in such limited ways where the choice is always either or? It just isn't that way in most cases. It isn't that there is a secular left and a religious left. There are components of the left that fit these descriptions (and always have been), but it isn't a duality where one is opposing the other or at odds or somehow of necessity in conflict.

Martin Luther King wasn't the only religious leader who was also a leader of the left. The abolitionists, for example, were motivated mightily by their religious committment. The Battle Hym of the Republic was written as a Christian Hymn by an abolitionist woman who was also a prominent feminist! That song, swept the nation and galvanized loyal Americans to preserve the Union and smash the slave power of the south. The song continues to be sung in progressive/liberal churches across the land because it symbolizes the kind of power and good that can be done. Martin Luther King quoted the words of this song on the steps of the Alabama state capitol (literally the former capitol of the confederacy) in one of the most stirring speeches he ever made to a throng of supporters and co-religionists. In fact, it is not unfair to say that within every progressive movement in this nation's history, religious progressives have played an important, positive, and often crucial role. People wary of religion have to discern the difference between the religious haters and those whose beliefs are either identical on all the important issues of concern to the progressive left or very, very similar. And people who are motivated by religion need to act on their faith without pushing it on everyone else. No one's faith requires that they constantly throw it in the faces of others. Faithful people are supposed to be humble and unassuming, or so I always thought.

The other thing that comes to my mind is this...

Dr. McLaren wrote:

They resent – rightly, I would say – the implication that the religious people are “moral” and “values-oriented,”

I take slight issue here in that what people on the left (both religious or no) resent and abhor is not that the right wing fundamentalists a.k.a. "evangelicals" are moral and are values oriented. Everyone has some set of morals and a set of values they are oriented toward. What is so objectionable about those who push their brand of right wing religion on others is that they are moralizers, not moral people, who practice a narrow, grade school level morality of personal, individual behavior as though that is all that counts.

The values of the moralizers spring from the simplisitic set of rules and regulations that constitute righteous behavior in their eyes. Much of the reasoning for these rules and regulations was a result of conditions and mores in ancient times that may have had some useful purpose 2-3000 years ago, but have no such purpose in our world yet they cling to this stuff as "the inerrant word of God." What a load of crap! They could be living next door to Dachau or Auschwitz and lift not one finger to stop the slaughter, but as long as they read their Bible and oppose secular humanism it's okay with God and the pastor collecting money for God.

The ignorance, pettiness and self absorbtion that drives this kind of moralistic thinking is repulsive to all people who believe that simple human decency demands we address the many problems in the world that humans have created and which produce needless human suffering often of horrendous proportion. The right wing religionists or, as Gore Vidal has called them, "Christers", are a classic example of the person who points out the splinter in another's eye while failing to take notice of the beam in his own with their medieval and extremely repressive obsession with subjects like sexual behavior in general and their pathetic homophobia in particular, their often antiquated and suffocating patriarchal hierarchies and accompanying beliefs and their atrophied vision for the world.

Often they have no vision at all for the real world we live in outside of that created by the engines of commercialism (thus serving dutifuly as an opiate for the masses as Marx noted so long ago). Instead they now offer only a violent apocolyptic vision for the world and a simplistic and totally implausible fantasy of what they believe will be the world to come for the true believers who will hover around Big Daddy in the Sky God's throne with harps and wings and halos all around. This is the stuff of twisted, dangerous cultism insofar as people start acting upon the teachings of such lunacy. The religious right uses this horror fantasy to scare and subjagate their adherents who are desperate for clear and certain answers in a world that offers no such neat prescription.

Bottom line is this: the left needs everyone to make progress against the entrenched, predatory wealth that controls and is slowly destroying our republic. We need to focus on our commonalities as Americans. We need to remember that America (and the left) operates best when they approach life with a live and let live attitude. Those who are religius need to join in the fight, but don't dilute the important work of social, economic, and political reform with religious hoohah that isn't needed. Those who aren't religious need also to be in the fight and not paint religious people with so broad a brush that you exclude allies you desperately need to succeed. Everyone has a place and a role in our politics. Religious belief can motivate some, but it's role needs to remain almost entirely outside the realm of political debate or else it will be unable to avoid becoming a divisive issue in and of itself. Our founders were very wise and knew well what they were doing when they separated church and state. We would do well and be wise to follow their lead.

One final thought to Dr. McLaren is that I agree completely with your assessment of what the Bible and Jesus were really getting at and thus what believers should then be focusing on. The problem is, of course, that this vision requires much more than weekly attendance and a regular check in the envelope when the collection plate is passed to you. Who will educate, motivate and lead people on this path?

Destor23 - just a quick note to say that I actually gave a link to the site you refer to. I respect your right to an opinion on my judgment - but consider this:

By calling people hate-mongers and refusing to associate with them or acknowledge when they say something constructive or positive, I think we lose any ability to influence them. By vilifying them, I think we actually decrease the likelihood of ever influencing them.

But by affirming the good in people whenever we can, by finding common ground with them, by encouraging them when they take what we think is a step in the right direction, I think we open up possibilities for more positive movement.

Labeling, shunning, vilifying - these are a lot of the characteristics I have seen at such close range in Christian fundamentalists, so perhaps I am bending over backwards to try another path - but I hope that explains why I was willing to give kudos to someone with whom I disagree an a whole lot of other things, and who I imagine would say the same about me. It's in small acts of connection that I think we open up new possibilities - I guess you might call it compassionate progressivism? I hope that helps make sense of my actions.

There was an abundance in the abolitionist movement too, until push came to shove.

So nothing else matters a hundred or so years later? How long do you hold a grudge for wrongs not committed against yourself and which would not occur today?

Brian,

You have the patience of Job.

"Atheism" refers to an understanding that there is no god or gods.  "Atheists" have this understanding in common.

Didn't mean to imply you were being sneaky, I said I followed your link.

You didn't deny that Jerry Jenkins is what I described -- a man who made a fortune writing hateful things about people who believe differently than he does. You're willing to put that aside in favor of his rare moment of sanity? Really?

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

I attended a college in Chicago that had a very liberal student body. When four white kids were shot to death at Kent State, this raised an enormous hullaballoo at my school. A short time later, three black kids were shot to death at South Carolina State College in Orangeburg. Not many people expressed any interest. I attended the memorial service at the college chapel. Very few white people were in attendance, and about half of those appeared to be FBI agents taking photographs from the sidelines. The institutional racism of the FBI was very much on display.

This also gave me a lesson in the sincerity of white liberals. How much white liberal concern was expressed about the Jena 6 case?

As we have seen in the present discussion, liberals are concerned about making grandiose pronouncements about policy. They are less concerned about the real problems of real people.

Equal justice for black people is an ongoing problem in this country. How much concern is shown about this issue at TpmCafe? Strikingly little.

I doubt that any of you would consider yourselves to be racists, and that probably is not the precise word to describe you. Nevertheless, you have expressed in a highly articulate manner a heartfelt contempt for what happens to be the central focus of the Black community. Your contempt is not confined to Black people, and in that sense you really are not racist. Clearly, however, your sympathy is not aligned with the interests of Black people at a fundamental level. I think that the heart has gone out of liberalism, or at least the kind of liberalism that we see at the TpmCafe, and it has become an empty shell. That is because liberalism, as we see it at the TpmCafe, is based on intellectualization and ego gratification rather than empathy.

A liberalism based on empathy would be very close to a religious sensibility, even if this liberalism set aside the specific intellectualizations of a creed. The real issue, I think, is that some of you do not want to feel empathy. Empathy is messy. You want to set yourself apart. You want to be correct. You want your correctness to be hermetically sealed, and not open to challenge by the vicissitudes of life. You want the liberalism of control.

As I understand it, evangelicals, such as John Wesley, have a long history of opposition to slavery. The message got lost when slavery became profitable.

The opposition to slavery of the evangelicals was based on empathy, or I would think that it was. The profit motive is not based on empathy. Just to complicate matters, white labor was opposed to slavery for financial reasons, but the sincere opposition to slavery was based on a fundamental motivation that we need to hold on today. Empathy is the key. Empathy is not based on intellectualizations, either secular intellectualizations or religious intellectualizations. Empathy is not about being "correct" in the rationalistic sense.

Religious people do not have a monopoly on sincere empathy, but the major religions work very hard to encourage empathy. The major religions have a long history of understanding the motivations at the core of the human soul. Some of those motivations are appalling, and that is why religious institutions have sometimes been appalling. If you have empathy, therefore, you have some hard decisions to make about how well you want to understand the core motivations of the human soul.

In the current environment, liberals seem to have difficulty formulating an approach to empathy that is not obscured by their own fascination with doctrinal correctness.

Liberals have created their own neo-fundamentalism. Liberals have their own litmus tests, their own exclusive negativism. Liberals draw lines in the sand, just like fundamentalists. This illustrates the old adage that we should be careful how we choose our enemies, for we shall become just like them.

Your disrespect for the sacrifice . . . is disgraceful . . . ought not to be snarked at . . Your appreciation of their motivation and belief is shallow. oleeb

Now, how many limbs did your hero Julia Ward Howe "sacrifice" to the cause?

And --- she's still a pagan, a worshiper of strong-thighed Achilles and bright-helmeted Sigfried!

IMHO it is very difficult to have a discussion of this nature as long as the words "contemptuous", "contempt", "disrespect", "look down at", etc can be dropped in at will to terminate certain areas and grounds for discussion. Personally I am in favor of strong religious freedom and strong separation of church and state. If one wants to bring one's personal beliefs into the political world that is fine, I won't object - but it is silly and perhaps disingenuous to think that one's beliefs will not then be subject to political and secular scrutiny (even harsh scrutiny). There is no magic "disrespect bomb" which will force people in the political sphere to stop scrutinizing you, and if there were that would be an even stronger argument for full separation of church and state.

sPh

You have been around this blog long enough to have learned that atheists do not necessarily believe there is no god, so I must conclude that you either willfully ignore what you know or you are being less than honest. Either way, it's unbecoming to an intelligent Christian.