The Religious Left--it exists

[Deep13]

With the religious right's agenda and talking points dominating the corporate media, it is easy to forget that Christian fundamentalism began as a socially-conscious, radical movement. I write this as an atheist who, while happy to discuss religious matters and defend my perspective vigorously, has no desire to marginalize or convert liberals who are religious.

It is unfortunate that William Jennings Bryan is remembered for his attack on evolution in the Scopes monkey Trial. He was a great humanitarian, a pascifist and a crusader (excuse the expression) for the working person. His objection to evolution was that it lent credence to a morally bankrupt concept of social Darwinism where the poor suffer because they deserve it. It should be noted the role of religious people and clergy in particular for pointing out the American autrocity of slavery. These preachers were instrumental in Lincoln's election and the eventual destruction of that institution. John Brown, the spark that ignited the tinderbox, began his militant campaign against slavery after swearing to his church congregation that he would stop at nothing until liberation was attained. Later, many of the civil rights leaders came from Black, Southern churches and railed against the immorality of segregation.

These people, all great Americans, relied on the teachings of charity and equality before God to attack injustice. America is a majority Christian nation with atheists making about 9% of the population. Most political liberals are Christians. In the sea of RW propoganda, liberal churches tend to stick out. A few years ago, the Episcopal Church of the USA risked alienating its own supporters by ordaining an openly gay bishop. In 1988, similar predictions of doom were made when that same church appointed the world's first female bishop. The United Church of Christ now faces media discrimination because of its campaign to embrace those excluded by other Christian churches. Throughout history, churches have been a buffer against the harsh economic realities of life and still operate soup kitchens and shelters.

The political pull of the religious left was undermined in the beginning of the 20th century by a split with intellectual liberals who where influenced by socialism and sought rational explanations for public policies rather than moral or theological purposes. This is unfortunate since we do not have to have the same reasons to arrive at the same conclusions. The Iraq war, for example, is wrong whether you believe in God or not not. I may not respect particular belief systems, but I still respect the person who subscribes to it. Hell, if I can respect friends who are Republicans, I can certainly respect religious liberals.

On edit: spelling

[pberq]

1. Thank you - excellent post! K&R

You bring up many important points - especially "Most political liberals are Christians."

Also, "the teachings of charity and equality before God" gives the foundation for liberal values.

[IsItJustMe]

2. Religious liberals do exist. I know a few of them. I think they follow

the TURN THY OTHER CHEEK brand rather than the EYE FOR AN EYE view.

[Deep13]

3. Justice vs. mercy

Eye for an eye was a concept of justice. Rather than having a family blood fued, an injury could be settled by inflicting a similar injury in return. In this sense justice is a way to limit the destructive effects of revenge.

Turn the other cheek, love thy enemy, etc. is a more evolved concept that attempts to elimate the needs for revenge at all. The concept is that clans etc. are meaningless distictions since we are all people. Why not give your enemy the chance to be your friend. Unfortunately, some people take the disfunctional view that this point of view equates salvation with suffering.

[papau]

4. A very nice post - indeed if we do not leave our differences at the door &

focus on what we agree, we will never have a winning election season again.

[salib]

5. It does indeed.

And has a wonderful historical pedigree, as long as one ignores the darker side. Still, it is a religion born out of slave rebellion and, ultimately, revolt.

It is also a truly poignant albatross to a political movement that wishes to move beyond the very enlightened thoughts of 5500 or 2000 years ago. As long as "truths" are based upon implicit/blind/tempered (choose your Judeo-Christian-Islamic word) faith in what was put down on some kind of parchment long ago, how can one progress beyond those basic assumptions and premises, without being either dragged back to the "fundamentals", be more and more circumspect and "revisionist", or simply "losing" one's beliefs?

Is it possible that as a society, culture, and zeitgeist, we have gone as far as we can, are now simply spinning our wheels, and trying to foist that same upon the rest of the differently enlightened world?

[Deep13]

6. There seems to be two schools of thought.

There is the view that the Bible/Torah/Koran is the literal word of God and it is ours to obey, not to understand. This seems like a pretty empty reading from a philosophical point of view. In fact it makes the holy book an idol which is verboten in monotheistic religions. The other is that it is important to understand the literary origins of holy books in order to understand how religion has evolved and how it applies to the present day reader. Changes in the understanding of the holy book does not invalidate or even threaten the basis of faith.

[Behind the Aegis]

10. A slight correction....

The Torah is not seen as the "literal" word of G-d. There are very few Jews that would agree with that assertion.

To understand Jewish thought, I give you this joke (although poorly told):

Three rabbis are arguing about the meaning of the Torah in a tranquil garden. Two rabbis think the meaning of the Torah is to understand the meaning of the universe. The other rabbi, Rabbi Gershonvitz, says it is to improve life here on Earth. The rabbis continue to argue.

Finally, Rabbi Gershonvitz, prays; "G-d, please give us a sign as to who is correct."

A bright beam shines down on all three men, and a voice booms, "Rabbi Gershonvitz is correct!"

The three rabbis all look at one another. Finally, Rabbi Levy says, "Well, the vote is now 2 to 2!"

[varkam]

7. A few thoughts on the social implications of Natural Selection

I know this is a bit off-topic from the OP (very nicely written, by the way) - you mention the morally bankrupt concept of Darwinism in passing in the post. I think the hangup a lot of people have regarding darwinism is that they believe it holds that, for example, poor people suffer because they deserve it.

As someone who's read a bit on the topic - I am by no means an expert, however - I'd like to add my .02. I think the big question here is that of genetic determinism - or in other words, to what extent does our genetic makeup "cap" our potential, actions and abilities? People use the same argument against cloning. Those who are against such medical advances often say that we could clone Hitler, or someone likewise "evil", and have another second world war. What these people are disregarding is the power of our environment. Hitler's genes did not "cause" him to do what he did - freewill notwithstanding, it was the interaction of his genetic makeup and the environment he lived in that resulted in who he became. I want to be clear here, however, because I don't think that result excuses his moral culpability , or anyone elses for that matter. But that brings me to my second point.

A lot of people argue against darwinism on the grounds that it lends itself to a undesirable roadmap of social feeling. In other words, it's often explained in evolutionary terms that men tend to desire multiple partners (typically young-looking, healthy females) in order to maximize the odds that their genes will be passed onto the next generation. Some people take that to mean that men are now excused from any monogamous contract - as they can't help what their genes are "telling" them. Similarly to the preceding paragraph, I don't think that's the case. All I think darwinism (and evolutionary psychology in particular) attempts to do is to explain our behaviour from a genetic, multi-generational perspective. It doesn't excuse it or make it "right". There's an evolutionary story to be told for murder, for example, but that doesn't make it right - it's just an explanation.

Just my .02.

[Deep13]

8. Yes, there is a lot to it.

Darwinian evolution is largely a physical theory to explain how species change over time. That it occurs is absolute fact. That random mutation and natural selection is the means is probably absolute fact too. Whether certain social behavior can be explained in terms of Darwinsim is a little more dubious. Ultimately all of our insticts exist because they are what has survived over 700,000 years. Nevertheless, as rational beings (sometimes anyway) we can decide to move beyond instinct. In your example, I think strong social structures like marriage have contributed to our success as a species. As individuals, people are pretty weak. Our strength comes from our ability to work as a group, originally organized around clans. Now, our survival depends on our ability to put aside basic insticts to protect territory and reproduce.

[okasha]

11. I think a clear distinction needs to be made between "Darwinism,"

i. e., the change of species over time in response to natural selection, and "social darwinism," the idea of "survival of the fittest" in an economic context. The latter is at best a bastard theory (in the colloquial, not the scientific, sense) used to shore up laissez-faire capitalism.

[varkam]

12. I think even social darwinism...

Is at best an explanation for why certain groups or socio-economic classes "fall through the security net" - not a moral absolution for us who are more fortunate. People just tend to see it that way, and by people I mean the people who play the stock market, worry about the estate tax, etc.

[lindisfarne]

9. Christian Alliance for Progress www.christianalliance.org n/t