Religion
Related: About this forumLiberals have forgotten how to make the religious case for liberal causes
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/04/2012417135245569752.htmlLiberals should fight back against conservative dogma by fighting fire with fire, but seem to have forgotten how.
John Stoehr
John Stoehr is a lecturer in political science at Yale and a frequent contributor to the American Prospect, the New Statesman, Reuters Opinion, the New York Daily News and Al Jazeera English.Last Modified: 18 Apr 2012 12:25
New Haven, CT - Every four years, the United States spasms with all sorts of manufactured outrage in the run-up to the election. 2012 is no exception. The latest in fake politics is being called "Rosengate", named after a Democratic strategist who said Mitt Romney's wife has never worked a day in her life.
She was right. Ann Romney, a mother of five married to a quarter-billionaire, is indeed unqualified to speak to the economic concerns of the average working American woman. But Romney had been polling badly with women and this was a chance to turn the tables. Now it was President Barack Obama who was being anti-mother! Mothers work, too, you know! Yes, but that's not the point. No matter. The right-wing media echo chamber has been ringing since.
Republicans aren't entirely to blame. The Democrats are partly responsible for this spun-from-thin-air controversy, because of a decision they made during a genuine controversy over the so-called contraception mandate.
-snip-
Obama's new health care law, especially, one could argue, in providing equitable access to birth control to the poorest among us, keeps watch over the sick, the meek and the mild. It's the kind of law most beloved of the God of the New Testament, the God of mercy, compassion and peace. It's hard to imagine a more ideal time to make the religious case for liberal causes, but I worry that liberal Democrats have forgotten how to do that.
more at link
trotsky
(49,533 posts)"Jesus says the rich need a tax cut!"
"No, he says we should raise taxes on the rich!"
Too bad Jesus will never speak up and settle the issue.
dmallind
(10,437 posts)I can't speak for you obviously but most of the nonbeliever contingent, me included, have often called for stronger advocacy from liberal believers against the right wing politicization of the faith. While it's true that all we can likely hope for is a long and largely interpretation-based argument of He said He said, it's something that should happen and would be a good start, so I forone will not complain when believers show support for trying it. Good luck to them and long overdue.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)Doesn't matter if it's for the right reasons.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)...would rather work with progressive Christians than have to deal with conservative ones who for the most part value atheists and their opinions about as much as they value navel lint.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)"Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal rather than religion-specific values... it requires that their proposals be subject to argument and amenable to reason. Now, I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, to take one example, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all." -- Barack Obama, to the Christian group Call to Renewal in 2006.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)dmallind
(10,437 posts)I agree that policy should not be set on religious reasons regardless of how benign or otherwise. But unless we want to set up thoughtcrimes, there's nothing wrong with people saying, let alone feeling, that they support entirely public secular policies for entirely private religious reasons.
I advocate for single payer because it is efficient, promotes public health, and is the best way to divide the cost of a public good (in the econ sense). I don't think it's wrong for somebody else to advocate for it because they think it fulfills a commandment of Jesus to take care of the least among us. Especially if others are saying Jesus said the sick poor should rely on private charity and government should butt out.
There is a big difference to me between advocating for a public policy using religious arguments, and advocating for public policy to enforce religious arguments.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Which is entirely my point - best summed up by the Obama quote I posted above.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)If an individual wants to do something because of their religious beliefs, more power to them. But having any policy based on any religion is divisive at best.
Thats my opinion
(2,001 posts)What you don't realize, probably because you don't keep up with the liberal religious press etc., is that tremendous energy is put into attacking the right-wing kidnapping of the faith for political reasons. Granted we must do more, but we do many more things than you may know about. i invest more of myself in that enterprise than I do in fighting off people here who probably agree with me on social issues, but can's stand my defense of the reasons I do what I do.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I think it's been correctly pointed out that the liberal/progressive religionists should be on the front lines in taking on the religious right. Pointing out the of the utter hypocrisy of the christian right is one of the best weapons we have.
That and walking the walk.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)because deep down, I believe it would be in violation of the spirit of separation of church and state. However, this is a war of principles that seems to have had no precedent in this country, so maybe it's time to do so.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)using a religious argument to do so.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)rrneck
(17,671 posts)Republicans aren't just good at arguing from a religious perspective. They're also good at being patriotic. They're the ones waving flags and wearing tricorn hats.
That's the down side of enlightenment rationalism. Cold blooded systems development ignores the need for emotional unity. It makes liberals seem like arrogant, disconnected elitists. As close as we can get to that sort of unity is identity politics, which can be more exclusive than inclusive.
We don't need to argue from a religious perspective. That's what demonstrated the need for an enlightenment in the first place. But we need to be patriotic and celebrate Americans for Americans, no matter how wrong or obnoxious they are. Religious unity is inimical to national unity.
Plantaganet
(241 posts)The thing is, I suspect religion lends itself better to the right-wing agenda.
For instance, if you're opposed to equal rights for gay people you'll find all the justification you need in the Bible. In the King James Version, Leviticus 18:22 is translated: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."
Simple. Direct. Unequivocal.
On the other hand, if you're in favor of equal rights for gay people... things are more difficult. You can point out that Jesus never said anything about homosexuality... but it doesn't really amount to a ringing endorsement. Things become more a question of interpretation, and those interpretations are very easily dismissed by the bad guys because they have their rules in writing.
In terms of the big picture it just seems like religious arguments for a liberal cause - however well intentioned - are doomed because there's far more ammunition for the other side.
2ndAmForComputers
(3,527 posts)Oh, wait...
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)...God will unleash his "swift and terrible sword" for their RW wickedness like the Abolitionists damned the slave-owners I might have more respect for them.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)to arguments about the validity of the Bible(or other texts), who is or isn't a "True Christian", etc.
Simply put, it shouldn't be discussed, it adds nothing to the advocacy of any particular position.
Thats my opinion
(2,001 posts)But then there is a little thing called the First Amendment.
Doctrine we don't want in the public square. The ethics which flow from faith America cannot do without.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)"The ethics which flow from faith America cannot do without." What are these ethics "which flow from faith?" How are they different from the ethics that don't flow from faith? Why isn't that America can't do without these ethics "which flow from faith?"
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)as long as they survive at least that one day, its perfectly ethical?
Before you jump down my throat on this one, think about the argument I just opened up, one that doesn't involve slavery but rather what the Bible "really" says about such and such issue.
The ethics you claim America needs that comes from faith opens up that faith to inquiry as to the merits of its ethics. Given how confusing and diverse various faiths are, both internally and across religions, we don't need, nor should we, insert them into political issues. That only serves to confuse the issues.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)No gotcha questions.