Once more, I'm a liberal because I'm a Christian

[cally]

I'm as angry as most of you at the religious right and selling Christianity for political purposes. They are hypocrites and don't speak for me.

One more time, there is a Christian left. We're poortly organized, get almost no media attention, but we exist. I can't tell you all the folks I know who walk the walk. Many are more conservative than I am but they spend their lives giving to others. Funding the homeless shelters, finding a home for the abused women, cooking and providing meals for homeless. It's not righteousness, but a belief that's what we are supposed to do if we can. Don't dismiss these folks and think they are against us. They are not.

I grew up in a Republican household. Went to a Protestant church every week. It was the time of civil rights and liberation theology. We kept going to churches that were losing memberships so we got the recently graduated Theology students as Pastors. I learned about liberalism and liberal Christianity. I learned about questioning the Bible and looking at other religions. I learned tolerance and understanding. I wouldn't be a liberal without my church.

[terryg11]

1. too true

when i look at the teachings of Jesus (or at least the vatican approved version) I see some of liberalisms most basic beliefs spelled out. It's really the left's fault they let the conservatives hijack that. The thing that most infuriates me about the christian right is the way they misrepresent the bible by picking out what works for them and disregarding the rest because let's face it, there are some glaring contradictions in the bible especially old vs. new testament that can't be explained away easily.

anyway, I'm in your camp although maybe not as strong in my faith as you are.

[cally]

4. Thanks..Don't bet on the faith part

I'm struggling like many of us.

Still, I know that without the church of my growing up years I would be a conservative. I was challenged and made to think. I learned about the liberal Jesus. It stuck.

[Tux]

11. Opposite

If I wasn't thrown out for questioning the Bible, Jesus, the minister, and asking what Communion was symbolic cannibalism, I'd never would have found Buddhism and other things that makes me a liberal. Church can make people liberal but can also make them hardline conservatives in "God's party".

[terryg11]

13. symbolic cannibalism?

that's nice. Oh man, what two of my former pastors would have said when asked/told that. One would have found it quite funny the other an odd statement but then I nice, hour or two conversation would have started and with those two men it's always a good thing

[cally]

17. Same here...my pastors would have laughed and

then we would have a great discussion about history of religion and why certain rituals continue. I think my love of history and ancient culture are because of these discusions.

[regnaD kciN]

36. I've been saying the same for years...

Still, I know that without the church of my growing up years I would be a conservative.

Were it not for the Christian faith, looking at the world around me, I'd have little reason to believe anything other than that might makes right, the powerful will always dominate those without power, and, seeing how "that's just the way it is," the important thing would be to make sure that you're on the "powerful" end of the spectrum.

It was only the life and teachings of Christ, that, to me, prove the opposite view.

[Dookus]

64. Really?

The teachings of King or Gandhi wouldn't have affected you? You could've watched civil rights marchers have hoses and dogs turned on them, and not thought it was wrong without the church?

I don't believe it. I believe your sensibilities and compassion would've guided you toward liberalism without a church.

This reminds me of the argument often used against atheists that says without religion (or god) there is no morality. They maintain that if they weren't religious, they'd just kill people and steal all they want. I don't believe it for a second. We are not natural-born killers whose only civilizing grace is the church.

People in all cultures and belief systems, theist or not, have a code of behavior that is remarkably consistent. Morality does not come down from on high via the church.

[regnaD kciN]

91. You esteem me (and the rest of the world?) too highly...

First of all, it was my background of faith that shaped who I am. I'm not sure that I would have had such "sensibilities and compassion" without it. It's like asking whether I'd have become the same person had I been born in Moscow, or Tehran, or Nablus, or Soweto, that July night in 1956, instead of Santa Monica.

But let's grant your assumption, and say that I would have emerged into the world with the same sort of ethos, regardless of religious faith. What would I have observed, looking at said world with secular eyes? That said ethos, said values, were doomed. That King and Gandhi, however esteemed their memories may be, both found their way of nonviolence ended by the ultimate violence of an assassin's bullet. That, judging by appearances, the powerful and ruthless inherit the earth, while the meek inherit bupkis. That concepts of "justice" and "fairness" mean nothing when compared to the concept of "a bigger army" or "more powerful weapons."

I would look at the whole of history from the mid-late '60s (when I first started caring about the greater world around me) until this very day, and see nothing but an endless descending spiral toward "Social Darwinism" and "might makes right."

Would I have changed the cut of my conscience to meet the fashions of the times? In the sense of becoming a gleeful freeper, no. But, unless I had taken the easy way out via a bottle of pills or a loaded pistol, I would likely have become (like so many disappointed idealists) misanthropic and bitterly cynical, admitting to myself that no one can change "human nature" and that one is a fool if one tries, and the best thing to do is to keep one's head down and try to make as pleasant a life as possible for oneself and one's family in the midst of the storm.

And, while I'm not going to buy into the oft-repeated (generally by those who want to ridicule it) notion that, without Christian faith, everyone would turn into a murderer, I would argue that the world as it currently is (which, let's face it, is run by the "powers that be" on purely secular terms, despite the increasing lip service paid to religious beliefs) shows that the "code of behavior" is relatively small, restricted only to matters where going against it would lead to a greater threat from the other "powers that be." But, within those strictures, anything goes. People aren't going to go out and kill their neighbors (i.e. equals) to take their property because, after all, if that were tolerated, anyone else could take your life to get your property. But when it comes to the powerful forcibly taking away that which belongs to those less-powerful (and, thus, to those who cannot pose an equal threat to them), any seeming "code of behavior" lip-service to "justice," "fairness," or "decency" will quickly fall away in favor of cold, pragmatic self-interest. While I'm not saying that all religious beliefs will automatically generate an enlightened ethical code (in fact, all too often, the reverse is true), it seems clear to me that the current zeitgeist of "morality" that does not "come down from on high" is generally nothing more than cold-blooded pragmatism, however dressed up in lofty concepts it may appear.

[CatholicEdHead]

7. Pretty close

most of the "offical" Vatican material is moderate to left-leaning in parts (due to the Left in Italy being farther Left than here).

Many of the division subsects of Catholism are former Protastant Fundies who converted late in life.

[Debs]

34. Read Acts

Parts of it read like pure socialism

[Racenut20]

2. The only unorganized minority..

Having spent my life as a member. White Anglo Saxon Protestant Male. I know just how you feel.

Those wackos do not represent the same Christianity that I do, nor do they go to the same Church. And part of that is that they really do not go to Church. Or perhaps do on Easter Sunday, it always seems a bit more crowded about that time of the year.

[cidliz2004]

78. Do you really believe that we are a minority..

or the silent majority?

[papau]

3. Very True :-)

:-)

[eallen]

5. Good for you! But I am curious...

What would you be without your church? If you were persuaded down the line that your religion was fantasy, would that cause you to stop helping others? To support creeping Republican dominance? To ignore all ethical considerations? To go on a cocaine and murder spree?

Speaking as someone without religion, I'm always puzzled by those who say: "if it weren't for my religion, I wouldn't be..." What would you be instead? And why?

[terryg11]

8. gonna talk out of turn here

bt that's fairly impossible to answer because how would they know?

One way to look at it though is what kind of person are they? Millions (probably billions as you look throughout the ages) have been subjected to roughly the exact same christian doctrines and look at how they all turned out. In one congregation alone you can find fifty differnt people who all listen to the exact same sermons every Sunday and if asked would probably answer questions relating to their faith identically yet monday through saturday do and support wildly different activities and thoughts. Some of these people will argue with you until blue in the face that our war in Iraq is just while others from that same congregation will tell you it's a horrible injustice.

What I'm trying to say is that without religion many people would probably turn out similar to wht they are now as far as morals and ethics but you just can't say for sure.

[Supersedeas]

75. well put, personal interpretation make it impossible for some Christians

to reach common ground with non-Christian liberals while other Christians will find it impossible NOT to find common ground with non-Christian liberals.

Some questions, what would you believe without these basic beliefs, really do not merit an answer.

[cally]

15. No, I wouldn't change at this point

I've moved away from organized faiths at this point. I still think that my church taught me liberal values.

[cidliz2004]

45. If you don't mind my asking

Do you go to a church? Do you belong to a religion?

I am just curious, because I don't. I just don't trust most church's out there. I don't want others interpreting God's word and feeding it to me the way that they choose to.

I believe that we, as Christians, have the Holy Spirit, to help us with our faith and to help guide us. I use the Bible, the Holy Spirit and my growing faith to guide me. What do you do?

[cally]

77. I apologize for not answering sooner

I've had major computer problems.

I do go to church but I'm not a member. I like being a member of a church so I'm looking. I find it difficult without a church. I think I found one but it will take me a little time to commit.

I left my last church for a variety of reasons. I had one foot out the door over gay rights and then got disgusted with the reaction to 9/11

I do all that you do. I'm lucky to find so many kindred spirits around me. The church I'm attending has a statement of faith that many have different paths to God and we are not to judge their path.

[cidliz2004]

79. What do you look for when you are "checking out" a Church

I would like to find one, but I have been burned too many times to easily walk into one without feeling confident that I would know how to recognize it for being truly a Christian Church.

[kineneb]

41. I do not need religion to see the truth

Like Tux, I call myself a Buddhist. But to me Buddhism is like a shoe, it fit me, it did not try to change my foot to fit an exiting system. I was raised around the church but there simply was too much mythology with which my logical brain could not deal. In fact, I am without a religion, since Buddhism is more a life-path than a belief system.

[demwing]

48. Interesting question

Let me turn it around.

What would you (or anyone else to whom this applies) be without your secular beliefs?

If you were persuaded down the line that your adherence to secular thought had robbed you of a valid part of your life, would that cause you to stop helping others?

I'm not being sarcastic, here. As much as the previous question is valid, and should be considered by anyone with a religious belief, I believe my question is of equal value.

[eallen]

50. What is "adherence to secular thought"?

Many religious believers -- I don't know the extent to which this applies to you -- seem to think that non-believers have some set of beliefs that somehow replaces the religious ones we lack. For the most part, that isn't the case. As an example, I'm hard-pressed to identify a single proposition or principle I hold, that isn't also held by some Christians. Scientific beliefs about the world? I suspect the majority of western Christians are comfortable with those. Support for secular democracy, and separation of church and state? As we see here, many Christians support that.

When I try to identify beliefs that make me distinctly secular as opposed to religious, one idea is to look at my beliefs about religion. For example, I give no credence to the fundamentalist story of Moses, and think there is quite a bit of evidence that the Old Testament was written as part of the process by which the early Israelites separated themselves from the other peoples in the region, and that it borrowed from earlier creation myths. I similarly think there is quite little that can be said about a historical Jesus. But not even that makes me distinctly secular. There are many Christians who are quite content with the scholarly results of archaeology and history. Rather than rejecting this, they add a layer of faith on top. I simply don't do that.

In short, secular thought doesn't necessarily replace religion with something else. For me, it is simply the lack of faith and all that that brings. I don't have "something else." I simply lack religion. You might modify your question a bit, and ask if I feel I have missed out on something, not having faith? Or what it would take for me to acquire it? Those are hard questions to answer, because I don't know that I can practice faith. To me, it seems not far removed from practicing delusion. How does any sane person choose to believe something as factual? That makes as much sense to me as flapping my arms and jumping off a roof. It is as hard for me to imagine what it would be like to have faith, as it is for me to imagine what it would be like to be a little bit schizophrenic.

Now yeah, in turn, that means it might be difficult for those with faith to imagine not practicing it. I understand that. Maybe the question makes little sense in either direction.

[kwassa]

65. I've been without faith and with faith

I grew up Unitarian, so I grew up without faith.

%^)

I find it amusing those who define something as not being a belief, but as a lack of belief, which to me is simply a different belief, a word game that is attempt to distinguish their belief from someone elses. I suspect you might replace religious faith with a faith in science, for example. Just a guess.

Having faith is not the same as choosing something to be factual, it is really more choosing to be open to possibilities that one knows are important, but are not necessarily definable or provable. It is simply recognizing that there is something greater than themselves that is more important.

Having a spiritual experience is really not an intellectual experience and will not necessarily be percieved through a rational process. This does not make it any less true. A sense of spirituality is like an additional sense, and if one has not had it, it is almost impossible to explain it to someone who hasn't had that experience. It would be a bit like speaking in German to someone who knows no German.

[eallen]

67. You lost me.

"I find it amusing those who define something as not being a belief, but as a lack of belief, which to me is simply a different belief, a word game that is attempt to distinguish their belief from someone elses. I suspect you might replace religious faith with a faith in science, for example."

Strangely, scientists often have less faith in science than do those not so trained. Something about knowing how it is made, and what lies underneath and at the edges. So, no, I don't have any particular faith in science. Why is the notion of not believing so challenging to you? It seems pretty easy to me. Do you believe in UFO abductions? If not, does that mean you have replaced that belief with something else?

"Having faith is not the same as choosing something to be factual, it is really more choosing to be open to possibilities that one knows are important, but are not necessarily definable or provable."

Well, no. I'm open to all sorts of possibilities. That doesn't cause me to devote myself to Allah, or to go chasing UFOs, or to join the Raelians, or to make an offering to Vishnu, or to do any of the things that faith-based people do. Very clearly, they are not open to all possibilities. Rather, they each have selected a very narrow possibility. And seem to accept it as factual, not just a possibility like all the others.

[kwassa]

70. I thought I might lose you

"Do you believe in UFO abductions? If not, does that mean you have replaced that belief with something else?"

Sure. I believe in many things. I believe the sun rises in the east. I believe winter comes after fall.

The point I am making is that "lack of belief" describes precisely nothing, a void, and to talk about the lack of belief is not meaningful.

And we all have beliefs. Whether or not we have beliefs about God, or supernatural beings, or any great theory about the meaning of life or the universe is another question. Many never contemplate the possibility.

I said:
"Having faith is not the same as choosing something to be factual, it is really more choosing to be open to possibilities that one knows are important, but are not necessarily definable or provable."

and you said:
"Well, no. I'm open to all sorts of possibilities. That doesn't cause me to devote myself to Allah, or to go chasing UFOs, or to join the Raelians, or to make an offering to Vishnu, or to do any of the things that faith-based people do. Very clearly, they are not open to all possibilities. Rather, they each have selected a very narrow possibility. And seem to accept it as factual, not just a possibility like all the others."

I think your definition of faith is far too narrow. It presumes that to have a faith in God requires us believe in a specific religious practice, which it really does not at all. And it requires us to believe in our choice as a hard, defined, dogmatic fact, when that is also not a requirement of faith. Our faith is only as dogmatic or as specific or as limited as we choose to make it.

I would point out that spirituality is inherent subjective. Even the most dogmatic believers of the most defined faith will subjectively experience that faith, emphasizing those aspects that are most important to them, and not others. Ultimately, all spiritual paths are singular and personal.

[eallen]

71. What about a lack of faith, of spiritual path?

"The point I am making is that 'lack of belief' describes precisely nothing, a void, and to talk about the lack of belief is not meaningful."

That is quite a puzzling claim to me. Do you agree that it is meaningful to assert that 'John believes in Allah'? If so, how can it not be meaningful to assert the negation of that sentence, 'John does not believe in Allah'?

"I think your definition of faith is far too narrow. It presumes that to have a faith in God requires us believe in a specific religious practice, which it really does not at all. And it requires us to believe in our choice as a hard, defined, dogmatic fact, when that is also not a requirement of faith."

Does it require you to believe in one god, rather than a thousand gods or no gods? Does it require anything at all?

[kwassa]

73. It is a pointless idea

Me:
"The point I am making is that 'lack of belief' describes precisely nothing, a void, and to talk about the lack of belief is not meaningful."

You:
"That is quite a puzzling claim to me. Do you agree that it is meaningful to assert that 'John believes in Allah'? If so, how can it not be meaningful to assert the negation of that sentence, 'John does not believe in Allah'?"

We are defined by what we are, not by what we are not. I am not a lot of things, which says nothing about what I am.

Saying that John does not believe in Allah says nothing about what John does believe in. Zero, zip, nada. John certainly believe in something, even if he only believes he will have another beer.

The fact that John doesn't believe in Allah is, of course, a belief in itself. He believes that Allah doesn't exist. "Lack of belief" is just a phony stance, popular among our local atheists here, that they don't have a belief of their own when in fact they do have an affirmative belief. They believe that God doesn't exist.

you said:
"Does it require you to believe in one god, rather than a thousand gods or no gods?"

Nope

"Does it require anything at all?"

Yep. It requires you to believe that there is a greater reality than ourselves, I think, and that's about it.

[eallen]

76. What you call phony is logically necessary.

"The fact that John doesn't believe in Allah is, of course, a belief in itself. He believes that Allah doesn't exist."

That's a logical error. There are many assertions you don't believe, without believing their negation. Let me list a few likely ones:


* I have three or more quarters in my pocket.

* There are more deciduous trees than evergreens in Colorado.

* One of the lunar astronauts left a dime on the surface of the moon.

* The real part of any non-trivial zero of the Riemann zeta function is 1/2.

* The Dow Jones will close up next Tuesday.

* The Dow Jones will close up next Wednesday.

* The Dow Jones will close up next Thursday.

Are you really going to claim, for each of the assertions in the list above, that you either believe it, or believe its negation? Except for the first, to which I have privy knowledge, I believe none of the assertions above, nor their negations.

The notion that everyone believes either an assertion or its negation is quite naive. In theorem proving, this is known as the closed-world assumption. It assumes that the system essentially has all knowledge of the relevant domain. Except for some fairly simple domains, this is logically impossible. Gödel is the relevant reference. There is a very real difference between not believing an assertion, and believing the negation of an assertion.

[kwassa]

82. I don't agree

you said:
"There is a very real difference between not believing an assertion, and believing the negation of an assertion."

In this case, I don't think there is. There really is no alternative. A lack of belief in God, means that one does not believe in God, as there is no other possible outcome. Belief in God is an all-or-nothing proposition.

[eallen]

84. All I can say is: study some epistemic logic.

"A lack of belief in God, means that one does not believe in God."

Well, that's true. But it does not mean a belief that there is no god. Symbollically, there is an important difference between ~Believe(A) and Believe(~A). That confuses a lot of people. They move from the law of excluded middle, A or ~A, to the closed world assumption: Believe(A) or Believe(~A). That move is a fundamental logical mistake, except for very limited domains. You can disagree, but in doing so, you bump yourself against some well-developed logic.

[vademocrat]

6. My new bumper sticker - "Jesus was a Liberal"

Well, actually he was a revolutionary activist but that may be going to far here in Richmond, VA...

[AuntiBush]

35. I'll Second that Amen!

Jesus most certainly was a radical, liberal activist who was hung on that old rugged cross for all the meek of the world. And, never forget who hung him up there - it was the neo-conservative religious fanatics w/huge, if not total control seeking agendas all politicaly powerful in their day.

The FReepers don't see that part of it. They're into their Genealogy. Well, why did so many of their/our ancestors flee to the continent known as Americas? And many (I KNOW factually) reformed only to save the lives of the families, even here. Moron Freepers. I hope they read this and think... think critically about this.

[cyberpj]

56. Here's a pic of mine --- ps. "Jesus IS a Liberal"

I like yours too and will probably use it as we approach elections again.

[quaoar]

9. Amen

[Tux]

10. Liberal Christian?

I do know they exist since I meet some at a UU church near me. It's the only place that allows Buddhists to attend without being called "godless sinners". I heard that enough times, had an employer require me to attend his church so I can get a schedule so I cana attend a "godless liberal" graduate sociology program, or have people give me dirty looks for having a Buddhist pendant. Overtime it does get old and with very few liberal Christian, "Christians as enemies" does seem real.

You said the liberal Christians are disorganized. Since they aren't speaking out against Evangelicals, they're not organized since they aren't doing anything. If they aren't speak out against a potential theocracy in the public space, their silence supports it. My UU church does speak about the threat and spread the word of love as they organize fundraisers for a crisis hotline, volunteer at an animal shelter, or donate food, clothes, books, toiletries, and other things poor folks could use.

I think the main problem is this: Evangelicals dominate the Christian media. 700 CLub wants to give it's views as the views of all Christians and to many people, it does. Liberal Christians need to break out their own media productions and spread the truth of what Jesus taught. No more Christian magazines, TV shows, etc, start your own. If it has to be local, start it in your church and sell it cheaply to other churches. Maybe it would grow. Also consider working with groups that do act against Evngelical goals like UUA or TheocracyWatch etc.

[realisticphish]

40. www.sojo.net

we already have a magazine :)


:hippie: The Incorrigible Democrat

[cidliz2004]

42. I think one of the problems is that being a true Christian is a lonely

road. I don't believe that there are too many Christian Churches out there that are truly Christian. I have been to some over the years and found more hypocrisy than I could bear. My relationship and spirituality are a personal and private thing. I freely would talk to anybody about Jesus, but I don't trust people interpreting the Bible for me and telling me what it all means, I believe that is what the Holy Spirit is for, all we need to do is turn to God and when we connect and seek, we will be guided with our faith.

Jesus was a liberal at heart and he wouldn't have stepped inside most of the "Christian" Church's. Jesus walked and reached out to people in a very humble way. He didn't build buildings and marble statues and use stain glass windows to speak the word. People listened to hear the message and gave up all to follow him. I could go on and on, but I believe true Christians do not judge other religions, I remember hearing/reading that we really shouldn't concern ourselves with the other faiths because we do not know the fathers grand plan, and we don't. So, being an "exclusive" Christian and condemning all other religions is the 1st non Christian thing done by most of the "Christian" right.

[mzmolly]

61. They do speak out LOUDLY. But they don't have a cable network

or a voice from the Corporate Media.

http://www.tcpc.org/

See here for a list of several links:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=226&topic_id=1183

[southlandshari]

92. If you are ever going to be in Alabama, Tux

let me know in advance. You are welcome to come to my Presbyterian USA church with no fear of being called a "godless sinner". This I know because my Muslim husband often comes along on Sunday, and he's as beloved a part of our congregation as anyone else.

[Doctor Pedantic]

12. Hey, me too!

Jesus said there are just two commandments. And no, they aren't "make abortions illegal" and "don't let gays and lesbians marry"! They go something like this: Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind and soul; and love your neighbor as yourself.

And Jesus also said that when He returns to judge humanity, He will do so based on how we treated "the least of" our sisters and brothers. Did we help the poor? Feed the hungry? Comfort the sick?

I'm sorry, but the values that Jesus taught just seem fundamentally inconsistent with modern Republican politics. (Not to mention what Scripture says about non-violence, racial justice, the environment, etc.) I am sick of faith being hijacked by the religious right.

I really recommend the book God's Politics, by Jim Wallis. I got to hear Wallis speak to a packed house last week and he is really inspiring. His attitude is that Christians need to start fulfilling scriptural mandates about things like taking care of the poor, rather than cynically focusing on hot-button social issues that just aren't important. I couldn't agree more. People who call themselves Christians need to wake up and start taking care of "the least of" those in our society, instead of just spewing hatred and intolerance and pursuing wealth and war.

Onward, Christian Pacifists! :-)

[Tux]

16. If only....

I am sick of faith being hijacked by the religious right.

If only the religious right hijakced Buddhism, then the main issue would be forced vegitarianism instead of gay marriage.

What makes Christians believe that Jesus will reincarnate into another life while saying that reincarnation doesn't exist? If it's not reincarnation, why would Jesus return to Earth after he was tortured and killed?

[DoYouEverWonder]

14. I've taken to putting these cards

on obvious fundie bushbot vehicles. It always makes me feel so much better when I've tagged one.

[Dem2theMax]

21. Where did you get those cards? I would love to get some. nt.

[DoYouEverWonder]

23. I made it

shttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v411/DoYouEverWonder/Misc/HC-Jesus-George-stepped-up.jpg

Delete the 's' in front of the link, for a sheet with 4 up. Have fun.

[Dem2theMax]

39. Thank you so much! Boy am I going to enjoy using them. LOL. nt.

[Maat]

18. Cally ... have you checked out the Liberal Christian club here ..

at DU?

Go down to DU Groups on your left on the main screen.

Go down the DU Group page to Liberal Christians ...

read a few topics.

I suggest hitting 'add to my forums' if you want to avail yourself of that forum on a regular basis.

That's a way of sticking together!

[cally]

22. I'm there...I supported creating the group

I've posted there.

[Maat]

24. I had a suspicion you might have.

I should have looked.

My bad. Sorry.

The social worker in me (I'm retired) just has to know that DUers know that there is support out there.

And thanks for getting the group going (or helping to that end).

I helped with the Seekers on Unique Paths Group for those of the Unitarian-Universalist bent, although we feel free to post on the Liberal Christians/Progressive Faiths Group as well.

I like to think of the DU Groups relating to religion and spirituality as one big DU-Interfaith-Alliance, if need be.

[GOPBasher]

19. There are plenty of liberal Christians.

A close reading of the gospels would reveal the Jesus was as liberal as they come.

[FreedomAngel82]

30. Very true

It's all there. He was for seperation of church and state, helping the poor and elderly etc. There's plenty of liberal in him. So much more then conservative.

[GOPBasher]

51. And he's for turning the other cheek, which

is one thing that almost no one -- incluing liberals and certainly including me -- is good at.

[Kahuna]

20. Here here, Cally! So am I. First I'm a Dem in my heart. But when I read..

the Bible, and Jesus' teachings I have no doubt that humility, sacrifice and generousity is what Jesus taught.

[Sapphire Blue]

25. Sojourners & Call to Renewal

For anyone interested....


Sojourners

http://www.sojo.net/


Call to Renewal

http://www.calltorenewal.com/

[FreedomAngel82]

31. I love Sojourners

They're great. :) Last week or week before I saw on a car a bumper sticker here that said "God is not a republican or democrat." Hehe. I was happy to see that. And people still have their Kerry stickers up around here. ;) I've never seen this other site before so I'm checking them out now. If they're affiliated with SoJourners they must be pretty good.

[KoKo]

26. Cally....Our "Non-Fundie" Denominations have Let Us Down, Big Time....

There's no other way to describe this! THEY allowed Falwell/Robertson to gain the "High Road" and take over the ENTIRE DIALOG for Christians all over the US...

When, in fact, there's Huge Amounts of "us" Christians who are NOT SUPPORTIVE OF THEM!

How did this happen? Why were our "other Christians" so willing to allow the "Falwell/Robertson" juggernaut to take over what "JESUS SAID" and what's QUOTED IN THE "NEW TESTAMENT?"

We allowed these "Old Testament" traitors and "mis-interpreters" to take us over and we now are in a forerunner to the "Spanish Inquisition?" FGS!

What happened to us? Why haven't we been raising a stink about this from our own "Non-Neo-Con," "Non-RW Fundie" Pulpits? WHY...........WHY!!!! WHY!!!!!!????? Moral Cowards? "Status Quo" corporatists???What??

[cally]

27. I think we were too willing to let others have their faith

We sat back and didn't want to judge. We were WRONG. We have to say what Christianity and faith is rather than what it is not.

[Sapphire Blue]

28. How did it happen?

The Despoiling of America
How George W. Bush became the head of the new American Dominionist Church/State


an excerpt:


It happened quietly, with barely a mention in the media. Only the Washington Post dutifully reported it.<1> And only Kevin Phillips saw its significance in his new book, American Dynasty.<2> On December 24, 2001, Pat Robertson resigned his position as President of the Christian Coalition.

Behind the scenes religious conservatives were abuzz with excitement. They believed Robertson had stepped down to allow the ascendance of the President of the United States of America to take his rightful place as the head of the true American Holy Christian Church.

Robertson’s act was symbolic, but it carried a secret and solemn revelation to the faithful. It was the signal that the Bush administration was a government under God that was led by an anointed President who would be the first regent in a dynasty of regents awaiting the return of Jesus to earth. The President would now be the minister through whom God would execute His will in the nation. George W. Bush accepted his scepter and his sword with humility, grace and a sense of exultation.

http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/TheDespoilingOfAmerica.htm


Other articles are available at The Yurica Report

http://www.yuricareport.com/

[KoKo]

53. Thanks for the link. I hadn't made the connection with Robertson stepping

down that it made Chimp de facto head of the Dominionism Faction of the Fundies.... It makes sense. Sheesh..

[FreedomAngel82]

32. Because they

believe them and don't think for themselves. It's like with Bush. People vote for him just because he's very vocal about "being a Christian" even though it's far from it. Has anybody ever seen "With God on Our Side" on Sundance Channel?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

72. I think a lot of them were fooled by the rhetoric until it was too late

At first, they seemed like "fellow Christians who have chosen a different path to God." We were just coming out of a time when relations between Catholics and Protestants were not good, so mainstream churches were cautious about bashing other people who called themselves Christians.

Now the task of combatting them is more difficult, because they're so powerful.

[FreedomAngel82]

29. One thing that makes me sad

is that these people on the right claim to be Christian but they don't do things that are Christ-like. They've all been brainwashed to follow these people that are far from Christ-like. Christ taught men to be humble and not to put your posessions on earth but Falwell and Robertson have rich homes and mansions. How is that being humble? They also spew their hatered for our party when you look at history and look at their past they are the most corrupt and big hypocrites. I think we have to start showing people that a lot of them who claim to be Christians are the hypocrites and, as Rhandi Rhodes says, I'm the religious right and as Dean said we have to show up and tell people about what we believe and stop letting the right talk for us.

[elshiva]

33. Amen. Liberal Jewish-Episcopalian here.

Christian left is alive and well at the College of Notre Dame of Maryland. I graduated from there. I learned there that salvation can be measured in affordable housing and universal health care.
God/ess bless all!

[RevCheesehead]

37. Thanks for your post, cally!

And it's nice seeing you again. :hi:

[ldf]

38. i'm not trying to belittle your belief system

but the REAL problem of all the religions is that they need to take them back from the fundamentalists who have reinterpreted the tenets of religion for their own agenda.

i don't know the answer, but quietly doing good works in your church does nothing at the political level. it's all good, but unfortunately when you do things quietly, as good deeds SHOULD be done, no one knows. there has to be a coordinated public campaign.

i don't know what else to call them, but the "liberal", or "progressive", or "non-denominational" churches need to get together with a unified voice and shame those who are using god for their own political purposes.

being a white, male, former christian, raised in a literalist church, i understand where your heart is.

but after much thought i decided that, as far as I can see, just about all the pain and injustice around the world, can be laid at the feet of religion. or really it's followers. but that is the problem. a religion is defined by the works of it's followers. and right now, the christians doing the moving and shaking are NOT followers of christ.

and besides, i don't believe the whole god thing.

so i can't say what you should do, other than unite with one voice.

point out what liars the rightwing nuts are. point out what they are doing in the name of religion, but purely for political purposes, purposes that go against everything this country stands for.

churches have money, and can get onto the media. but we aren't hearing them.

good luck. we need you.

[burrowowl]

43. Dorothy Day

Liberation Theology, Social Justice, Maryknollers, Saint Francis of Assisi, Martin Luther King Jr., etc.

[cidliz2004]

44. We are Members of the Christian Left

I would like to see us start a group to counter the Christian Right. I started a thread about it and I would like some imput.

Cally, you and I are on the same page. We need to take back Christianity and proudly proclaim our faith along with our political affiliation, whether it be Liberal, Left - Democrat.

The values of Christianity ARE the Democratic ideals. Somehow they were stolen and USED for power.

[UrbScotty]

46. AMEN, BROTHER/SISTER!!

Remember what the Bible says: "Whatever you do to the least of these people, so also you do unto me." (Matt. 25:37)

[deutsey]

47. Are you familiar with Sojourners?

http://www.sojo.net/

I heard Jim Wallis last week when I was in San Francisco. He's very interested in starting a liberal evangelical Christian movement for social justice across the country.

He's written a book called "God's Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It."

I like what he's trying to do, although I find his evangelicalism something of an obstacle to accomplishing what he claims he wants to do: create a broad-ranging, religious coalition among the left for social justice. Someone at Wallis' talk I attended in San Francisco was gay and asked Wallis about gay marriage as an issue and the role gay people could have in Wallis' movement. Wallis seemed very uncomfortable answering his question and gave, in my opinion, an evasive response.

Still, what he's trying to do is so necessary today, I wish him and Sojourners all the best in getting this movement off the ground.

[KoKo]

54. Thanks for the link...I'll check it out. n/t

[progressoid]

49. As someone that occasionally rails against Christians

(admittedly unfairly), I say this in all earnestness...take back your religion! I often lament that Jesus was one of the quintessential liberals. But as a non-Christian, my statement seems rather empty.

The Prince of Peace has been kidnapped by the fanatic right. Release him.

[Zynx]

52. Liberal Christianity must save all of Christianity.

If the Fundies take over completely, I am afraid they will destroy Christianity in the long run.

[seito]

55. Jesus seemed pretty liberal to me

Nice post :thumbsup:

[sarcasmo]

57. Who cares what your mythology is. In politics, mythology shouldn't matter.

[mzmolly]

60. Would you have said this to a Buddhist?

How bout Einstein or Ghandi or Martin Luther King?

The mantram becomes one's staff of life and carries one through every ordeal. Each repetition has a new meaning, carrying you nearer and nearer to God. ~ Mahatma Gandhi

http://en.proverbia.net/citastema.asp?tematica=523&ntematica=God

[cyberpj]

58. Yep. Same reason I'm a pacifist - see my new bumper sticker here:

Christians are so very many many things that Bush and his friends are NOT!

[davidinalameda]

59. goes to show that the Religious Left needs to get organized

to effectively counter the Falwells and his ilk

we have people out there but a lot of them don't realize that there are others


and we have to fight the ignorance of the anti-religious left as well

[mzmolly]

62. Agreed. A 24 hour cable tv network might be nice.

;)

[davidinalameda]

69. and me winning the lotto would be even better

but neither one is going to happen anytime soon

you got to go with what you have

[mzmolly]

74. Now what if Tammy Faye and what's his name had that attitude!

:P

[Padraig18]

63. Testify, mzmolly!

http://www.liberalslikechrist.org

[LoZoccolo]

66. 39% of evangelical Christians are Democrats.

I'm really convinced that the Republicans are employing a blowback strategy to try to get us to attack this part of our contingent, and hand it to them. Notice how they tried to put before us the idea that "moral values" gave the election to them, despite the fact that the contingent of voters voting on the basis of issues under that banner had decreased from 45% in 1996 to 35% in 2000 to 22% in 2004. I really can't see any reason for them emphasizing a shrinking contingent other than to try to tune our rhetoric to be against religion so they can carve out a segment of our voters for themselves.

[Cuban_Liberal]

68. The mainstays of our local food bank, etc., are Catholics and evangelicals

We're very fortunate to live in a generous community that believes in both charity and 'taking care of its own', and our Ministerial Alliance operates a food bank, a clothing bank and oversees the day-to-day operations of the Civic Association (they make cash grants to pay rent, utilities, doctor's bills, etc.). The bedrock supporters of these various organizations are largely Catholic, Lutheran and Pentecostal volunteers. As one Pentecostal lady told me, "If our churches can't help feed the hungry, house the homeless and clothe the naked, we need to go back to square one and ask ourselves if we truly believe in Christ's teachings, or not".

:)

[ElectroPrincess]

80. Hi! Me too ... I'm a liberal Catholic.

Good to see your thread title and post.

Yes, liberal Christians do exist. :-)

[kodi]

81. really? i did not need a god to reveal to me right from wrong

i come to the teachings of jesus and accept his wisdom because i feel he speaks of eternal, truly catholic truths, but i do not hold to those truths simply because jesus articulated them, because other teachers of wisdom have as well.

i am liberal because i believe that as sentient humans, we can exist with the most good via understanding that this is best arrived at by articulating and implimewnting a social contract between people that supports mutual freedoms, responsibilities, and rights.

[cally]

83. You found a different path to morality than I did

I'm not questioning your path just stating my own. Why the hostility?

[kodi]

88. I am suspicious of anyone who hears voices telling them right from wrong

And quite truly, there is no hostility, its just that I distrust anyone who tells me they are acting out their morality and ethics based upon the wishes of their gods.

I would feel this way regardless of whether Odin, Zeus, or Wally the Wonder Snake spoke a Sermon on the Mount.

I can delineate an ethical argument for my liberalism that does not require theism.

but I will grant you this, if you use the metaphors employed by your faith to motivate your actions and at least attempt to separate the connotations from the denotations, we can get along quite nicely.

Because, quite frankly, telling me Jesus told you to do something will get you nowhere with me.

[cally]

89. Enough. Read my post

and get rid of your biases. I never said nor impilied that Jesus told me what to do.

Fine, distrust me. The feeling is mutual.

I can make many arguments and base my morality on many basis. I can discuss the gods, the basis of religion, why humans believe what they do, why the paternalistic religions took root. I'm good at it. I've read much and I'm good at the intellectual arguments that are fun but have very little meaning. I was talking about my personal experience.

[kodi]

90. had you ventured to read my sig line, i was already there.

.

[borg5575]

85. We need to get this message out to religious voters.

The right's stranglehold on religious voters in the Bible Belt states has got to be broken.

We liberals have got to get out the message loud and clear that the liberal ideals that we stand for are much closer to the teachings of Jesus than what the fundies preach.

It is sad however that anytime this subject is breached some (certainly not all however) DU posters have to show their anti religion prejudices. When are some people ever going to get it through their heads that without votes from the millions of religious people in this country we are never going to get back into power? We need to embrace religious people, not alienate them.

I am glad the Howard Dean seems to agree with me on this. He has pledged to do his utmost to get out the message to religious people that the Democratic Party is more in tune with true Christian values than the rethugs are.

[LynneSin]

86. Amen Sister - Me too

Liberal, Christian and Proud!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

87. Me, too

I didn't grow up in a volunteering family. My parents evidently felt that they did so much for the church that they didn't have any energy left over.

It was discussion groups, Bible studies, and nagging friends who began raising my social consciousness to the point where I considered volunteering. The first step was understanding that Christianity calls upon us to help those in need, but the second step was a sort of peer pressure from fellow parishioniers who modeled lives of service.

[DARE to HOPE]

93. Me, too.

My feminist friends used to find that funny. But it was the relationship I had as a child of God that propelled me in that movement as well. And every other one.