At What Point Does A Progressive Movement Hit The Immovable Object Called Religion?

[stopbush]

I don't mean this post as flamebait, but it seems to me that at some point, progressive ideas run up against religion, as happened here in CA with Prop 8.

What are the compromises and work-arounds that are needed to advance a truly progressive agenda, an agenda that includes full rights for everyone, including the right of gays to marry? Is it even possible for all religions to accept such an agenda? Is there a point where progressives need to take on the very tenets of a particular religion to advance an all-inclusive, Constitutionally based agenda?

I'm looking for a serious discussion of the elephant in the room.

Thanks.

[saltpoint]

1. I think it's best to co-opt a religion's chief tenets and re-interpret them

to a new profile of inclusion and universal purpose.

[polichick]

6. Or, in the case of Christianity, get back to what Jesus actually taught.

[saltpoint]

9. Damn. There you are again making good sense.

Yes. It would shock the blazes out of a lot of the fundie nutbags if they actually read the damn New Testament instead of opening their pie-holes so their local pastor can fill 'em up with whatever he pleases.

I'd like to one day hear Rev. Jim Dobson try to debate Bill Moyers on Christianity. I'd pay some serious cash for that.

[polichick]

10. That's a debate I'd pay to hear too!

[TechBear_Seattle]

23. I'll take four seats, please, front row and center. Price is no object. n/t

[Buzz Clik]

2. At what point does a driver of a car hit a brick wall? When he intentionally drives into it.

Roughly 30% of fundamentalist Christians (not just Christians -- the hard core fundies) voted for Obama. We can either work with them or urinate in their faces.

[Silent3]

3. Some of them would pay us to do that, you know...

...as long as we kept it secret. Just sayin' ;)

[Buzz Clik]

7. Yeah, and we're pretty bad at keeping secrets.

Just sayin'. :evilgrin:

[polichick]

17. LOL

[enlightenment]

8. Working with implies compromise.

Seems to me that there is a distinct lack of compromise coming from the fundamentalist hard core on some of these issues. As long as they consider the Bible infallible and use a Biblical defense for their opposition to various progressive ideas there is no conversation.

Your comment about 'urinating' on them suggests that the progressives are being offensive to the Christians and refusing to compromise their positions, but I'm not seeing anything in your comment that suggests the Christians have a responsibility to do the same if we are going to "work with them".

How, exactly, are we supposed to work with people who justify their attitudes as divine injunction? They've created an unassailable (if utterly illogical) position. Doesn't matter what is said, it always comes back to "God said so".

Maybe it's just me, but I don't see ANY compromise in their position and compromise that isn't a two-way street isn't compromise, it's capitulation.

[Buzz Clik]

11. You're intentionally driving into the brick wall.

Your position sounds eerily familiar to that taken by Ann Coulter concerning Muslims.

Yes, we work with them. It will involve compromise on both sides.

[enlightenment]

14. Quite the ad hominem attack.

Please explain. Or not. Your choice.

[Buzz Clik]

15. There's no ad hominem at all. If metaphors offend you, I'm sorry. I'll stop.

However, you started it all with your "immovable object" in your title.

=======

You have chosen to focus on the wild-eyed recalcitrant types in the Christian movement. If a large fraction of fundies voted against some of their moral beliefs to support Obama, we have an opportunity that we cannot miss. If we refuse to compromise, we miss the moment and, as you suggested in the OP, we will be doomed to be fighting Prop 8s until the end of time.

[dmallind]

21. How do you suggest they should compromise

with abomination and sin as they see it? How do you suggest we compromise with people who consider human love to be abomination and sin?

[polichick]

4. Christians who practice what Jesus taught have no problem with...

...progressive liberty-and-justice-for-all ideas ~ unfortunately religions are invested in controlling people by fear, so progressives will have to take them on (as they did re women's rights, civil rights, etc.).

[Warpy]

5. Every goddamned step of the way if it's conservative religion

At its best and truest, Christianity is as progressive as it gets. However, rigid people tend to pervert it so it reflects their personality rather than the intention of the barefoot homeless socialist in the New Testament.

Unfortunately, hidebound conservatism is at its most effective in stopping justice when it hides behind the cross, and justice is what progressivism is all about.

Only when mainstream and progressive Christians realize there is no solidarity with conservative "Christians" will religion no longer be an effective block to progress.

[msongs]

12. non believers go to hell when they die. how is that progressive? nt

[Warpy]

16. I really don't care what anybody else thinks about an afterlife

It's none of my business.

Mainstream and progressive Christians take that "judge not lest ye be judged" thing to heart, anyway.

The only people who cavalierly shove me into hell are the conservatives.

[stray cat]

13. At the point where it can not elect anyone but at least the progressive movement will be "pure"

[JerseygirlCT]

18. I don't know - but it seems to me that the civil rights movement of the

60s was certainly aided in great part by religious folk.

I do not think the fight for justice and tolerance is at all opposed to religion. I DO think that there's a great deal of fear and disinformation out there, being used for ends that seem to me to be rather opposed to the fundamentals of the teachings of many of our major religious movements. I think a great deal of education will be key toward overcoming that.

At the same time, I think it's important to recognize that we cannot wait for that education to bear its fruit. Religion has its place in our culture, without a doubt. Ignoring or railing against that is like railing against the weather - go to it, but it's not likely to make a difference. But underlining the reasons - good ones - that we have enshrined a freedom of religion and with it an understood separation of church and state in our Constitution is key. Even those who have a very conservative and exclusive religious agenda should be open to the argument that undermining that basic right puts them at risk as well. There's some serious self-interest in play there.

Meanwhile, I think more and more mainstream Christian churches, and certainly the reform Jewish movement, are already quite inclusive wrt gay and lesbian folk. They need to be recruited to see this as the justice and human rights issue it is, perhaps, and to push it forward on the list of things to speak out about, perhaps. But they're not the enemy.

[rug]

19. When it deals with a stereotype.

There is no theological basis to ask a state to enforce a religion's morality.

[quaker bill]

20. Quakers were progressive

centuries before it was cool. (equality for women 1653, abolition of slavery 1660's, founding free co-educational and racially integrated public schools 1680's, codifying freedom of religion into formation of government 1660's, refusal to pay taxes to support war 1656, refusal to participate in war against native americans and resignation from government in protest...., only Church to win the Nobel Peace Prize (for literally centuries of work for peace))

Where do you think many of these ideas came from? Progressive ideas are religious easily as much as they are secular.

[kwassa]

22. "Progressive ideas are religious easily as much as they are secular"

Such a good point that I've have to repeat it. Looking at the history of the US, many of the socially reformist movements were founded or supported by various religious organizations.

[anonymous171]

24. Nothing is immovable, unless you want it to be.