Religion
Related: About this forumThe Stunning Resurgence of Progressive Christianity
Posted: 06/04/2014
8:22 am EDT
Updated: 1 hour ago
Paul Brandeis Raushenbush
Executive Religion Editor, The Huffington Post
Anyone born within the last 50 years would be justified in thinking that Jesus' teachings and Christian preachings were the exclusive domain of social and fiscal conservatives. The '70s, '80s, and '90s were dominated by Christians with names like Falwell, Robertson, and Dobson who leveraged television and radio to make theirs the default religious voice in America.
While important Liberation, Black, Womanist and Feminist theology was being lived out in communities around the world, when the media wanted a "representative" Christian voice it generally turned to these men with the largest megaphones who brought their faith language to conservative political stances on issues such as abortion, the role of women, LGBT rights, the death penalty, social welfare and war.
But that is so #TBT (ThrowBackThursday). There has been a largely unnoticed but radical movement over the last decade during which the spiritual fire has shifted to more progressive Christians and that has the potential to change both the political and spiritual landscape of America.
I had a feeling this was happening but was shocked during the past few weeks to note the extent to which the more progressive Christian leaders are speaking out and being heard in their effort to impact the public square. Pastors and priests have spoken out on blocked Medicaid expansions, gun control, and climate change.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-raushenbush/progressive-christianity_b_5437715.html
longship
(40,416 posts)The liberal religions need to stand up against the disgusting intolerance of the conservative loons. If this article is correct, that is a good thing.
rug
(82,333 posts)The opposition to the Vietnam had just turned the corner. She wrote the liner notes which included this line (taken from hazy memory): "He would not, could not, for any reason kill his brother." Let alone hate. I never ecountered an argument to counter that.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Even more hopeful is that information in the article that indicates that conservative religious groups are changing focus to things that we might even be able to work with them on - immigration reform, human trafficking, mental health.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I prefer the hard-right religion positions we commonly see today, because their position is generally pretty straight forward to assault and destroy in debate. It's possible to shame them out of their political positions with their own doctrine.
But even though it means not converting people away from religion, I don't find this concept disturbing, because it takes religiously-backed political ideology off the table, and that's a better world right there.
I can live with that.
rug
(82,333 posts)It may even make you feel better.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)over the liberal/progressive positions outlined in this article?
See, your use of language is so very tellings. Assault and destroy? Do you really think that is an effective approach to trying to work with people that may hold a position that you disagree with? All I think it probably accomplishes is another notch in your gun belt and people that hope they never run into you again.
People are changing on these issues. It's not all black and white, us and them.
Do you think taking religiously backed political ideology that supports GLBT civil rights, social justice, taking care of the most marginalized and peace off the table makes the world a better place.
You don't really have to answer that question. I think that you were clear and that you do.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)WOULD prefer. If I were a hard-line ideologue. I hope that changes the tone of your analysis.
(I was pretending to hold a conversation with someone in the background while I typed that.)
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I stated that correctly.
From a tactical standpoint, the hard line religious/conservative position is easier to argue against than a softer progressive religious position, if the question on the table is whether religion is real or not.
If I were a hard line ideologue about wanting to win the religion debate, this would be counter-productive to me. But I'm ok with it, because the political aspects are actually the bigger issue to me. (Which is pretty much what I said, so not sure why you are mining out that single sentence.)
"Do you think taking religiously backed political ideology that supports GLBT civil rights, social justice, taking care of the most marginalized and peace off the table makes the world a better place."
That wasn't phrased as a valid question, but no, that's the opposite of what I said. I said I can accept this soft progressive stance even though it is religious in nature, because I am not so invested in winning the religion debate that I would prefer hard-line religious bigotry to continue, just because it makes it easier for me to disassemble my opponent's position.
I said the opposite of what you took that for. (And I did not drop the word 'would' after all.)
"Do you really think that is an effective approach to trying to work with people that may hold a position that you disagree with?"
I have found it effective with the opponents I choose to engage. I would not try it with any/all comers, because yes, a confrontational approach is not always productive with all audiences.
I am not stupid. But thank you for asking.
Htom Sirveaux
(1,242 posts)Thanks for valuing progressive success above wanting religion to look as bad as possible.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)element of a major political party
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)and peace. I am glad.