Progressive People of Faith: Fred Clark, "The Slacktivist" blogger.

[Htom Sirveaux]

Fred Clark is a graduate of Eastern Baptist Theological Seminary (now called Palmer Seminary), of Eastern College (now called Eastern University) and of the fundamentalist Timothy Christian High School (still fundamentalist and still called Timothy Christian High School, but not really thrilled to have a snarky, liberal, tree-hugging, pro-choice, pro-GLBT, peacenik, commie, evolutionist as such a vocal alumnus).

A former managing editor of Prism magazine, Fred worked in the parachurch nonprofit world for a decade and then for a decade in the newspaper biz. He began blogging in 2002. In 2003 he began writing a review of the best-selling Left Behind series. Eight years later he still hasn’t finished reviewing the second book of that series and the experience has left him a broken shell of a man.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/about/

As a sample of Fred's progressiveness, here he is exposing anti-abortion politics for the cynical ploy that it is:

Back in the 1970s, white evangelicalism was mired in the disgrace of having been epically, utterly, spectacularly wrong about the Civil Rights movement. They hadn’t just picked the wrong side in a political battle. It was far worse than that. By defending injustice, they had disgraced themselves, surrendered all claims of moral competence, and become disgraced pariahs.

(SNIP)

Failing the clearest moral test of your time and culture is only a problem so long as that moral test is what people are talking about and thinking about. So talk about something else.

(SNIP)

And that’s what white evangelicals did in the late 1970s and into the 1980s. They didn’t change their minds about the Civil Rights movement, but they enthusiastically changed the subject. They started talking about abortion.

This is what abortion politics is for. This is what it was designed to do. This is its function and its purpose. It is — above all — a weapon for reasserting a claim to the moral high ground, and for putting the moral upstarts of the Civil Rights movement back in their proper place as moral subordinates who should have no say in determining right and wrong unless they first consult the rightful arbiters of such things, i.e., us.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2016/03/11/this-is-what-abortion-politics-is-for/

There are genuine, no-question-about-it progressive people of faith out there, where settling for them being anti-choice or anti-lgbt isn't even an issue.

[guillaumeb]

1. Abortion rights, civil rights, lgbtq rights, are all used by the 1% to divide people.

The GOP loves to talk about these things as a way of driving voters to the polls. It is up to Democrats to inspire their voters to vote, but equally important is to educate voters.

Recommended.

[beam me up scottie]

2. Wait, what? Our rights are 'divisive'?

This has nothing to do with the 1% - the vast majority of GOP voters are members of the 99% and they very much believe they have the moral high ground. That's why they vote for politicians who want to restrict our rights.

They're not trying to take away our rights because it's a 'divisive' tactic - they're trying to take away our rights because to them we're second class citizens and don't deserve the same human rights they enjoy. They support Republicans who want to ban marriage equality, same sex couple adoption, abortion etc because they don't think we're entitled to those rights.

This isn't about the 1% vs the 99%, this is about a religious war against women and lgbt people being waged by millions of conservative Christian voters and their leaders.

Those religious voters are voting their 'conscience' and I refuse to accept any other framing of it. They don't get a pass because some think they're being played by the 1%.

[guillaumeb]

5. Please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Your title is totally off base and unrelated to what I actually wrote.

I said the GOP uses issues to divide people. How you jump from that to a claim of rights themselves being divisive is interesting.

[Htom Sirveaux]

3. Yes, and they should be talked about by progressives, too.

Regardless of what the 1% or the GOP is doing. Because they matter, and they are worth fighting for. Also, not talking about them out of fear of the GOP would just demoralize our most ardent, most likely to vote supporters while making progressives look like we don't really have the courage of our convictions. Weakness and cowardice turns everyone off.

[guillaumeb]

7. Also recommended.

Democrats must strongly promote, and educate the voters. Not all GOP voters are unreachable.

[trotsky]

9. What the actual fuck?

Htom just told you the SAME THING bmus did. That we aren't going to put rights aside in this discussion.

You curse bmus, and praise Htom.

Your hatred of atheists is showing.

[guillaumeb]

10. I curse bmus and praise Htom?

Pleas show me the proof of this latest accusation by linking to my actual words where I curse bmus.

I will wait for this proof, as well as the proof about the Sisters.

As to hatred, I think it is apparent from looking at the sheer number of negative posts where that lies.

[trotsky]

14. I owe you absolutely nothing.

I let my words (and yours) stand for themselves, and let readers be the judge. They can decide who is lying.

[guillaumeb]

15. Yes they can.

And if you have no problem inventing positions that you then claim that I am taking, readers can also see that.

[beam me up scottie]

4. Thank you for finding a PPOF who isn't against lgbt and women's rights.

Fred never hesitates to call out Christian hypocrites or stand up for women and lgbt people.

Good for Fred.

[guillaumeb]

6. How about Phillip Berrigan, or Dorothy Day, or MLK Jr, or William Barber?

Also part of the series.

[Act_of_Reparation]

11. The Prayer of Philip Berrigan

Two months before he died, on December 6, 2002. Philip Berrigan wrote a reflection on prayer based on his reading of John Dear's book on Gandhi. "I've been reading an excellent book on Gandhi, compiled by John Dear, S.J. Gandhi himself prayed two hours every day, and he concluded that prayer was nourishment for the soul, even as food was lot the body, that prayer engendered the essentials of faith and humility, and that prayer, sincerely done, was more valuable than any action.

The following occur to me as worthwhile subjects of prayer:

* that we disarm our hearts and our society;

* that the Holy Spirit subvert, stalemate, and expose preparation for the invasion of Iraq;

* that God intervene in the ecological crises as Lord of Creation, because we refuse to change our abuse of the earth;

* that Americans begin to understand and resist the three-pronged aims for the Bush Administration: the trashing of civil liberties, perpetual war, and world domination;

* that the swindle of 'foreknowledge' by the Bushites of 9/11 be fully disclosed;

* that the 'crime' of 57 years of nuclear and its consequent wasting of our lives and planet, be revealed;

* that Americans grasp that war is our #1 business: that we are a violent killer people: and that we know virtually little of the nonviolence of Jesus and the Gospel;

* that the scourges of abortion, euthanasia and the death penalty will be ended;

* that the U.S. withdraw all economic and military aid from Israel;

* that the global war against children be lifted;

* that the rich West contribute medication and food to the global victims of HIV-AIDS; and

* that each of as become people of fidelity, nonviolence, and justice.

Catholic New Times 28.3 (Feb. 8, 2004) p14


Whoops. Better scratch ol' Phil off your list.

And his brother, Dan, too. That guy protested a Planned Parenthood clinic in 1991.

[guillaumeb]

12. Writing in 2017, and looking back,

I could make an excellent case that A. Lincoln was a weak apologist and accomodationist for slavery.

As to your 2 highlighted points, the first relates to the concept of a seamless web in support of life.

As to your second highlighted point, are you opposing helping such victims?

So no, I will leave him on the list and patiently wait for the many examples of non-theistic progressives that I am sure will soon flood the religion group. Or the A/A group.

Or not. Berrigan's prayer strikes me as much more progressive than anything else.

[Act_of_Reparation]

13. Yes, you could.

But then, I don't put much stock in "historical relativity".

Philip Berrigan died in 2002, not 1865. By the time of his passing, Roe v. Wade had been decided, feminism had made its case for abortion being integral to a woman's control over her own body, and protecting abortion had become an item of importance on almost every progressive and liberal platform of note. The pro-choice position was not obscure. It was certainly more widely held than the Berrigans' own absurdly inflexible ethos of "consistency of life".

As to your second highlighted point, are you opposing helping such victims?

Come on, man. "Medication and food" don't combat HIV/AIDS. Condoms do. But we all know why he wasn't praying for rich westerners to send condoms to AIDS hot zones.

[beam me up scottie]

8. Here's one of Fred's blog posts deconstructing the Left Behind series:

Left Behind: Pretrib Porno
October 18, 2003
by: Fred Clark


Pages 1-3.

The first words of Left Behind are "Rayford Steele," the protagonist's name.

It sounds like a porn star's name — and in a sense it is.

The Left Behind series is dispensational porno, but it's more than that. One of the most disturbing things about this book is the way LaHaye and Jenkins portray men, women and the relationships between them.

Note that Tim LaHaye's wife is something of a professional misogynist. She runs the 500,000-member "Concerned Women for America" — jokingly referred to by its critics as "Ladies Against Women." For years, while Beverly LaHaye's husband pastored a church in San Diego, Mrs. L. spent most of her time 3,000 miles away, in Washington, D.C., running a large organization committed to, among other things, telling women they should stay at home and sacrifice their careers for their husbands. She is not an ironic woman and doesn't seem to find any of this inconsistent. (Nor, as I found out firsthand, does she appreciate jokes about the Freudian implications of the view from her L'Enfante Plaza office window. Sometimes the Washington Monument is just a cigar.)

Our porn star hero, Rayford Steele, interacts with women just like any porn star does — minus, of course, the sex. It's all about dominance, exploitation, titillation and the stroking of — in this case — egos.

The character Rayford Steele is, like the authors, no longer a young man. Younger authors might not have been compelled to give their protagonists names — "Steele" and "Buck" — that seem such a blatant assertion of male virility. Bev is apparently not the only LaHaye who seems oblivious to phallic imagery.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2003/10/18/left-behind-pretrib-porno/

He does a fantastic job destroying the author and his end times porn.