Six Reasons We Can't Change the Future Without Progressive Religion
http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/10231-six-reasons-we-cant-change-the-future-without-progressive-religionMonday, 09 July 2012 11:45
By Sara Robinson, AlterNet | News Analysis
One of the great historical strengths of the progressive movement has been its resolute commitment to the separation of church and state. As progressives, we don't want our government influenced by anybody's religious laws. Instead of superstition and mob id, we prefer to have real science, based in real data and real evidence, guiding public policy. Instead of holy wars, othering, and social repression -- the inevitable by-products of theocracy -- we think that drawing from the widest possible range of philosophical traditions makes America smarter, stronger, and more durable over time.
That said: while we all want a government free of religion, there are good reasons that we may not want our own progressive movement to be shorn of every last spiritual impulse. In fact, the history of the progressive movement has shown us, over and over, that there are things that the spiritual community brings to political movements that are essential for success, and can't easily be replaced with anything else.
Religion has been central to the formation of human communities -- and to how we approach the future -- for as long as homo sapiens has been around. Apart from God-belief (which varies widely between religions), all successful religions thrive and endure because they offer their adherents a variety of effective community-building, social activism, and change management tools that, taken together, make religion quite possibly the most powerful social change technology humans have ever developed.
What does religion offer that progressives need to make our movement work?
more at link
= new reply since forum marked as read
Not to worry, EPU. Some things do change.
He can oppose green shoe laces for red headed girls but in a Democracy his is but one voice.
Computers, eyeglasses, extreme water sports weren't around 2000 years ago. I just wonder why, when some Christians claim homosexuality is so dangerous, they aren't pointing to scripture to back them up.
Jesus reiterated the 10 commandments. I like to point out there were 10 not 14, not twenty.
He added one more. The golden rule. It is echoed in other writings across the spectrum of world religions. It is the essence of God imho. If one followed it he might have no need for the rest.
But evil slides in. To turn every good thing-and isn't love a good thing-into a scummy reflection of someone who is unsatisfied with himself.
My understanding of our constitution is that we are to have freedom from religion as well as freedom of it.
Some of the founders were agnostic and no doubt there were atheists who simply couldn't proclaim so at the time, but there were also religious people without whose sensibilities we could not today enjoy the liberty we do as a people.
Nice to have you aboard.
Why would atheistic activism want to purge religion? I understand that you personally see it as a generally negative thing, but, while there are some bad, even evil, things about religion, do you think that it is so bad that it should be eliminated? What about the good things. Do you think they would be replaced somehow?
I think you are right about alliances. I think atheists and progressive/liberal theists can be natural allies in many areas. I would like to see more of that happening on a formal level. It would help both parties. I have been *preaching* the common enemy theme for awhile and glad to see at least one person agree with me, lol.
For those dropping in, I will cite Daniel C. Dennett whose book, Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon transformed both my atheism as well as my thinking as to my atheistic activism. I invite interested people here to delve into this important tome.
Dennett's argument is that it may be that religious beliefs are an evolutionary development. If so, it might be a very good thing if humankind took the trouble to study that very thing from a very academic standpoint.
Above all, regardless, it is important that we study what part religion plays in cultural memes. Here Dennett follows on the works of Dawkins and others. He makes a compelling argument that genetic or memetic, understanding what religion is in context of human behavior is possibly more important now than possibly ever before.
Others of the big name atheists have made similar arguments, notably physicist Victor Stenger and even Dawkins, Hitchens, and Sam Harris have spoken similar sentiments.
My first response to your post was, as you already know, a show of support to your OP. I have expressed the same before here. But now, I would like to go further.
I think the Republican party is amongst the most evil political factions ever in our history. They are, on the whole, a theistic party, dedicated to the goals expressed by a minority of citizens but who have taken hold of the reins of one of the major parties and hold it in a totalitarian grip.
They did this starting in the late seventies with Falwell's Moral Majority and later with Robertson's Christian Coalition. It started by running people at the very local levels, precinct delegates. Once you have even a plurality of the precincts you can leverage that, through the party hierarchy to the county, district, and state levels. And if you gain a majority of precincts, you can take over the entire state party. They replicated this across the nation. (If only progressives had churches to replicate this activism, maybe the Democratic party would be what many of us here want.) 
The take away is that everything we despise about the Republicans stems from this simple, but elegant takeover by a radical, fundementally religious cabal. Most recently, they have been supplemented by a second force, the tea-baggers, a racist and anti-government bunch of thugs.
So, we know what's at stake now. Even if it were not such a grim situation I would still ally with my liberal theist friends, all whom I love as much as anybody. (Despise the religion; but love the religious.) but consider what could happen if the Republicans gained power now? How could you not form all the alliances you could?
I am very scared about this election. More than any other in my life. I would cross the river Styx if I thought it would help Democrats win.
Sorry, for the ramble. Posted it as much for the lurkers as you.
Always good to see you, my friend.
on edit: to get to your question, I neither desire, nor do I think it possible to eliminate religion. Rather, to quote Dennett, I would prefer it to morph into an aviralent form -- one less toxic. Hence, my support to the liberal sects, etc. But they would have to support my reading of the first amendment, which I believe is already a gimme.
of the evolutionary process. This article would lend credence to that as well, as tightly bound communities or tribes would seem to have a higher chance of survival and reproduction than others.
Your description of what the Republican party did and how they did it is exactly right, imo. My father wrote and talked about this starting about 8 years ago. What is interesting to me is that the conservative christians were swayed by two huge political issues - gay marriage and abortion. They were promised the moon and received virtually nothing of what was promised.
I think their disenchantment and feeling that they were used is what is permitting them to now consider a Mormon. At least he says he is on their side when it comes to these issues that they hold so dear. Those that put themselves out there as fundamentalists really let them down.
I share your fear about this election season. The republicans remains very good at sowing fear, uncertainty and doubt. They also remain very good at keeping the opposition divided. That is one of the big reasons that I push for alliances here. Perhaps we can get back to fighting after the elections, but for now we need to circle the wagons, hold hands and sing kumbayah (as I am frequently ridiculed for advocating).
Outside of DU, where I have dedicated a great deal of my life and time for the last 5 years, I am trying to GOTV in this little community and get people to talk about what they want from this election. I also spend some time explaining the health care act, as people's general understanding is so flawed it is frightening.
Always good talking to you longship. I spent the day sewing, which is almost as frustrating as posting on DU at times. I am marginally good at both and trying to get better.
We haven't interacted much here up to now, although I am aware of some your posts, and generally agree with them.
With that said, you seem to be doing some straw man arguments in your response. If you read my post again, you may realize that I specifically did not say, or even imply, that It is useful to inject as much religion into political and social movements as possible. I think that I, you, and the liberal theists would all agree that this straw man is precisely what we are fighting.
Maybe you have not read many of my previous posts here on these very issues. For that, you are forgiven. I am just an old guy who posts when a thread is of interest.
However, if you take the trouble to follow the logical progression in my post, you will hopefully understand what I am saying.
Also, read my response to cbayer, just above (which I will post shortly) which will give additional context.
Thanks for your response, anyway. Always good to communicate with a fellow skeptic.
I am not your enemy here. I would appreciate the same respect that I have shown you. If you disagree with me, I welcome any reasoned and calm responses.
Here are the answers to your questions, which were non-sequiturs in context of the OP:
I think religion and politics are a toxic mix. I think religion and government is fatal to both. However, like many atheists and others surely recognize, casting religion out of culture would take a significant cultural change which could take generations.
If you disagree, I would welcome your well-reasoned and sensible argument(s).
And once again, I make an attempt to be friends. Thanks.
I just don't know the answer but that. I try to oppose the biases as they come up. It's really all I can do. Some atheist orgs are doing other things. And like the LGBT community, the more people who come out as atheists, the better things will be.
This should be added to this list. Why is it that theists of one stripe or another keep trotting out continuous new and improved versions of religion? Every time I turn around there's another update of the same God club that has existed for two thousand years. Every time it crashes and loses a boatload of cultural data, they throw in a few hot patches and call it "Religion v.4792.67" or some such. It's like they think it's the Swiss Army knife of cultural development or something.
But they only ever use the fucking corkscrew
Well, since we're into list articles here, lets have a look at this list.
1.Religion is the best way going to get people to consecrate themselves, body and soul, to a larger cause; and to take on the kind of all-or-nothing risks that are often required to really change the world.
Yes indeedy, religion bonds people together emotionally. It cements them body and soul to an ideology all right. Unfortunately, I have yet to see a religion take that power and say, "Now that I have you here, forget about me and imprint your baby duck minds on that political party over there." In fact, they spend a lot of time telling people to keep coming back to the church collection plate so they can tell them to invest their limitless time and energy in their civic responsibilities. "I really want to canvass neighborhoods, study political theory and issues, work a phone bank or give money to my candidate, but I think I'll go to church and listen to some dude tell me I need to canvass neighborhoods, study political theory and issues, work a phone bank or give money to my candidate." Efficiency - you're doing it wrong.
Diversity - you're doing that wrong too.
2. Second, religious narratives center people in the long arc of history...
And which arc would that be, and where would that center lie? The human species is about 50,000 years old. I think it's safe to say that paganism is is a pretty dry hole if you want any significant group of people to "consecrate themselves, body and soul" to cultural progress. Let's face it, the Abrahamic religions are the only game in town if you're looking to make any sort of political impact. Of the Abrahamic religions, Islam is on the outs for the most part in these United States since we've been fucking with every Islamic country on earth for the last century or so. So the truth is, when we talk about using the perspective of a particular faith to view the "arc of history", we're talking about Christianity, which is about 2012 years old depending on whether you count the first year or not.
Of those 2012 years, the human race has come up with some pretty neat stuff like air conditioning and ice in our scotch. In fact, we have all sorts of neat stuff brought to you by the Enlightenment which includes the First Amendment to the constitution of the United States. And if you need a link for that log off and go refill your sippy cup. In fact, the Enlightment was a general refutation of the role of religion in politics, and the transition from religion to nationalism has been particularly bloody and barbaric. So since the Enlightment dates back about 150 years, the "long arc of history" that is so expansively addressed by progressive religion ignores about 47,850 years of human development. Shit, at least the right wing fundies give it six thousand years or so.
So if we "center ourselves" within the proposed "arc of history" that progressive theism actually recognizes we find ourselves about here:
Politics was really a contact sport back then
875 is about the year that king Egbert II is sacrificed to Odin by Halfdan I. That "center" seems to move our focus significantly backwards. Progressive? I think not.
3. They're raising their kids in churches and temples because they believe, as the Bible says, that "if you train up a child in the way that he should go, when he is old, he will not depart from it."
Developing brand loyalty is crucial to marketing any product. You have to seem to get there first with the most. It doesn't matter whether you actually came up with anything new, you just have to convince some sucker that you did. It works best if you catch them young. I mean, it's not like the concept of fairness or justice isn't fifty thousand years old or developed simultaneously all over the world or anything.
It's the real thing
And while we're on the subject of market development and effective brand loyalty...
4. progressive religion has always been America's most credible and aggressive front-line defender of non-market-based values against the onslaught of capitalism and greed.
For a bulwark of non market based values, progressive religion needs to shit or get off the pot. Where have they been for the last half century or so while Americans have been ass raped by the acolytes of Milton Freidman and Ayn Rand, which would be considered "political prophets" who appear to have their shit in a much smaller bag? Maybe it's because any organization that bundles votes for a cause, otherwise known as a lobbying organization, runs on money. Acquiring money assumes the machinery of market based commerce and all the icky stuff that progressive religion claims to be a bulwark against.
A bulwark with a revolving door seems counterproductive
And while we're on the subject of playing another man's game...
5. ...abandoning the entire landscape of faith to the right wing amounts to political malpractice...
I think we need to set aside the phrase "political malpractice" because otherwise I'll laugh so hard at the concept my stomach will shoot out my ass. Instead, let's consider the fact that the upcoming presidential campaign will cost an unprecedented amount of money. The fact is, if you want to be heard, standing on the corner and shouting is just farting in the wind. You have to use media, and media costs money. Hell, even free media somehow makes zillionaires out of nerds. All that money comes from somewhere, and it usually finds it's way into the pockets of the very people progressive religion is supposed to be a bulwark against.
Slide your shorts down and bend over.
Politics is expensive. It's so expensive the 1% had to spend almost all the loose change from their couch to buy enough politicians to make their crimes legal. Although most politicians are cheap whores, when the 1% goes looking for couch change they have to use a backhoe, so that's still a lot of scratch. So when progressive religion wants to ante up in that poker game, it's going to get it's bluff called faster than Donald Trump can say, "You're fired".
Here's your competition. Good luck champ.
6. a very strong consensus that the act of radical community-making is the most intensely holy and essential work that they do.
Remember those "political prophets" that figure so large in the pantheon of progressive liberal sainthood mentioned above? They stand for the only "community" that really matters for the organization of a successful society in the twenty first century. This is a country of over three hundred million people of all walks of life, ethnicity, and religion. We must somehow find a way to make all those different kinds of people to work together to do what government is designed to do. The function of government is not to promote moral behavior, but the equitable distribution of resources. Granted, fairness in resource distribution is a moral concern, but the mechanics of that distribution involve the exercise of power. Religion has proven to be an unwieldy tool for the exercise of power, which is why we have a constitution with a first amendment. Any attempt to subdivide the community of American citizens through the manipulation of their civic loyalties is just profit centered marketing, which is anathema to the value of religion in culture. Progressive religion's involvement in politics is just playing another man's game and turns religion into just another lobbying organization.
We already have all the "political theology" we need and we need to take back the symbols of America from those who have appropriated them. And those symbols are not religious in nature.
Political prophet at work.
The symbols we need are the symbols of the United States of America. The political theology we need is the Constitution of the United States. If progressive religion gets involved it will just be another lamprey attached to the ass of American politics.
I love the cracked.com feel to it btw. Several things made me literally laugh out loud!
Cracked.com is almost as big a time vampire as DU.
across the progressive spectrum being vital in this political year. Including alliances that span theists and atheists. I don't see it as an either/or issue. Our differences may define us to an extent, yet they don't need to limit us at all.
(ed for general construct)
