has become less important to progressives as they have become more secular and the right has become inseparable from Christianity (at least their version) where religious figures lead on issues.

back.

Gene Robinson writes a very progressive column and it is a minister that is spearheading Moral Mondays.

There have been quite a few articles posted here about the resurgence of progressive/liberal religious leaders and groups.

probably a good thing. I just think they just don't have the influence that the clergy does on the right. They are part of the chorus on the left, and a good antidote to the fundies on the right who say they have God as their ally.
I believe that doing things for humanistic principles is superior to any supposed divine reason anyway.

any different than doing them for "divine reasons". The two are often overlapping, if not identical.

At any right, doing the right thing is doing the right thing. Why would doing it for one reason be "superior" to doing it for another if the outcome is the same?

Once again, there seems to be some kind of battle you see where one side wins and the other loses. I just don't get that.

to me humanism shows a rational approach to a better way to treat people. The problem i see in doing things for divine reasons is that is just an interpretation of the religious beliefs. There is no difference theologically why opposition to or support of gay marriage is correct.

That is not to say that the reasons people work for progressive causes need to be questions. They can be discussed, but I am not looking for a litmus tat.

approach for you, because you aren't a believer.

The problem as I see it is that people can use similar approaches to reach radically different conclusions, be they religiously motivated or not.

I am currently spending some time with a self-professed libertarian. I have serious issues with his political positions, but many of them are theoretically based in what one might consider humanistic principles. None of them are religiously motivated.

So I would tend to look at individuals on a case by case basis and not prejudge them based on what is driving their principles.

when the final answer is "because God" the debate ends.

with people that say "because God". The religious people that I have discussions with are much more thoughtful and questioning and just don't use that as an easy out.

Do you not know any of these people?

for religious reasons, the final answer is "because God" however they get there theologically. But I would say you find many more of these people on the right than in progressive circles.
Now many people with religious beliefs will do things because they think it is right and say they don't know what God really wants and just hope they are doing what He would. But that is closer to humanistic ideals (of course, you can be a humanist and a believer.)

Those are the ones that resonate the most with me and the ones that I have had the most experience with.

And even if the final answer is "because God", that doesn't make any difference to me if the final answer is consistent with my own agenda.

The final answer for non-believers is often "because me", by which I mean that people will say they reached that conclusion because of their own personal ethics and philosophy.

I don't really see a difference.

between rational thought and critical thinking and trying to infer an ideology from what a supernatural entity told people in thousand year old texts?

If you can't see it, I guess our view of philosophy and theology are vastly different.

one is analyzing a philosophy or set of religious beliefs. Since these texts are wide open to interpretation, it is only the literalists that can read them without utilizing these tools.

What you seem to have is a very narrow view of believers. I suspect this is due primarily to who you have had contact with and I hope for you that your horizons expand in the future.

to figure out what God wants,
it's like the vegetarian way to eat meat.

As I said that is not saying believers don't say they don't know what God wants and arrive at their outlook in a logical way. Hoping they are in accordance with him.

If any statement starts "God wants us to", or "God says I should" then it's a "because God" assertion, and can't be rationally defended.

And no this is not about just the literalists. No matter how one searches the ancient texts to arrive at a justification of their viewpoint, they are still either trying to figure out what God wants, (an impossible task, even if god did exist) or looking for an irrational reason for their position.

It come downs to the belief that the texts include the words of God and they can discern what he said.
So their answer is "because God" no matter how they wrap it.

You apparently don't care about the underlying ethics, philosophy or theology of others, only their actions. That's fine, but i don't understand why you don't see it might be of interest to others.

There is a long, long history of intellectual debate and discovery around religious issues. This false distinction between being "rational" and being "religious" (or philosophical) is merely a tool used to minimize and dismiss religion.

The bottom line is that believers are not superior to non-believers and non-believers are not superior to believers. They just see things differently.

Again, I don't really have discussions with those who start sentences with "God says I should" and agree that there isn't much room for debate there.

But in this group and in many religious circles, there is often lots of rational debate from both sides and I don't think I have ever seen "because God" used here.

they are just trying to figure out what God was saying.
It's a "because God" argument however they resolve it.

Angels on the head of a pin.

Articles are posted with "because God" arguments here. I've seen them at times, but don't want to take the time to rummage around, have to get to work.

see you on the flip side

rational thought and inquiry to reach their conclusions and guide their actions?

I'm not sure why you so broadly reject the "because God" conclusion. It's not more or less valid than the "because I" conclusion.

One can do an internal search either using a concept of god or not. In the end, what difference does it make?

While some religious people are indeed lemmings, you really do yourself and some religious people a great disservice by assuming that their quest for truth is in any way substantially different than your own.

for broader thoughts about the clergy and the Right and Left.

It's been a pleasure talking with you. I respect you for staying very civil and not making it personal even when we have markedly divergent views on things.

just ruled in favor of a "Because God" argument.

The objection to birth control medication, to the exclusion of every other medication is a glaring "because God" argument.

Other medications weren't on the agenda, but this is a really unfortunate decision.

The article you posted here was careful to address that concern.

Hobby Lobby is a corporation, yes, but a privately held corporation in the hands of a family with clearly identifiable religious beliefs. The court did not address whether a large, publicly held corporation with hundreds or thousands of shareholders could make the same argument.

With this SCOTUS' record on "religious rights" issues, there's no reason to believe that this ruling was about something other than religion.

But what it is really about, imo, is the religious rights of corporations as opposed to individuals. To me that has more to do with SCOTUS's "deification" of corporations than it does with "Because god said so". Religious rights are already pretty clearly defined for individuals and religious organizations. The issue here was whether they could be applied to corporations.

This ruling didn't give the religious beliefs of corporations any more legal consideration than those of individuals or religious organizations. It granted them the same "right" to exempt themselves from laws on religious grounds.

I do not understand how you could in good faith continue to deny the antecedent here. The Supreme Court has ruled there are certain ideas which take precedent before civil law. Each one of those ideas is alleged to have originated with God. Ergo, "because God said so" is the only sufficient and (sometimes) legal means to excuse one's self from obeying the laws of the land.

I don't think SCOTUS ruled the way it did "because God said so". I think they ruled in favor of corporations being entitled to religious rights.

The corporations take the position "because God said so", but I don't think that came into play with SCOTUS.

Please don't question whether I am responding in good faith or not. I am. I just see this differently than you. There are going to be as many opinions on this as their are those opining.

that you feel entitled enough to DEMAND someone assume you are arguing in good faith, but in the very same thread arrogantly dismiss the possibility that someone else is doing so.

"IMHO, it's just another religion bashing attempt gone awry." - Post #32. No wonder you struggle to be taken seriously.

no matter what drove it and feel that I am somehow being pushed into a corner of defending it.

Exercise of religion is much more than just "doing what god says". It is a right that is granted to individuals by our amended constitution. I believe in it. I think extending it to corporations is a travesty.

Arguing about whether their decision has more to do with religion or more to do with granting corporations rights that were previously reserved for individuals seems like a pretty silly debate at this point.

Either way, the decision is very, very bad news and I don't see any reason for any liberals or progressive to use it to bash other liberals and progressives.

Simply clarifying the decision makes me feel in need of a bath, so understand that I am in no way asking you to defend it.

Saying that religious exercise is a constitutionally-protected right, however, doesn't change what it is: a tradition based on and continued with the understanding that it is what your god or gods expect of you.

And no one is bashing anyone here, as far as this particular sub-thread is concerned. This is philosophical discussion, wherein we are trying to reduce arguments to their simplest expressions.

in agreement for the most part.

In the end, I think this is both a religiously driven and corporatist driven decision, and both aspects are very disturbing.

If we lose the WH or the Senate, I shudder to think what will happen with this court over the next 10 years.

this corporation can use the "Because God" argument to not pay for birth control.
That is the sole reason HL has for denying it's employees.
It is the essence of a "because god" argument.
SCOTUS is just saying that this type of Corp. can use it like an individual. But they affirm the "BG" argument.

Doesn't involve threats of hell or rewards in heaven though

fear punishment or that they won't be rewarded.

Probably true for some, but I don't think most people, believers or not, are really motivated by that.

At any rate, god could probably see right through that nonsense.

thrown Pascal's Wager in my face.

I mean, that's what it is, when you get right down to it.

in my face. The only time I have ever discussed it is as a theoretical, but I think it's a pretty meaningless and hollow argument.

I'm chagrined to say I didn't know much of this part of our communities' history. And, it's Pride Day in SF!

But I'm not at all surprised. Many liberal/progressive religious groups continue to be very active in the area of GLBT rights.

who didn't live and fight through it.

I recall much more about black civil rights than GLBT civil rights.

Times change.

progressive/liberal religious groups no longer stand up for gay rights or can be expected to no longer do so in the future.

Am I reading that wrong?

Certainly some. Catholics score much better, but Protestants make up 48% of the US Population.

Look at this deplorable, abysmal shit:

support glbt civil rights?

This surgery does not say what you are trying to make it say. Liberals are at the top of the chart and that number includes liberal believers. Even the numbers for moderates are pretty good.

At the bottom are believers who attend church frequently and those that identify as conservative, republican and protestant. That would exclude liberal/progressive believers for the most part.

So the survey actually contradicts whatever it is you appear to be implying.

Will you use any opportunity to try and cast stones at liberal/progressive believers? Will you never give them any credit at all? Have you really got it that bad?

I missed any mention of that in your OP article. Unless I missed something, political affiliation was not covered.

It says that because many are not aware of the role they played. If anything, religious groups have become even more active and vocal in advancing GLBT civil rights since that time.

The point here is that there wasn't the obvious religious opposition to GLBT rights until the religious right got organized and came to prominence in the 1970's. The neocons used the GLBT issue to rally the troops.

If you can't see the liberal/progressive ideology embraced by these religious leaders and organizations, I don't think I can help you.

It remains unclear to me whether you initial statement here was saying that democrats and progressive/liberal believers have gone the way of the republican party and no longer support glbt rights or not. You seem to be doubling down on that, even thought the survey results you post clearly show that not to be the case.

IMHO, it's just another religion bashing attempt gone awry.

The protestant/evangelical sect wasn't politically dominant at that time. It is now. There was a vast sea change on political issues and party re-alignment at that time. If you look at the Republican Party Platform of 1950-1956, you'll find things like explicit support for gender equality in the workplace (antidiscrimination) and "equal pay for equal work"

The civil rights movements for race and gay rights started about the same time. There has been a party re-alignment since (I use the arbitrary signpost of the 1964 Civil Rights Act as the milestone on a somewhat arbitrary timeline) wherein the dixiecrats fled to the republican party, and the evangelicals became ascendant within the republican party.

No more is the republican party supportive of equal pay for equal work. Just in the last 6 months have you heard any noises supporting Same Sex Marriage from the republican party, and not to the volume that we heard in the 1950's. Based on the headlines, it's only been about 4-5 in the news, and last election, something like 74 endorsing SSM legalization in a couple states. 72, 74, somewhere around there.


Bottom line, I think you are making a gross error assuming the religious leaders in your OP article were political Progressives/Liberals.

We might CALL them that now, based on our evaluation of their platform, but official party affiliation was something very different.

was an organization started by progressive/liberal religious leaders from a range of denominations. They started as street ministers who were addressing a range of issues and then this sub-group made GLBT civil rights their priority.

You don't really think they were conservative republicans, do you.

And that still doesn't clarify your statement about republicans once supporting GLBT rights and how things change.

I looked up the republican platform from the 1950's and I can't find a single thing that addresses GLBT rights. Though they have a statement about civil rights, it is confined to race, creed, color and national origin and there are some good positions on equal pay, but nothing about GLBT rights that I can find.

"was an organization started by progressive/liberal religious leaders from a range of denominations"

Your article supports nothing of the kind. Such evidence may exist, but I don't see it.

Depending somewhat on region, 1950's era republicans most certainly did openly support gay rights. (Same Sex Marriage wasn't a front-center issue though.)

Remember, this is a time when the 54 hour filibuster of the Civil Rights Act was carried out by *us*. Cloture on the bill was invoked by Senator Everett McKinley Dirksen, R-IL. To this day, that chapter of political history still staggers me. Such a wildly different landscape from today. Pole reversal.

But the parties do not contain the same people today.


In the 1950's, Barry Goldwater (An Episcopalian) was widely recognized and accepted as the voice/leader of the conservative camp. A man who openly supported equal rights for women, equal pay, equal rights for gays, legal abortion, etc.

"The New Liberal
The election would eventually mark the decline of Goldwater’s conservative influence as the social conservatives and the Religious Right began to slowly take over the movement. Goldwater vociferously opposed their two top issues, abortion and gay rights. His views came to be regarded as more “Libertarian” than conservative, and Goldwater later admitted with wonder that he and his ilk were the “new liberals of the Republican party.” "

(To be clear about the wording, 'opposed top two issues' means Goldwater was in FAVOR of legal abortion, and of equal treatment under the law, standing against ban and restrictions.)

Until the Evangelicals took over, the Conservative wing of the Republican Party, and the modern Democratic Party, could have been allies on most social issues. (There are exceptions, such as Eisenhower banning gay people from government employ, but he was not a conservative repub.)


In any case, I would like to see what evidence there is that the people in the coalition in your OP were, what we would recognize today, as progressives. Because by the bar established, you'd have to fairly call Goldwater a progressive too. Which is going to draw a big 'hmmm?' from most parties.

I think your initial statement that the republicans supported glbt civil rights is incorrect in it's entirety.

It wasn't until very late in the game that Goldwater supported glbt rights, and that was because he was so opposed to the rise of the religious right in the 80's and 90's.

Ok, you win. The religious people that supported glbt civil rights were not progressives. Whatever floats your boat, which is apparently not ever giving liberal/progressive religious leaders any credit for anything.

It appears that you would much prefer giving credit to conservative republicans, which you have yet to show any evidence of ever actually occuring.

You've got it bad and that ain't good.

I'm not trying to assign credit to conservatives. Indeed, today, they are the single biggest foe on this issue.

I'm pointing out the roles are now not what they were in the 50's. You assume much when you call those pastors/coalition from the 60's 'progressives'. You don't know that. What's their position on abortion? Welfare? Equal pay? Etc.

You may be assigning them credit they are not due. You certainly haven't shown it, and that article doesn't show it either.

Glide Memorial Church is known as one of the most radically progressive churches in this country.

Daughters of Bilitiis was formed primarily to advocate for lesbians, but were fiercely feminist in their approach to other issues.

Rev. Ted McIlvenna has been a leading proponent for healthy sexual education and a fierce opponent of abstinence programs.

What does one have to do to be seen as a progressive in your eyes?

And why in the world are you beating this dead horse? Why do you seem so invested in staking out a position that these were not liberal and progressive people.

through the period in question.

I remember the exact moment the religious right came out of the hate closet. Jerry Falwell had met with Jimmy Carter and challenged him on his liberalism. Falwell then called a press conference and announced that President Carter had stated that he supported lgbt rights because "he was elected to be President for homosexuals, too."

Now, there's some doubt that Carter actually said that. But it was the start of the hate campaign in earnest, and it was indeed condemned--along with the rest of the MM's warmongering, racist agenda--by religious liberals. Coretta Scott King and the liberal Episcopal clergy committed to lgbt rights very early on. The Democratic party lagged way behind.

value in trying to argue that these people were not liberal or progressive. But nothing should really surprise me anymore.

At any rate, I must have missed the part when republicans were fighting for GLBT rights. I don't remember this specific incident with Carter, but it doesn't surprise me and it does sound like something he might say.

I remember being flabbergasted when Barry Goldwater declared for lgbt rights.

I've been searching the net for a reference to Anita Bryant's attempt to run for office in the Southern Baptist Convention and can't find the date--but even THEY slapped a pie in her face. (Figuratively speaking, for the literalists among us.)

issue.

Appears that he was really appalled by the rapid rise of the religious right and saw it as a threat to true conservatism.

Turns out he was correct, but I think some of the positions he took reflect his reaction to what was happening and possibly not his core beliefs.

This was all said and done, long before I was born.

But I do appreciate the additional context Cbayer provided.

"Why do you seem so invested in staking out a position that these were not liberal and progressive people."

I'm not. You assumed that based on my first comment, and kept asking me about it. I never said it. It is truly confusing. However I am glad you have now supported that claim, and kudos to each group specifically named.
My initial comment is just disgust, because the more likely a person attends church regularly, the more likely they oppose, as the PEW poll I posted demonstrates.


One of the churches you identified is affiliated Protestant. Which is in my mind, the most surprising given their current opposition. In that list I posted earlier, protestants poll 38/58 as individuals. (Where Catholics, another church that opposes same sex marriage polls 60/40 as individuals in FAVOR)

That's an insane barrier to have to overcome. And I do not believe it's a top-down edict from the church leadership, as it is with the Catholics. The people who identify catholic score VERY high in favor of same sex marriage.

In any case, thank you for the additional background info. I spot checked a couple of them as well, and they DO seem to be progressives, on additional issues, like Abortion.

Lumping all protestants together will include radically different populations. Everything from fundamentalist baptists to U/U's are likely to be put in that bucket.

Not sure why that survey made no distinction, but it really skews the results.

Quakers, the liberal branches of the Presbyterian and Lutheran churches, liberal Methodists, all support LGBT rights, and all qualify as Protestants. (Whether Episcopalians are Protestant or not depends on who you ask.)

"Evangelical," "fundamentalist" and "charismatic" are further subclasses that can be found in almost any combination except "liberal and fundamentalist. "

...over the past several decades, while mainline Protestants have declined.

IIRC, evangelicals actually outnumber mainline Protestants now. That didn't use to be the case. And mainline Protestants are close to 50/50 in terms of political partisanship, while white evangelicals have trended overwhelmingly Republican (something like 80 percent voted for Mitt Romney-a Mormon! But at least he wasn't Obama. )

During the HIV/AIDs crisis of the 80's and early 90's my parish was known for its hospitality to those who were dying, providing a safe space for those in their last days to worship and be at peace. During one 90 day pdriod we had about 100 funerals.