Compassion is not a story. But "by their fruits..." is a story, and the fruits of religions are measured by their ability to teach and spread empathy and compassion. That ability is not limited to religions only, but something that all sentient beings can do.

We've been playing power games and getting nasty for long long time. We know also the fruits of those games.

The religious left doesn't get a lot of press because they are not controversial enough.

But the bigger problem are the attacks from other members of the left, and, in particular, the anti-theists.

They carry water for republicans and the religious right and are critical in helping them drive a wedge, which is a time honored tradition on their part. You can see it on DU on a daily basis.

Despite them, the religious left is making progress. Whether they do it quietly or loudly does not really make much difference in the long run.

Anyway, some of the answers given in this article are excellent.

Do you have any actual evidence that comments "anti-theists" make (Where? On the Internet? Books? Newspapers? TV?) are actively setting back the "religious left"?

Once you've provided said evidence, then we can discuss the grander part of your claim - whether these attacks are "the bigger problem."

We have a common purpose.
I would very much like to get heard when we describe some of the good liberal things the religious left is doing, but but every time we just get shot at. It is discouraging.
In the Second World War, 20 percent of all American casualties were soldiers shot by our own troops.

It does pay to keep your head down, tho.

I'm tired of getting shot at too, like by some of the comments you have made about ethics coming from religion and how atheists can't be moral without a religious ethical framework.

Reminds me a little of that old saw "Shut up, he explained."

which i post here frequently, would show that is not my position.

I am saying that haters and dividers can hurt causes that people on this site share. It's not about "stifling", it's about being thoughtful about the impact one has when one recklessly attacks huge groups of people, many of who have a lot in common with you.

"Carrying water for" normally means deliberately doing work for someone. I think you should retract it, or back it up.

There are many areas on DU where people are divisive and, imo, perform a service for those who want to keep us divided and harm the causes which we all support. Religion is just one of them.

Whether intentional or not, I am not going to stop pointing out the harm that that does.

When members here repeatedly attack others from the religious left who have or are working for causes like social justice and civil liberties, attack every instance of these things being done by religious people and use their time here to mock, ridicule and deride all religious people and institutions, they are carrying the water.

When members here repeatedly attack non-believers who have or are working for these same causes and use their time to mock, ridicule or attack all non-religious people or non-believers groups, they are carrying the water.

I am not accusing any individuals of being a shill or disruptor, but I am not entirely convinced that some people here may not be just that. The existence of such people has become glaringly clear during the recent debates on guns. Many have been banned

That would be fine, no?

Careful examination shows that Scientology is indeed predatory hoax "religion" with nothing to do with empathy and compassion and all to do with making money out of it's victims.

I think I have sufficient evidence that it is a hoax and has been used to harm people. I don't know of anyone who has had any real benefit from it. I have never known them to do good deeds or fight for causes I embrace, in fact quite the opposite.

So yeah, I think it's ok to mock them.

What do you think?

but nobody else can choose what they want to mock. That's quite the raw double standard you've got there.

A lot of us think we have sufficient evidence that Christianity is a hoax and has been used to harm people. Why doesn't that give us license to mock it?

their deities. Seems to radically affect your attitude toward sheltering them. Of course no deities escape my criticism, I'm liberal with it.

And even if I did, my disdain for them has nothing to do with what *god* they do or do not hold to be true. It's the way they have behaved and treated people.

the Holy Inquisition burned alive a horse and its trainer for doing tricks they thought indicated that only the Devil could be behind them. The tricks included telling time by a watch and counting the pips on cards. Would that be a valid excuse for me to do some mocking? Even though it's a little closer to home?

Actually you can mock whole groups of people and paint them all with the same brush because of some incidents which occurred by others who shared some label.

The broader that label, the more it becomes bigotry, though.

Last edited Sun Feb 3, 2013, 07:40 AM - Edit history (1)

There seem to be too many people here whose only purpose is to defend guns or religion.

Even if it were true, you have still failed to demonstrate how an extreme minority of non-believers has effectively taken the cookie jar away from the majority of Democrats.

Atheists are reviled, cbayer. No one cares what we think, and because we are such a small minority there is virtually no political repercussions for this apathy. A Democratic Senator could stand on his chair on the Senate Chamber floor and call all atheists immoral, godless heathens and not suffer the slightest setback in his or her next election.

So how is it, pray tell, we are keeping the religious left from enjoying the kudos?

Come on. This argument is pure bunk.

causes that we all support.

I have posted today two articles by leaders in the growing non-believer movements that essentially make the same case I do. If non-believers want more advocacy for their causes, including reducing bigotry towards atheists and having a louder voice, then they need to identify and form coalitions with others who support them.

Atheists may be a minority but there are more non-believers than there are in certain religious groups. I don't agree that there would be no repercussions for the Senator you describe.

It's not about enjoying the kudos, it's about strength in unity and numbers.

Again, atheists comprise around 15% of the total population. Do they constitute such a significant portion of the Democratic base as to constitute a serious threat to unity? Do Democratic politicians find themselves in the position of having to cater to the atheist demographic? Are Democrats really resistant to evoking religion because they afraid of pissing off atheists?

In every case, the answer is categorically "no". I fail to see how such a small percentage of Democrats is causing disunity to such a catastrophic degree.

I would refer to you this article, which includes a variety of reactions to Lisa Miller's argument, most from a religious perspective.

If anything can be gleamed from these snippets, it is that the religious left's "failure" to grab headlines has little to do with us noisy atheists and agnostics.

Have you ever considered that you might be reviled for something other than your atheism? I have, right here on DU. I have felt reviled, by fellow atheists, for suggesting that tolerance toward people of faith is a positive thing. I have felt reviled for suggesting that bigoted anti-theists are no better than bigoted theists.
Our common goal as liberal Democrats should be to counter such bigotry and work together, with believers, toward a more just and equitable society.
I see no members who don't support separation of church and state. I see no members who advocate for prayer in public schools. In fact, I see consensus on these and similar issues.

or going along with it? Saying that giving religious organisations the ability to opt out of contraceptive coverage is a very reasonable compromise, or saying that they should be treated like any other employer?

If you want an example of the religious left being 'too nice', the fight over contraception is a good one. The religious right get what they want, with the religious left nodding along about 'sincerely felt moral objections' which are actually patriarchal intrusions into the sex lives of their employees, handing employers extra power, and the right victory.

Actually, a major secular organization for separation of church and state came out strongly in favor of the proposed changes in the ACC which accommodate religious objections. Are they being too nice? Or are you just referring to the personal positions of some DU members?

That's your wishful thinking that they're 'strongly in favour', if you mean what you said in another thread about their reaction. "Bending over backward to address religious objections to the prior rules", "going out of its way to accommodate religious groups", and "the proposed accommodation goes beyond what the Constitution requires" are not phrases you use when you are strongly in favour of it. It's a criticism that the Obama admin has been too nice. Or it marks AU as 'too nice' as well, if they think that the right thing to do is keep the religious right happy at all times.

The start of pregnancy (which is what rug supports the right on, quite vociferously, here on DU, and is bound up in the argument about the ACA and the morning after pill, because there's a question of whether it can prevent implantation of a fertilised egg) is just the kind of political action that the religious right has concerned itself with, as in the OP: "Since the rise of the religious right in the 1970s in reaction to the Supreme Court ruling on Roe v. Wade, the religious left has failed to gain any comparable visibility, traction or voice on major issues in the political sphere. "

Yes, you are being 'too nice' here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/121867156#post1

That is, frankly, appeasement. If the religious right takes a hard stand, then give in, to keep it out of the courts. I'm serious; look at what you say, how you are placating the religious right, and think again who is 'carrying their water'. You're the one who seems determined to avoid any argument with the religious right.

while voicing their concerns. IMHO, it's not about keeping the religious right happy. It's about reaching a compromise so we can get on with it. If this thing gets too bogged down in the legal system to be implemented than many more women will be denied access or experience a delay in access.

Excuse me if I am misreading you, but you appear to be making some kind of accusation about my motives because I support the Obama administrations proposed compromise on this. Am I reading that correctly? Does disagreeing with your position on this and supporting the administration make me "too nice", an enabler, a troll?

I am frankly surprised that you would accuse me of being determined to avoid arguments with the religious right. You are fishing, Muriel, and it seems quite unlike you. What's going on?

and the end result looks like "keeping the religious right happy", to me. Why not take this to the courts, rather than giving in now? The religious right don't give in. They litigate, and don't give a toss if they lose. Now, they've got themselves official exceptions to laws other employers have to follow, without the legal process being completed.

"What's going on?"

relentlessly attack whole swaths of other members because of what they do or don't believe. And I have made it clear that I have made no accusation of anyone "willingly" working for the right, but have only pointed out that when people express intolerance and bigotry towards those on the same team, they are essentially doing exactly what the republicans love for democrats to do, whether that is their intention or not.

If you want to get into a battle about specific posts that attack believers vs. specific posts that attack non-believers, I could certainly match yours easily. But I couldn't be less interested.

Exactly what kind of crap do I "allow" the religious right to get away with, Muriel? I support the Obama administrations compromise because I feel it will prevent the delay of implementation of this part of the legislation. I don't think they should have had to do this, but I don't think it's unreasonable. I also believe that freedom of religion is just as important as freedom from religion.

I hope you learn something from this.

right to divide and conquer entire issue of this part of legislation. You are willing to sacrifice rights of women who are working for said religious organisations. Why do you think its OK to treat those women as second class citizens? You KNOW they will not stop there. You know other employers will go to court to demand the same exemption based on THEIR personal beliefs.
Just like when your government passed hysterical "late-term abortion" law. Do I need to tell you what kind of action that unleashed? If this is not carrying water for the religious right, than I don't know what is.

It provides for all women to have access and guarantees that they will have birth control as part of their benefit package.

And it's not the "religious right" making the biggest stink about this, it's the catholic church, just to be clear.

I guess you think Obama and Sibelius are carrying water for the religious right by proposing this.

You don't need to tell me a thing about the late-term abortion law. I was right in the middle of that fight.

They all drink from the same well, and they react the same way to supposed attempts to "poison" it.

We are all in the same boat, Mothership Earth, we all have ability for empathy and compassion, and progressively developing those is our best if not only hope.

Accepting that same well, creation of us-against-them divisions and social exclusion of abstract and categorical identities is "poisoning the well".

I hate taking the time to look through shit to prove the obvious. Anything I post will be refuted anyways. I think I'll spend that time playing video games instead.

Both use scripture as a basis for their political ideology. In that regard, the religious left ipso facto gives credence to the religious right's methods and propositions. If you use Matthew to support financial equality, you can't very well attack Rick Warren for using Romans to support a ban on gay marriage.

does not lend credence to everyone else's interpretation at all.

That's not just true for scripture either. It's true for just about everything.

Thus, those who adopt a "liberal" interpretation of scripture are just as justifiably "correct" as those who do not.

At least with the sciences you can support your position with evidence. Sure, both sides can present their own research, but you can still evaluate the relative merit of each proposition.

If someone is using something open to interpretation to support causes that I also support, I don't give a crap whether their interpretation is *correct* or not. Particularly when it comes to some ancient piece of writing that can neither be verified or disproved.

Scientists argue about science all the time and others do evaluate the merit. The difference is (or should be) that there should be no investigator bias. The same doesn't hold true for religion and never has. They are completely different animals.

To try to make the case that someone using scripture to argue for civil rights and social justice somehow lends credence to those that use it to fight against those same things does not make sense to me at all. If anything, countering their arguments with alternative interpretations weakens them.

To try to make the case that someone using scripture to argue for civil rights and social justice somehow lends credence to those that use it to fight against those same things does not make sense to me at all. If anything, countering their arguments with alternative interpretations weakens them.

is a common whine of students who make F's in literature classes.

I don't mean to say that every interpretation is equally valid when put through the rigors of scholarship. I mean to say that a person who pulls public policy from ancient scripture is in a poor position to criticize somebody else for doing precisely the same thing.

Cbayer would argue that this is all an issue of interpretation, that the religious right is twisting the Bible out of context into some horrific parody of itself. I contend this isn't really the case. There are parts of the Bible which are completely unambiguous. Many of these are genuinely awful.

I think we can all agree the Religious Right isn't an academic Christian movement. They don't learn Aramaic, Hebrew, or Greek. They don't understand historical context. They think God is with them when they read and tells them their reading of the words is correct. Saying that, it is important to remember that some of their more truly horrible propositions are derived from passages requiring little or no interpretation whatsoever.

Just as an example, Paul puts it in no uncertain terms that homosexuals are deserving of death.

So, to clarify, it isn't my position that every interpretation of the Bible is equally valid. Rather, my contention is that pulling public policy from a collection of Bronze Age texts should not be encouraged. Both sides are somewhat selective in what they pull, but both ascribe credibility and authority to a book that really doesn't deserve it.

You tried to make the point that the religious right and left were essentially the same because they read from the same book. I said that while they might read from the same book, they interpreted it very differently and I was going to support those who's interpretations were in line with my own values and goals.

I will continue to encourage and support any group that is working towards the goals that I hold dear. I don't care where they get their motivation, as long as they are using it to work for social justice, civil liberties, peace or helping those who are most disenfranchised.

It those things can be fortified by some tenets promoted in a collection of Bronze Age texts, that's a-ok with me. If you think the book doesn't deserve it, that's a-ok with me as well. You can rely on whatever motivates you.

No, thanks. Could not be less interested.

Because it seems pretty clear to me.

And that's my point. Not every passage in the Bible is vague or ambiguous, and in lending to the Bible some manner of authority, you do so not only for the good parts, but the bad parts as well.

that you are not.

Where is it written that all christians have to see everything in the bible as having some ultimate and literal authority. You are the one making that claim, not most christians.

It is quite possible to take a text and adopt what you feel are the good and relevant parts while rejecting those that make no sense to you.

Maybe you are a literalist, but most people who read the bible are not.

It is quite possible to take a text and adopt what you feel are the good and relevant parts while rejecting those that make no sense to you.

whatever motivates them, I am going to support.

Again, you set these ground rules which just make no sense. I get it. You don't like religion or religionists. That's fine, but it does not move us towards what I assume are shared goals. If someone's faith, belief or use of the bible drives them to work for things I also support, I don't give a crap where it comes from.

IMHO, the religious left has been critical in accomplishing some things that I value. And those that continue to work in these areas, I fully support. To dismiss them or even attack them because their motivations are based on faith, belief or what they have taken from the bible makes no sense to me. It just divides the party and helps the republicans.

I may not share their faith, but generally speaking, I am happy to share the company of religious liberals. I'll be the first to admit I'm a huge fan of the Professional Left. I am not bothered by BlueGal's faith, nor am I particularly put off whenever she decides to talk about it.

The question at hand was whether or not the religious left enables the religious right. In a variety of ways, I think they do. But I don't think this is intentional or deliberate. As you said, one could passively "carry the water". So please, do not confuse my criticism with a personal attack or a grudge. That is hardly the case.

uptick in support for your POV and attacks on me for the grossly distorted POV which you have attributed to me.

Congratulations and thanks a lot.

See you around the campfire, or not.

But the bigger problem are the attacks from other members of the left, and, in particular, the anti-theists.

They carry water for republicans and the religious right and are critical in helping them drive a wedge, which is a time honored tradition on their part. You can see it on DU on a daily basis.

Despite them, the religious left is making progress. Whether they do it quietly or loudly does not really make much difference in the long run.

that you are not just a brain in a vat.

Interpretation is much more art than science.

How do I know my brain is not in a vat? Independent verification.

And yes, interpretation is an "art", which is precisely why an argument which hinges entirely upon it is inherently weak.

Brain in a vat is Hilary Putnam's thought experiment, it's not appeal to solipsist belief and "independent verification" can be just other brains in a vat, Matrix.

You just said: "But there is no objective way in which to justify one's interpretation", I point out that there is no objective way to justify that we are not brains in vat. And IMHO believing that we are just brains in vat would not be skillful art of interpretation. And I don't consider believing in philosophical realism very skillful either.

but since you reasserted it, I am asking again for examples.

Lmao.....seriously, don't even bother asking me. Looking for examples sounds like a dreadful way to spend a Saturday. I mean, I'm not even sure what you want. Example where atheists attack fundies stupif beliefs, only to be told that they are somehow "just as bad" as them by lib christians (because writing books and making fun of fundies is as bad as abortion bomb killings and honour killings)? Cuz that's happened. Or when we object to some fundie, right wing move and our anger is misplaced (discount for church newsletter) or we need to change our focus. Or when we disagree that the bible is a good source of morality and our liberal christian friends tell us that we are borrowing our morality from the bible, just like the thumpers do.

Ugh. Why bother?

I just wanted examples of how the religious right and left "drink from the same well, and they react the same way to supposed attempts to "poison" it." I did not understand what you meant.

Another member gave an example of how they both use scripture to support their position, but I don't find that very convincing at all.

I'm not looking for points in the never ending team sport of atheists vs. theists. I am much more interested in finding areas of commonality and decreasing the divisive attacks on either group.

interesting.....

The religious right's behavior is in many ways reprehensible. When Falwell, Robertson, and company built their religious/political institutions they put in place practices which strained ethical standards to an alarming degree. For one, they seem to have entirely thrown out the commandment to not bear false witness.

I am no psychologist, but maybe the liberal religious just do not want to get into the pig sty with these people.

Also, I see an element of relative volume. The right are very loud and get a huge and disproportional amount of the news coverage. However, I see this as a possibility for an ecumenical group formed from liberal religions to get their message out there merely by showing people how ridiculous the claims and political positions of the right really are. They should be loud and proud.

I have said here before that this atheist would stand proudly next to such people.

I think a lot of the religious left just wanted to distance themselves. In the process, I think they did lose their voice, and, in some ways, their way.

I hope you got to read the article by the guy from the humanist organizations about building coalitions between atheists and other secular organizations and the religious left. It was like he was reading my mind, lol.

I am very glad to be on the same team as you, longship.

Atheists do have friends.

The issue, I think, is that the religious left is more in keeping with mainstream liberals, and America in general. The religious right is so off the reservation virtually everything they say is controversial, and therefore "newsworthy".

It seems prudent to point out most liberals as themselves believers. This makes the "religious left" a difficult demographic to nail down. Because liberals ostensibly value secularism, not all of them evoke the name of God at every opportunity, but that does not mean they don't correlate their religious and political beliefs.

There are religious people involved in many left-wing movements; and in the UK, clergy have often annoyed Tory politicians by attacking their policies on poverty.

I think that it is true that right-wingers, whether in religious organizations or political ones or both, tend to be both more authoritarian, and better at financial wheeling-dealing, and often have disproportionate influence for these reasons.

I do not think that that the main problem is that the secular left are too hostile to the religious left, or vice versa if it comes to that. It is indeed true that the left's biggest downfall is often its factionalism: different left-wing groups fight each other more than they fight the right; the Judean People's Front and the People's Front of Judea hate each other more than they hate the Romans! But I don't think that the main divisions are based on religion or its lack.

they don't get a lot of notice or support from the rest of the left.

But, honestly, I wonder if they really need or want it.

tend to separate their religion from their politics or social policies to a greater extent than right -leaning ones. The influences on their actions may be the same but the way it is expressed are quite different.

Thats my view too!

The religious are still THE MAJORITY, in case you forgot. Are they so insecure in their majority status that they need to be fawned over by the groups they tell to sit down and shut up?

at attracting funding from sympathetic and extremely wealthy donors__the Scaifes, Amundsens, Koch and Hunt brothers and such.

Should we on the religious left echo that approach?



(ed for clarity)

became politically active primarily to promoted their two major objectives - preventing civil rights for GLBT people and ending a woman's right to choose.

It seems to me that the religious left is an entirely different animal. Their goals are much less specific and more ideological. Their tactics needs to be much different, imo.

In addition, I think they are much more effective when supporting causes and not specific candidates. The religious right has put a lot of effort into electing individuals who share their POV on the 2 big issues. That's not worked out very well for them, it seems to me.

However tenuous or fluid, common ground is something I strongly support.

And, lol, that electoral right wing gambit didn't seem to play out as they expected. I suspect that separation of church and state still holds its place among the majority of Americans.



(ed for clarity)

My guess, coercion is not in its nature; that's what makes it the Left.

Proaction would not be in-appropriate.

So, is this a call for more pro-activity from the religious left on the behalf of Social and Economic Justice and Peace?

That does not seem to be an un-reasonable expecation, but I wonder if it could come as a surprise to some that respect for honest free individual conscience may be an essential tenet of the Religious Left, so whatever position on Social and Economic Justice and Peace issues might be identified collaboratively as an entity on the Left, I suspect that position would have to be presented within the context of a call to individual conscience freed by honest commitment to truth.

she talked to about this.

listening to what everyone has to say, sometimes having their minds shifted, being open to change, naturally inclusive, respect, tolerance, human rights and dignity. Martin Luther King, Ghandi, Jesus Christ, Paramahansa Yogananda, Rumi...their words and deeds and lives are Liberal. I believe the words "win the battle" is a non starter for most Liberals.

I see it as the loss of so-called Righteous Moral Ground through political hysteria from the Right that re-elected Obama. Many Liberals are still Standing their Ground...many of us bearing witness in silence.

My share from Sunday School days ... By their works ye shall know them. Jesus said one must become "like a little child" to understand His words. Indeed.

The eight beatitudes in Matthew 5:3–12 during the Sermon on the Mount stated as Blessed/Happy/Fortunate are:

the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
those who mourn: for they will be comforted.
the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.
they who hunger and thirst for righteousness: for they will be satisfied.
the merciful: for they will be shown mercy.
the pure in heart: for they shall see God.
the peacemakers: for they shall be called children of God.
those who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

issues is so fundamentally different that they may look silent or ineffective when they are not.

And it's not to denigrate or de-legitimize any other role or position or action...but kind of feels like the Teacher or Parent who is there before, during and after...regardless of the many potential outcomes.

I sang along !!!

with your music.

and appear to be trans-cultural, as per historical theologians.

But his disciples/apostles/historians...all who apparently published after his death and may not have been physical contemporaries given the 32 AD death, somehow had the power to influence the immense cultural and religious divisional difference between BC and AD and the birth of the most influential religious movement in millenia...Christianity.

Some of us consider the fact that "Jesus" was not one person, but the cultural fusing of a host of pastoral, traveling, "liberal hippie" types.

Religious hot potatoes, to be sure.

i just finished reading about "turkey`s stonehedge" which is 5,000 yrs older than britain's. that`s 10,000 to 8,000 b.c.e. and that`s before the the biblical birth of the earth.

Well-meaning people, but the vote for McGovern really did me in with those folks...LOL. Always wanted to go on "a dig"...did you ever?

which is why it acts differently from the religious right. From what I've seen, progressive religions are filled with types that have few specific beliefs beyond some comforting ideas about the afterlife. They're much more flexible and malleable, and much less consistent (thankfully) than the religious right. The people in it, for all intents and purposes, act like and think like atheists/agnostics in most ways, and quite a few of them probably are.

That, combined with the fact that liberals in this country never undertook to woo religion as a political strategy like conservatives did, and the conservatives are reaping what they sowed now.