The Religious Left

Life Changes

2006-09-20T12:14:00.000-05:00

I am returning to this blog, after a long hiatus. As many of you know - we attmepted to create a fancy new site, faithandjustice.org, which burned out (far too quickly) due to the general over-committedness of UChicago students. It was a great idea, but, shall we say, failed miserably in the execution (for which I was chiefly responsible).

En tout cas - I find I still have things I'd like to say, conversations I'd like to have on the subject of religion and politics. There are other, better, fancier forums (For example, my good friend, Matt Kuzma, helps run Faithful Democrats, a fantastic new forum for Christians trying to "make the country we love a more just and compassionate place"), and I hope to participate there as well.

But I am resurrecting this space to give myself a place to think things through. A bit of self-indulgence, but there you are. I'll comment, as time and space allow, on religious and moral issues from a liberal perspective. And I look forward to hearing from you again at my blog email: trleditor-at-yahoo-dot-com.

Changing of the Guard...Er, Site

2005-06-16T17:54:00.000-05:00

Hey all-

I am pleased to announce that, as of today, we are moving to a brand new site:

http://www.faithandjustice.org

In addition to the blog, we'll have articles, a discussion forum, links and a question of the week. Many thanks to all our regular readers.

Allie

'The poor shall always be with you'

2005-06-15T19:22:00.000-05:00

Bryant Meyers has an excellent piece at Sojourners on the ever-puzzling passage at Matthew 26:11 when Jesus explains that the woman who anointed him with expensive perfume (rather than giving to the poor) has done a beautiful thing, for "the poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have me." Meyers writes that the statement, a reference to Deuteronomy 15:4-11, was really a rebuke to Jesus' disciples:

First, Jesus was making a point about worship. The only reason Jesus brought the poor into the conversation was in response to the self-righteous misreading of the devotion of a woman we are never to forget. Second, Jesus was being ironic. By referring to the passage from Deuteronomy, Jesus was reminding the disciples that the only reason there are poor in God's abundant creation is because of human sin and self-centeredness. The disciples did not care about the poor as much as they did about trying to make points at the expense of the woman.

Headlines and Postings

2005-06-14T15:59:00.000-05:00

When I first viewed the headline for this column by Kristof (Raped Kidnapped and Silenced), I was afraid, afraid, afraid it was more on the Hillary Clinton smear campaign. But instead, it is an important article about Mukhtaran Bibi, a woman who ought to be made Pakistan's official Ambassador of Goodwill, but instead has been imprisoned by the Musharraf dictatorship. Readers interested in helping should visit the Asian-American Network Against Abuse of Women site.

With regard to the latest, ugliest smear against Bill and Hillary Clinton, I won't repeat the charges. I'll only note that the Drudge Report saw fit to make a banner headline out of them (with a blinking siren and everything), while the G8's move to bring debt relief to 18 of the poorest countries in the world doesn't even make the page. Only the Michael Jackson verdict was big enough to move the Clintons off the headline banner.

Debt Relief

2005-06-12T16:35:00.000-05:00

The Group of 8 has agreed to $40 billion in debt relief to 18 of the world's poorest countries, including Burkina Faso. This move will allow the affected countries to keep some $1.5 Billion annually; money that formerly went to debt servicing. The debts cancelled include those to the World band, the African Development Bank and the International Monetary Fund. For those countries struggling to make debt payments, in addition to meeting the needs of their people, this is welcome relief.

At the same time, it does not include all poor countries (Nigeria and Indonesia, amongst others, did not make the cut) and much of the funds are coming out of current aid budgets:

Moreover, it does not include an even more ambitious British proposal, viewed negatively by Washington, to double about $50 billion in aid given annually by rich countries.

Which means, that while this plan is definitely a good step, it may simply signal the shifting around of aid funds. Archbishop Desmond Tutu, amongst calls for strict monitoring of the deal, reminded the world of the necessity for further aid:

He also urged rich nations to boost aid and revise trade rules under which wealthy countries received farming subsidies, enabling them to produce cheaper goods that were being dumped in Africa and pricing African produce out of world markets.
"I hope that the heads of these different countries will be sensitive and say we are on the same side, we want to eradicate poverty, we want to ensure that trade conditions are equitable and we want to increase aid," he said.

Archbishop Tutu brings up an important point: unfair trade practices, protective tarrifs for American and French agriculture (amongst others), present grave obstacles for the development of poor nations. The reduction of those barriers must be central to any serious poverty-reduction effort, alongside and in addition to increased aid.

And a mea culpa from me: many thanks are due for the efforts of celebrities like Bono and the ONE.org and makepovertyhistory.org groups:

Aid activists who have played crucial roles in marshalling popular support for debt forgiveness cheered yesterday's announcement while voicing determination to press for more. A group of celebrities, led by rock musicians Bob Geldof and Bono, is planning free concerts and rallies in the hope of spurring the G-8 to adopt the aid-doubling plan.

ONE.org is calling for 1% of the US government budget to be spent on foreign aid and poverty reduction, and I most heartily join them.

Question of the Week: Abortion and Religious Progressives

2005-06-11T17:08:00.000-05:00

Slate's William Saletan has an article about NARAL's embrace of "responsibility" in it's latest campaign. My question is this: Is there a tenable theological stance for religious progressives in the favor of abortion rights? Or rather, positions, I should say, this being an inter-faith site... What kind theology, scripture or tradition gives a religious liberal their position on abortion?

Downing Street Memo: Take Action Now!

2005-06-09T11:21:00.000-05:00

Have you heard about the Downing Street Memo? If you haven’t, I wouldn’t be surprised. This recently declassified British document basically says that the British government knew that Bush and Co. were altering intelligence, playing up the danger Iraq posed, and otherwise misleading the American people into the war. And all this was happening a year before the invasion!

Not surprisingly this document has not gotten much coverage in the American media.

Personally, I am shocked at the allegations that this document raises (even though I am not surprised). With so much of the dialogue in the religious community over this war bouncing back and forth on what makes a “just war” or if the war actually was necessary for our national security, this document shows that, in fact, the war in Iraq is far from a just war. It shows that the President knowingly misled the American people into this war.

I urge you all to take action! This link will take you to where you can sign a letter to the President urging him to respond to the allegations the memo raises. Also, be sure to follow the links to write to your Senators and Representatives. Be sure in your letters to write that you are a person of faith. The message that religious folk are demanding accountability is important, as many politicians probably fear backlash on this from the Religious Right. This is a link to write to media outlets and demand more media attention of the memo.

The war in Iraq is a painful subject. Hundreds of Americans are dying. No one knows for sure how many Iraqi civilians have been killed. Billions of tax dollars are going to the war, when much needed domestic programs and international aid programs are going under-funded. The more accountability we can get now, the less painful and less difficult the process will be in the future.

A needed relief

2005-06-08T00:29:00.000-05:00

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/06/07/bush.blair.africa/index.html

I have to say that I find this article to be very heartening. It’s a really big step in the right direction. Debt relief is one of the easiest things that we can do to really combat global poverty. And now that Bush and Blair (who have a good record of doing things together no matter what the rest of the world thinks) are backing a major debt relief plan at the G8, there’s a chance for real change across the first world.

I do harbor some suspicions of the line: “African countries that are ‘on the path to reform’." I worry that this will turn into a set of conditions similar to the conditions that US AIDS relief money has attached to it. Conditions that make much needed money hard to get, and that makes countries abandon good programs.

And then there’s also the possibility that Bush will end up not funding this, ala his AIDS relief programs or No Child Left Behind.

These two reservations tell us what we need to do in reaction to this. We need to let Bush know that we support him in this action and that we intend to hold him to his commitment for this debt relief. We need to bring the Religious Right in on this part of the action. Fighting poverty is something that can bring together people from all sides of the political spectrum and allow us to build some great bridges.

We also need to make sure that “on the path to reform” doesn’t end up meaning “on the path to pro-US governments that may or may not be fully democratic” or “on the path to governments that uphold good evangelical values in their law.”

This also gives us a tremendous opportunity to shed some light on other issues facing Africa and the developing world. Problems of violence, poverty, disease, poor education, and human rights violations. These are problems that because of racism and classism, Americans often in the sidelines of the media and our minds. We can not let this opportunity pass to raise awareness and make change.

Fighting poverty... with celebrities!

2005-06-07T16:42:00.000-05:00

I'm not sure how effective campaigns like these are:

Yes, it's worthwhile to get some attention on the issues (and poverty and AIDS will always deserve more attention that they are getting at any given time). But do people really see beyond Brad Pitt's face to the issue? I'm skeptical, but hopeful - if such a state is linguistically possible.

Occupation and Torture

2005-06-07T15:24:00.000-05:00

Naomi Klein has a thought-provoking piece about the occupation of Iraq and its enforcement through torture. The money quote:

... there is no nice, humanitarian way to occupy a nation against the will of its people. Those who support such an occupation don't have the right to morally separate themselves from the brutality it requires.
Now, as then, there are only two ways to govern: with consent or with fear.

I'm not sure if I agree with her or not. Surely there must be a way to limit the brutality? To govern with grudging toleration instead of fear, and in the absence of consent. Obviously, occupation against the will of the people will involve some tragedies, some injustices - but couldn't it be designed in a way that would encourage a move towards consent, and later departure? Couldn't an administration be designed that was tough, but consistent and fair? Something that would nurture self-determination and lead to eventual self-rule?

Klein writes:

Unwanted regimes, whether domestic dictatorships or foreign occupations, rely on torture precisely because they are unwanted.

If the goal of the US occupation is not merely hang onto power, but rather to create a sustainable democracy, shouldn't our actions strive to make us wanted?

Governance without consent is, in itself, an unjust act - though it may serve to defend other values or protect justice in the long run. What I don't accept is that torture is an essential component thereof. Klein's argument is rather like that of Jack Nicholson's character in A Few Good Men, who declares:

I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it.

But the nature of democracy entitles us to question precisely those actions. Demands it, in fact. Because the soldiers in question are acting in our name.

Guantanamo and Gays

2005-06-06T22:22:00.000-05:00

Krauthammer misses the point, as usual in his recent column on the problems of Gitmo. "Why all the angst about Guantanamo?" he asks, answering that the petty concerns about "Qur'an abuse" have been over-blown, and reported by the US government themselves. He demands, "Is there any other country that would give a prisoner precisely the religious text that that prisoner and those affiliated with him invoke to justify the slaughter of innocents?"

Except, well, the US is not any other country (as I'm sure Krauthammer would agree), or at least it shouldn't be. And in fact there are lots of liberal democracies that probably would: Not having researched the matter, I'd give a guess that similar policies exist in places like Britain, Ireland, Germany, Italy and any number of Scandinavian countries. Places that believe in religious freedom.

The point in the end, is that what goes on at Guantanamo and other US prisons flies in the face of the ideal that is America. A land founded on the truth that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" shouldn't be like other places; should be held to a higher standard; should strive, over and over again, to recognize those rights, even when they come attached to our enemies - indeed the enemies of the very "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" that we are striving to protect.

Because those rights were indeed endowed by our Creator. Christians (and our fearless leader claims to be one) are commanded to "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you."

To me, it's shameful enough that much of what goes on in "the war against terror" appears to emulate the acts of terrorists and violate the Geneva Conventions. But what Bush really ought to be worried about is that it's a sin.

Update: Former President Jimmy Carter has called for Guantanamo to be shut down as a demonstration of US commitment to human rights. I think he's right: shutting down the camp might serve as a visible indication of the US stance against torture. Maybe we should throw Abu Ghraib into the wood chipper too, just to get the message across.

On another note, Pope Benedict has condemned gay marriage, along with birth control and divorce a move which is unsurprising though disappointing. I disagree with this position, but respect his right to differ. What intrigues me though is this: why are people so much more upset about gay marriage than these other social travesties? Why don't we see Christians (evangelical and catholic) in the States massing against divorce? Because it's easier to get worked up about a sin you're not likely to commit.
Update: Andrew Sullivan makes similar remarks.

Great Moments in American Religious Freedom

2005-06-04T14:42:00.000-05:00

I saw this today on A Progressive Chrisitan's blog and think that they're fabulous. He did a series of what he believes to be the three great moments for religious freedom in America. I have to say that I find the founding of Rhode Island colony and the life of Roger Williams to be particularly inspiring. I definately plan to be looking into him more this summer.

Moment 1: The Virginia Statue of Religious Freedom

Moment 2: The Treaty With Tripoli

Moment 3: The Founding of Rhode Island Colony

What Weapon Would Jesus Use?

2005-06-01T11:08:00.000-05:00

It looks like this Marine has the answer.

Sometimes, I just can not understand the basic motive for people's actions. And it leaves me unable to even express my upset. At least now its off the offical USMC site.

Racism and Darfur

2005-05-31T10:41:00.000-05:00

Today Kristof’s Op-ed piece on Darfur revealed one of the major reason why the United States has not taken a stronger stance on this genocide, or on other past genocides in Africa, like Rwanda. That answer is the big ugly word: Racism.

We can all read the note that Kristof attached to his piece and be shocked and offended by it. We can all condemn it as horribly ignorant. We can all truly say that we don’t agree with it at all.

I would hope that there are few who would agree with that note. But finding that note horribly offensive is not enough to make someone not-a-racist. And just because someone’s racist tendencies are not as strong as the author of the note’s, that doesn’t mean that a lot of the ideas expressed in it aren’t ringing true in ears around the country.

We have to ask ourselves, if Arab militias were genocidally wiping out white people in a country with the aid of that country’s government, would the US stand so idly by? If the AIDS pandemic was destroying a continent inhabited by white people, would our government’s commitment to fighting AIDS be any different? (Or another fun one: if Terri Schiavo had been black, would there have been any media attention at all?)

Racism influences our national politics and our national media more than any of us would like to admit. It is an underlying factor in policy decisions and public opinion that needs to be confronted every time it shows its face. As a Christian, I believe in the radical equality of all people and believe that working to actualize that equality is one of the strongest ways I can express my faith. This belief in equality and social justice is a force that can be used to unite people across interfaith boundaries. Its time for us as religious people to unite against hatred and racism.

For more info on Darfur, to donate money, or to write to politicians, visit SaveDarfur.org

Memorial Day

2005-05-30T13:07:00.000-05:00

This year, I’m having a very hard time feeling patriotic on Memorial Day. While some feel the need to go out and parade in the streets, or put wreaths down, I can’t get over just how ugly being an American has become. From treatment of POWs to the treatment of our own veterans, we’re doing a lot wrong.

My purpose in this post is not to get into issues of the justness of the US war in Iraq, in Afghanistan, or the “war on terror.” My purpose is to point to the complete disrespect of individuals that has characterized our national behavior during these wars.

My faith and beliefs lead me to value individual life and the human rights of all people. Holding prisoners without charges, violating the human rights of prisoners during interrogations, rendering prisoners to other countries that openly practice torture, and cutting the benefits of our own veterans, are all violations of just about everything I hold sacred about human life and human dignity.

People of faith need to stand up for the basic human rights of those involved, either willingly or unwillingly, in conflict. Issues of prisoner treatment and veterans treatment are issues that should be able to unite religious folk on different sides of the political spectrum. I can think of no better way for us to honor the spirit of Memorial Day and those who died fighting for the United States than by fighting for human rights of those in conflict situations, using activism to fight for the same values that our fallen soldiers died for.

Other links of interest:

http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGAMR511452004

http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGAMR510632005

http://www.dav.org/voters/bulletin_0403.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/30/opinion/30herbert.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/26/politics/26koran.html

MN Church Hires Trans Pastor

2005-05-28T03:10:00.000-05:00

Major props to this church in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Looking past gender identity and at actual qualifications when hiring someone. It seems so simple...

Follow Up: Bush at Calvin College

2005-05-27T11:07:00.000-05:00

About a month ago I posted on President Bush speaking at Calvin College and how I was heartened at student and faculty organizing against Bush. I was very happy to read this article on SoJo mail yesterday, showing how the event actually went down. Score one for Christians of all sides of the political spectrum coming together for values of social justice and peace.

Also, I should offer my profuse apologies for saying that Calvin College does not allow dancing, etc. I was speaking off of the reputation that Calvin College had in my high school, and one high school acquaitance of mine who, after Wheaton began allowing dancing, spoke of tranfering to a "true conservative school" like Calvin. I should have checked the school's website at least. Again, my apologies to Calvin College and the Calvin College community.

Interesting Brooks Op-Ed

2005-05-26T09:20:00.000-05:00

Check it out:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/26/opinion/26brooks.html?

I am always happy to see opinion pieces like this that focus on religious calls for social justice. However, this piece, like so many others, plays up the religious right/secular left dichotomy. It just shows that even as David Brooks is trying to get evangelicals and secular liberals to find a common ground, we have to be trying to get him to realize that we, the religious left, exist.

The Filibuster: Relief, Encouragement, and Apprehension

2005-05-24T20:16:00.000-05:00

While I would not characterize myself as ecstatic about the compromise that saved the filibuster, I would say that I am very relieved.

The end of the filibuster would have meant a generation of ultra-conservative judges on federal benches at all levels of the judiciary. Even if liberals take back control of other branches down the road, this would be a wound that only time could heal. A lot of time. Not only would we have to wait for the judges to retire, we’d have to go through the long process of working new cases through the courts to overrule previous decisions.

Thinking of what we avoided is what makes me feel relieved. Thinking of what we got is what keeps me from jumping up and down.

The compromise calls for up or down votes on the arguably worst three of Bush’s ultra-conservative judicial nominees. Three who will almost certainly pass an up down vote. These are all judges with records of using their power on the bench (or in offices like Attorney General of Alabama) to try to force their own religious beliefs on others. These are three who, for unabashedly religious reasons, are, to varying degrees, racist, homophobic, misogynistic, and classist. They represent just about everything that one associates with the religious right, and what many Americans have come to associate with all religious folk. But there are only three of them, not five, or ten, or more. With hard work, the damage they cause can be localized, and hopefully dealt with in higher courts.

What leaves me the most unsettled about the compromise is that it deals very well with five problematic nominees. It does not provide well for the future, leaving only the vague “extraordinary circumstances” for when the filibuster can be used in the future. One can almost taste the future debate about what constitutes “extreme circumstances.” Perhaps surrounding the nomination of a Supreme Court Justice?

What we should really take out of this is a sense of empowerment. Democrats, liberals, and leftists really spoke out and mobilized around this issue, and the result was amazing. The ultra-right was knocked down a peg or two, and strong coalitions were built by moderate members of both parties. This was a strong demonstration to America what can be done when we work together, reach out in a bipartisan way, and refuse to accept what those in power would force on us. Especially exciting for me was how much I saw religious communities stand up against attempts by Frist and Co. to make this a faith issue.

We should take these lessons to heart, and make sure to maintain the bridges we have built over this issue. These bonds will be useful on all sorts of issues, especially when the filibuster becomes an issue again, as I’m sure it will. Lets be happy about the religious organizing and action that happened, and lets make sure that it keeps happening long into the future.

Qur'ans and the media

2005-05-23T19:33:00.000-05:00

Christopher Hitchens' commentary on the media response to extremist's violent reaction to reports of desecration of copies of the Qur'an bears some careful reading. He is absolutely correct to excoriate authors who handle murderous mobs with kid gloves and conflate the reaction of normal, ordinary muslims to sacrilege with the violence of the mob: Kenneth Woodward's singularly insipid and ignorant characterization of the death of 17 people is that "Muslims take their religion very, very seriously." Leaving aside the notion that other religious people also take their religions seriously, my primary objection is to Woodward's conflation of "taking islam seriously" and murderous violence. Violence does not demonstrate taking Islam seriously - indeed quite the contrary. As Hitchens' colleague Jack Shafer points out "The killing of innocents is the greatest desecration."

The problem with Hitchens is that he succumbs to the misunderstandings of many unbelievers (in the broadest sense of the word): he cannot fathom that religious people really believe what they believe. He demands "why are we to assume that God speaks only Arabic?" when the Islamic belief in the holiness of the Qur'an is wrapped up in the idea that God spoke in exactly those Arabic words. Some Muslim scholars, like some Jewish scholars with the Torah, study every letter, every space, every comma to draw out the superabundance of meaning believed to reside in the text. That belief is legitimate - as legitimate as any other, and there is no need to downplay the sacrilege involved in the alleged desecration of the Qur'an.

In the end, however, Hitchens equally conflates the extreme of Taliban fundamentalism with religion as a whole: "It's essential that we understand the deep irrationality that underlies all faith and that can take these fetishistic forms." As though any other belief (secular or no) does not become fetishistic at the fringe; the sanctity of the flag being a preeminent example. I think he does religion a disservice: there is a deep irrationality that underlies our capacity to think at all (witness Freud, Jung and their endless followers). To lay irrationality at the feet of faith and in the same breath point to Talabanist extremes is going too far. There is a heart to religious faith (of any kind) which is non-rational, but irrational is quite a different thing.

Fundamentals of a Liberal?

2005-05-23T11:06:00.000-05:00

This morning I was reading a blog post which transcribed a sermon titled “Fundamentals of a Liberal.” I found the sermon to be very engaging and helpful. Lately, conservative Christians seem to be hitting liberal Christians harder and harder with charges of being “relativists.” I think that conservatives can see that liberal religious folk are getting their ducks lined up, and it scares the conservatives. True to their style, they begin trying to find some demeaning label to tie to us that can undermine our credibility.

Knowing that this is their attack strategy, liberals need to go on the offensive as well., but not against the conservatives. We need to get our own message out their, get people to understand our values, before they here the name calling and fabrications of the religious right. Having to always convince people that liberal people of faith are not wishy-washy relativists is an uphill battle that will exhaust all of us. Instead, we need to make people understand what our principles are, and make the religious right fight the uphill battle trying to demean us with petty insults people know not to be true. And we need to do this along two different lines: we need to pursue messages that are faith specific and that are interfaith. Interfaith work is one of the great strengths of the religious left. We need to continue to make interfaith statements and reach out as an interfaith body, but we also need to connect to people on faith specific levels, in ways that people can more strongly relate to at first.

That said, I recognize how diverse the beliefs of the religious left are. One of our great characteristics is that we welcome different people’s different beliefs and values. The idea of one correct interpretation or one Truth are repulsive to us. We should embrace this characteristic and use it as one of our great selling points. We should be vocal about the diversity of our beliefs and reach out to those who feel that there is not place for them in religion because they don’t agree with the right’s conception of things.

However, in recognizing our diversity of beliefs, it helps to produce some sort of rough condensation of beliefs that we share. A list that we all may not agree with 100%, but that by and large we can approve. Having a similar list of core values that we can constantly refer back to demonstrates that our beliefs are principled and not relativistic. That is why I like the sermon referenced above. While I don’t agree with everything in it, I can find a lot that I approve of, and am not upset to see this list presented as a generalization of the beliefs of liberal/leftist Christians like me.

While this sermon is not comprehensive, it’s a good staring place. I would encourage us all to look at other sites that are principle based, like the Chrisitan Alliance for Progress. What we need to do now is compile our own lists, think about ways to relate our specific beliefs back to a set of core values, and to use these core values when reaching out. As we do this, we can begin a larger dialogue on the core values we all bring to the table, and simultaneously discover and demonstrate how similar and principled we really are.

Marriage, again

2005-05-23T02:35:00.000-05:00

Andrew Sullivan discusses the wedding of Letourneau.

Weddings, Wealth, and Society

2005-05-18T11:22:00.000-05:00

This weekend I attended the wedding of one of my cousins. I expected it to be an interesting experience, given that that side of my family is part of the PCA (Presbyterian Church in America), the conservative of wing of American Presbyterianism. This side of the family is really into such ideas as marrying very young, wives being obedient to their husbands, and the complete unacceptability of divorce.

So my barely 21 year old cousin was marrying his girl friend of about a year. His older brother had done the same, at the same age, 2 years ago, and I had been pretty upset at how obedience focused that wedding was. We said prayers that God would make the groom a good leader and the wife a good follower. The groom leading and the wife following were in the vows. I was a little turned off by all this, and expected the same this time around.

This time around the focus was on Jesus. In fact, it was a three-way wedding, the bride, the groom, and Jesus. After all, Paul says that 3 way bonds are the strongest.

The wedding opened with a homily on how the couple’s wedding had been part of God’s master plan since the beginning of time and how the couples parents had been praying about their child’s future spouse since their child was conceived. Then we got into the 3-way marriage part, which was followed by an exhortation to be Jesus to each other and to always acknowledge that marital happiness (very obviously referring to sex in the context) comes from Jesus.
It was a little sickening. The idea of the couple having sex was so upsetting that the only way it could be approved of was if the couple was thinking about Jesus while doing it.

But that’s not my real problem with the wedding. My real problem is the location of this super Jesus focused wedding. It was in a super privileged country club that the bride’s parents belong to. I’m talking about track mansions on multi acre lots in a gated community with 6 car garages, each car actually being an SUV. The privilege and the wealth floating around at this wedding really shocked me.

Being one of those people who sees more in the Bible about social and economic justice than about matrimony, I was shocked at how these people could walk around, ceaselessly talking about the presence of Jesus in their lives and still live in such privilege. For these people, religion seems to be a method of social control, not a method of social change.

What I saw at this wedding confirmed a lot of my conceptions of the religious right. But to see it all in action, up close and personal, was quite the shock to me. And deep in the heart of Tennessee, I began to see just how impossible the task of reaching out to these people is going to be. Talking to them about social and economic justice from a religious perspective, about Christianity calling us to make change in the world, when they see Christianity as a method of control and maintaining the status quo, is going to be a great challenge. And I’m praying for the strength to do it.

Religion and Evolution

2005-05-17T20:21:00.000-05:00

Grrrrrrrrr. Today I was really upset reading Salon. Evolution on trial in Kansas? This is one of the religious right’s most frustrating crusades to have to deal with.

Of all the efforts to force their extremist religious beliefs on others, this is one that it seems hardest to justify using our resources to fight. Abortion and gay marriage not only get more press, but they more directly effect the lives of people. Anti-evolution efforts require just as much attention as they are backhanded attempts to brainwash children.

As is expected, the religious right’s sound bytes on this issue involve all religious people, especially all scientists who are also religious, supporting creationism/intelligent design, while portraying all opponents of creationism/intelligent design as, at best, not having religion, and at worst, being enemies of religion. Trying to portray themselves as victims, the religious right has created an image of all people of faith being oppressed by the evil secular scientists.

It’s a strange claim to hear when you look at religioustolerance.org’s page on different faith’s opinions on evolution. Rather than all people of faith being victims, it looks like fundamentalists are in a distinct minority of people of faith. Even the Catholics support evolution. This is a clear case of a small minority of religious folk trying to force their religious beliefs on the rest of society.

The result of this campaign could be a lot of our children growing up without a decent science education. Its not just a matter of if they know evolution or not. It’s a matter of if they understand how scientific discourse works. Its if they understand the idea of creating a hypothesis, running experiments to test the hypothesis, and developing a theory based on the results of the experiments. Its if they come out of high school thinking that scientific discourse is too-technical and worthy of skimming over and shrugging off as Kathy Martin of Kansas advocated in the above-linked Salon article. Its if they come out of high school thinking that a religious text that is thousands of years old is just as valuable a place to do scientific research on the origin of the universe as the Hubble telescope or a particle accelerator.

As people of faith, we need to make ourselves known. We are being spoken for by extremists who seek ends completely antithetical to our own religious beliefs. We must always be on the watch in our local school districts for the beginnings of this destructive discourse, and when it comes up, we need to be ready to say “We are people of faith, and we support teaching evolution and proper science in our schools.” And when our neighbors a few school districts or a few states over are having to say the same thing, we need to ready to support them.

Of condoms and cancer

2005-05-13T20:31:00.000-05:00

Katha Pollitt has an article in The Nation, describing conservatives' cynical reaction to the possibility of an HPV vaccine. In essence, the Christian right is afraid that the vaccine which could eviscerate the main cause of cervical cancer will encourage young women to have sex and undermine their case against educating kids about the importance of condoms.
In moral terms - their objections are unconscionable.

Minutemen and Illegal Immigration

2005-05-11T11:24:00.000-05:00

Lately I’ve been reading a lot about the “Minutemen,” a group of Americans who are setting up camp along the US-Mexican border to watch for illegal immigrants crossing the border and then alerting the Border Patrol to come pick up the immigrants.

These Minutemen have a lot of grievances. They blame illegal immigrants for driving down wages, for crime, both organized and not, and for sucking up government funds for health care, among other complaints. They believe that by posting themselves on about 20 or 30 miles of the over 2,000 mile long border, they can make a difference and force the government to tighten the boarder.

While I agree with these Minutemen that illegal immigration is a problem, I really disagree with their methods. In one article these Minutemen showed that they do, to some extent, sympathize with the plight of illegal immigrants. They see the immigrants as victims of an exploitive system and sympathize with the immigrants desire for jobs in the US. In my mind, these Minutemen have a strange way of expressing that sympathy. My disagreement with their methods hits very deep at my beliefs in how one should work for social justice.

If I had a large group of people organizing with me to do something about illegal immigration, I’d work towards changing the system that makes illegal immigration a problem. I’d organize with international groups that seek to improve conditions in Mexico by confronting issues of poverty and organized crime. I’d organize with groups in the US that help illegal immigrants to apply for work visas and gain legal status in this country and that work against the exploitation of illegal immigrants by employers. I’d lobby the government, not to tighten the border, but rather to make it easier for workers to legally cross the boarder and enter this country. I’d try to teach immigrants English, educate them about their rights…

Basically, illegal immigrants are victims of a system of oppression and exploitation. In Mexico, they are stuck in cycles of poverty while conditions in America, just across the border, are significantly better. These people are driven to cross the border by whatever means necessary in a desire for a better life. Once they cross the border, they are victimized by organized crime, by employers, and by vigilante American civilians.

My faith directs me to combat the system that allows such a disparity of wealth and privilege between America and Mexico and that enables the exploitation of illegal immigrants in this country. My faith leads me to be concerned to the human rights of the marginalized and the oppressed, and illegal immigrants are some of the most oppressed and marginalized people in American society.

The elimination of poverty, the application of universal human rights for all people, and equalization of education and opportunity are the ways to combat illegal immigration. Standing up as a person of faith for positive change will send a strong message to our government. I believe this is an issue that can bring together the religious left and the religious right for positive work together on a true issue of faith and social justice.

Optimism in the WCC's Conference on World Mission and Evangelism

2005-05-10T10:01:00.000-05:00

Earlier this week I read something about an ecumenical conference on mission and evangelism being hosted by the World Council of Churches. So this morning I looked it up. The Conference on World Mission and Evangelism, being held in Athens, Greece, seems to be something that we all can be excited about.

As people who read this blog regularly should well be aware, I’m a huge fan of the word “dialogue.” And indeed, this conference is all about dialogue. The WCC has brought together leaders of Protestant denominations, the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches, and leaders of evangelical and Pentecostal congregations from around the world to dialogue on important issues facing the world church.

The four themes they’ve decided on are:

1) Concerns of identity in multi-faceted and changing contexts,
2) Healing and reconciling ministries in a violent world,
3) Seeking alternative communities in a globalized world,
4) Being a missional and evangelizing church

Just to give you some of the really exciting quotes from the explanations of the themes:

From “Concerns of identity in multi-faceted and changing contexts:

In their struggles for justice and dignity, marginalized groups need to affirm their particular identities, so as to resist oppression and move towards liberation. Cultural or religious identities, however, are also being misused to fuel conflicts, and can lead to exclusion and violence. How to affirm one’s own identity, and recognize the dignity of the "other" as both being rooted in God’s purpose is one of the main mission challenges in terms of gospel, cultures and reconciliation.

From “Healing and Reconciling ministries in a violent world”

What does it mean for a church to be a healing community? It should offer a safe space for those in emotional, spiritual and/or material need. It can be a place where people may share their stories without being judged, a place of worship, forgiveness and solidarity. Such a church could also become a place where processes of inter-personal reconciliation are initiated or accompanied. Such a church is expected to exert a peace-making influence on the wider community.

Aspects to be considered include: … the influence of cultural traditions (in particular in relation to gender!) on the spread of HIV/AIDS

reflecting on the churches’ role in conflict situations (including recent ethnic conflicts), addressing questions such as repentance, forgiveness, restitution, and healing of memories

From “Seeking alternative communities in a globalized world”

The struggle to create alternative communities is a resistance movement against the economic and cultural imposition of one system - the so-called "free market", with its tendency to perceive all aspects of life as "commodities".

And from “Being a missional and evangelizing church”

The message of reconciliation in Christ must be widely shared. But if the churches are not reconciled among themselves, their witness loses its credibility. The longing and search for unity may well be the most important response by Christians and churches to God’s offer of reconciliation. In mission policy and practice, this requires a passion for common witness.

I don’t think that this one conference will be the end all cure all for the lack of unity and dialogue across the world’s Christians, but I do think that it is a great step on the road towards that goal. As I look at this site, I see that it carefully dodges some issues like abortion, or homosexuality, or using condoms to fight AIDS, but instead it focuses on things that most Christians will be able to agree on.

By carefully picking its issues, this conference will allow different denominations to find common ground and build positive working relationships with one another. This dialogue and these relationships can then provide a foundation for useful dialogue on more touchy subjects. Issues of reconciliation, peace, and creating safe spaces seem to pretty basic to me, but somehow they’re still issues in this day and age. If such basic issues require conferences to discuss, it means that we have even more work to do on large, complex issues.

However, themes of resisting oppression, liberation, and refusing to allow societal norms define our lives seem to be spread throughout the materials of this conference. Once these ideas are accepted on issues of race and ethnicity, taking the next step to issues of gender and sexuality should be much easier. My prayers are with this conference, I hope it lives up to its high set of goals.

Catholic Church and AIDS

2005-05-08T12:15:00.000-05:00

Kristoff has a column on the Catholic Church's responsibility in the spread of AIDS in Africa and around the world. In Burkina Faso (aka "the Land of Upright Men"), I know the work of Catholic Relief Services (a major development organization run by US Catholics) finds its work constrained: while it recognizes that HIV/AIDS as a serious and growing problem, one which will impact every aspect of the economy, schools, health and lives of the Burkinabé people in the coming years, and it is unable to make any effort to support the number one control method. While CRS does great work supporting AIDS victims in Burkina Faso, the restrictions under which it works undermine the great work it does - and will increasingly do so in the years to come.

Stroud Trial Shows that Methodism Needs Dialogue on Homosexuality

2005-05-03T10:34:00.000-05:00

Last Friday, Beth Stroud was reinstated as a pastor in the United Methodist Church. For those of you who do not know who she is, she is a lesbian pastor, who came out to her congregation both through a letter and through a sermon. Because the United Methodist Church forbids out gay and lesbian pastors, she was defrocked by a church trial. She appealed an won, but her reinstatement appears to be entirely on technical grounds, and not based on true acceptance of the equality of queer people.

This entire case leaves me hugely disappointed in my church. I have long known what the church’s policy’s on gay and lesbian pastors was, but it is cases like this that prevent me from just pretending the policy doesn’t exist. But while others seem to be celebrating Rev. Stroud’s reinstatement, I see the reasons behind it as a moral loss. Legal technicalities are not how queer people should be able to be pastors, they should be clearly allowed to be pastors in church law. Anything otherwise is blatant discrimination and denial of the radical equality taught by Jesus.

I was much more pleased in the case of the Rev. Karen Dammann. She is also an out lesbian pastor in the UMC, but her church trial acquitted her. In her case, the jury determined she had done nothing wrong, in the face of church law clearly stating the contrary. In this case, the jury sent a powerful message that there are people in the UMC who do not tolerate homophobia being presented as the will of God.

The one good thing about Rev. Stroud’s trial is that it is one of many events that is forcing the UMC to discuss homosexuality. My experience with the denomination is that it loves to avoid tricky issues. In one of his sermons, the pastor at my parents church praised the decision of the local conference of churches to not talk about homosexuality for 3 years. This silence gives a cold shoulder to a group that needs a welcoming hand.

Silence on this issue does not help anyone. It prevents dialogue among people of differing viewpoints and makes cases like Rev. Stroud’s all the more painful. Suddenly, people who are used to just ignoring this giant pink elephant are faced with it, and they don’t know how to deal.

Also, this silence is tremendously harmful for queer people in the congregation. Bombarded with images in the media of a Christianity that hates queer people, the church’s silence does not express neutrality, but leaves queer people with no message except what they see in the media. My only hope is that the ongoing Stroud trial will force the church to finally begin discussing these issues, and finally begin to make progress on them. Even if the church ultimately moves down a path of homophobia, it is better for queer people to see that and leave the church than for them to continue on in an environment that leaves them vulnerable to the religious right’s propaganda and uncertain as to whether their church community accepts them or not.

Of God and Monkeys

2005-05-02T19:01:00.000-05:00

Decades after the Scopes "Monkey" trial and Inherit the Wind, it appears Kansas still hasn't made up its mind on the creationism/evolution divide. Or rather, I suppose a good number of Kansans have made up their minds, and its not what I would like... The Board of Education is holding hearings on what children should be taught in science classes.

Why is it, amongst the many passages Hebrew Scripture passages one might insist upon, that fundamentalist Christians tend to focus on a select few - the commandments, the creation story and a few select passages out of Leviticus? Okay, so the first one is obvious choice for emphasis, but the other two? What necessary relation does the Man from Galilee & his message have to the creation story (leaving aside Eden, snakes and the fallen nature of women). What direct relation does the factuality of "And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light" on the first day have to the message of Jesus (who, presumably, is the focus of their attention).

Now, obviously, biblical literalists and biblidolaters will say that insofar as the book, the whole book, is the Truth (which as heavy a capitalisation as possible) - the accuracy all parts is neccessarily true (and therefore, questioning the veracity of any point calls into question the whole project). My point is simply that people don't seem to worry quite as much about the historical accuracy of Sampson's hair. Christians have come to accept that the earth is not the center of the universe and that the sun's rising and setting is due to the earth's rotation - despite Joshua's ideas to the contrary. What makes the difference on creationism?

My only further comment on the Kansan story is to question the decision of many evolutionists, progressives and moderates to check out of this debate. When scientists of standing fail to counter the arguments of creationists- through boycotting debates like this one, the fundamentalists win, and their anti-science message gets propagated further. Non-scientists often don't realize how overwhelming the evidence for evolution is, unless credible sources are willing to explain it to them, as often as it takes.

Massachusetts Catholics and Gays

2005-05-01T17:51:00.000-05:00

I apologize for the surfeit of blogs about Catholics (which I am not) gays (which I am) and Oregonians (you guess) of late - I'll try to post on a more diverse spectrum of progressive religion/politics issues in the future.

For today however, the Mass. Supreme Judicial Court will be hearing a petition filed by CJ Doyle of the Catholic Action League of Massachesetts. Doyle asks for a stay in same-sex marriages, arguing that the marriages interfere with the voter's debate on a future ban on same sex marriages. According to his attorney, Chester Darling, "What we're saying is that the dialogue, the robust debate that should be taking place, is being affected and shaped by the continuing marriages."

My reactions are threefold: First, that of course, Darling and Doyle are right. Of course voters are being swayed by the presence of thousands of same-sex married couples in their midst. That's exactly what gay rights activist have been hoping for with the several year delay between the the Mass Court ruled and when the issue may appear on a statewide ballot. That the people of Massachusetts will see their neighbors and friends and family married, and by that witness their hearts will be changed.

Secondly, of course, it's a terrible argument. As though having some voters on Social Security made voters less able to evaluate Bush's plan on the (lack of) merits. On the other hand - similar reasoning got this president into office in the first place. Bush v. Gore says nothing if it doesn't comment on the old adage that possession is nine-tenths of the law. My cynical side says "isn't it nice to be in possession for once?"

Finally, of course, I realise that this kind of tricky arguement is everywhere - that so often in monumental legal cases the hinge is not on the issues we want to argue about - freedom, justice and equality - but on seemingly nitpicky points of law. And that these points as often work for the goals of progressivism and against it. Basic Rights Oregon is challenging Oregon's 2004 Defence of Marraige Act based on the specifics and intricacies of Oregon's constitutional amendment process.

The problem of course- is that individuals on both sides feel their most cherised values are at stake (leaving aside for the moment whether that feeling is legitimate). Opponents and proponents of thegay marriage feel something vital, and personal to them is at stake, which leads both sides to take a "whatever it takes" approach to legal and political matters. Which is fitting, of course, when vital interests and civil rights are at stake. But for the long run, it is not the picky arguments like those of Basic Rights Oregon or the Catholic Action League of Massachesetts that will win hearts and minds - it is precisely the kind of slow, getting-used-to-it period that is currently occuring in Massachusetts. And that is exactly what Mssrs. Doyle and Darling fear: that voters will in fact "get used to it," not simply in the short term to defeat the coming Mass. constitutional amendment, but in a fashion that brings real tolerance, acceptance and understanding.

President Bush at Calvin College

2005-04-28T10:52:00.000-05:00

For those of you who don't know, Calvin College is a bastion of conservative religious values. I have friends who went there because they liked that it still forbid students from dancing, among other things.

Apparently the President believes that Calvin College is one of only two colleges in the country at which it is safe for him to give commencement addresses. (The other is the Naval Academy)

But in a positive show for liberal and conservative Christians working together on issues we agree on (poverty, the death penalty, possibly war), some students at Calvin College are organizing against President Bush coming to campus. They've set up a website to do some organizing.

It seems like most of the comments posted are already from outsiders posting their support, but I think that we should really be encouraging to this kind of organizing. When conservative religious folk, who Bush thinks are his base, organize against him, it sends just the message we're trying to get across: being religious does not equal being a Bushie.

Disagreement and Solidarity in Faith

2005-04-28T02:31:00.000-05:00

Anne Lamott has an interesting article in Salon, God Doesn't Take Sides. She mulls over the question of how to "reconcile my Christian faith with that of the radical right"? Her answer is that she doesn't - she simply rejects the right's ideas about God : "What the right has "appropriated" has nothing to do with God as most of us believers experience God." (italics mine)

Lamott lists off five "warning signs" that God is present and active in national life: belief in equality, freedom and the inclusive love of God, belief in the separation of church and state, belief that all people are good and deserve to be cared for, desire to sacrifice and deep generosity. Now it so happens that, having grown up in the United Church of Christ, I generally agree with Lamott. My personal credo abstractly lines up with what she has written. And yet, to me there seems to be something missing: respect for the diversity of belief - both with regard to what the "five signs" ought to be and how best to practice them.

My problem with Lamott is that in many ways her presentation of "the truth" is just as exclusive and peremptory as that of the right. Where she ought to be at least self-consciously ironic, she is doctrinaire. Honestly, who follows the phrase "The opposite of faith is not doubt: It is certainty. It is madness," with "I just think Bush and his people have gotten it so wrong."

While her dogma is one of hyper-inclusiveness, it is still a dogma. And moreover, it is a dogma which appears to put some people ("fundamentalists" who we know have created God in their own image because "he or she hates all the same people [they] do") on one side and us, the righteous, on the other. And unbeknownst to her - the "most of us believers" includes the right too. In growing numbers.

I think she's performing a smear job on the right, funadmentalists and evangelicals - many of whom would agree with her warning signs - many of whom do great, good work in feeding the hungry and clothing the naked. It's simply that they have other ideas about what caring for other humans means - perhaps they prioritize "man cannot live by bread alone" differently than Lamott and I do.

In the end, it's not Lamott's tolerant theology that I object to: it's her inability to be charitable towards other theologies, in the midst of all that tolerance.

Confrontation?

2005-04-27T11:58:00.000-05:00

I was pleasantly surprised to wake up this morning and find this article on Salon. Its by Anne Lamott, and titled “God Doesn’t Take Sides.”

The has a nice little summary of a liberal religious person’s frustration with the Religious Right and with Republican politics, and a concise list of ways that we can tell if God’s priorities really are our national priorities.

This article isn’t a powerful call to action, and it doesn’t really offer us any concrete ways to challenge the Religious Right’s hold on moral dialogue in this country. Rather, it asks us to stop worrying about the Religious Right and the fundamentalists, and to start focusing on what matters to us. “We've got people to feed, people who … A whole lot of us believers, of all different religions, are ready to turn back the tide of madness by walking together, in both the dark and the light -- in other words, through life -- registering voters as we go, and keeping the faith.”

I really appreciate this article’s call. The more I think about how to confront the Religious Right, the more I find myself feeling that confrontation should be a low priority. My beliefs on how to share my faith with others are founded on the idea that “They will know we are Christians by our Love.” By going out, doing our good works, our activism for the poor and oppressed, for the environment, for the rights of people of color, for the rights of women and LGBTQ people, raising awareness of genocide, and letting people know who we are as we do these things, we are fulfilling our call and calling out the Religious Right at the same time.

Confrontation must still be part of our strategy. To let all everything they try and do pass, like campaign against the filibuster by calling Democrats enemies of people of faith, is not acceptable. If we never challenge people’s opinions, we’ll probably never change them. We need to stand up and speak out when they cross too far over the line. But to call them out on everything would simply weaken us. They are too monolithic to be directly challenged on every issue, and we still have our own message that we want to get out. Our own message that is more than just “the religious right is wrong.” Lets focus on getting it out there.

E-Activism Opportunities

2005-04-20T10:04:00.000-05:00

Urge your Senators to Oppose Sen. Frist's Mis-use of Religion in Politics.

Take action on Darfur (letters to politicians or donations).

Both of these links are through religious organizations, the first inter-faith, the second is a faith-based coalition. I linked them because when we take action, expecially when contacting politicians, it is so incredibly important to let them know that we are people of faith advocating for liberal values.

I know some people discredit sending faxes and emails to politicians, but in the age of anthrax scares, letter writing just doesn't do it anymore. It can take months for letters to get screened and passed on to elected officials. One thing that the Right has done a great job of is mobalizing people to send letters, faxes, emails, and to make phone calls. While politicians may not read every thing that gets sent, they have staffers who tell them just how many religious conservatives are contacting them and how few religious liberals are. Politicians pay attention to the volume. If we can make politicans realize that there is a sizable religious left, that is politically active and involved, we can really start to make a difference on the policy level. E-activism is incredibly easy, takes all of 10 seconds, and does make a difference.

Papal Honeymoon

2005-04-19T18:39:00.000-05:00

Many liberals have been disappointed by the choice of Cardinal Ratzinger as the new Pope Benedict XVI. Slate Magazine's Jack Miles writes that "The election of Joseph Ratzinger announces that the status quo will remain unchanged" with regard to the sanctioning of condoms to prevent the spread of AIDS. More stridently, Lean Left's Kevin T. Keith predicts "bad days ahead" describing Ratzinger as the "Goebbels of the Vatican. " Social liberal Andrew Sullivan writes "There is simply no other figure more extreme than the new Pope on the issues that divide the Church" and tells us to expect bans on gay seminarians in the near future.

Perhaps it is the Pollyanna in me, but I say - let's wait and see what Benedict XVI does before calling in the Coast Guard. Presidents in the US historically get a honeymoon period before we decide they're terrible. Perhaps the Pope deserves one too. Then we can decide he's the worst thing to happen to the Catholic Church since the Swiss Guard's outfits.

I suppose my hope rests in this - becoming the pope, for a pious person, is likely to be a humbling and life-altering experience. The weight of the office ought to supercede the individual. I am comforted by the statement of one cardinal:
Meisner gave a few clues about the new pope's emotional reaction on being named. He said Benedict XVI looked "a little forlorn" when he went to change into his papal vestments in the Room of Tears — which earned its
nickname because many new pontiffs get choked up there, realizing the enormity of their mission.

Whatever else is said about Benedict XVI - he is said to be a thoughtful, pious and humble man. Let us hope that it is these qualities which come to the fore in his papacy.

People of Faith's obligation to raise awareness of Darfur genocide

2005-04-17T13:06:00.000-05:00

The other day as I was tabling in the Reynolds Club, the Student Union at the University of Chicago, I saw a group of students tabling for clothing donations. They were collecting the clothes for a rummage sale to raise money for Amnesty International’s projects in Darfur. Clothes left at the end of the sale would be donated to local shelters.

What struck me about this clothing drive, sponsored by the Amnesty student group and another student group called Jewish Action, was that it was the first I had heard about Darfur in weeks. The genocide and civil strife are still raging, and yet one hardly knows its going on. As I explore the American mass media, it seems that the only people who haven’t forgotten Darfur are a select few columnists for the New York Times.

This neglect of what is happening in Darfur is a harsh condemnation on our country. Today Nicholas Kristof’s piece sums up our nation’s moral bankruptcy on this issue quite well. Our history of looking the other way in cases of genocide, and the fact that MTV is doing the most to actually raise awareness of what’s happening.

What bothers me the most about America’s lack of concern over Darfur is that America’s religious leaders seem to be doing nothing to raise awareness of what’s going on. When one looks at website for the Christian Coalition, one sees nothing about urging our Congressmen to take action on this genocide. Instead one sees an article praising an ex-Muslim who seeks to “take the gospel into the heart of Islam.”

There is a void that is being left unfilled in the American media and in American politics. A void where there should be a voice advocating for the rights of the victims of genocide, for the girls who are gang raped and then murdered, for the children who are burned alive, for the boys who are rushed off to fight before they’ve had a chance to grow up. Any person of faith should be filled with moral outrage over what is happening in the Sudan. And if the Religious Right thinks that converting Muslims to Christianity is what deserves their attention and applause, then it is up to the religious left to step up and stop letting people forget about what is going on in Darfur. It is up to us in the religious left to force our politicians to take action, to force President Bush to acknowledge what’s going on in his meetings with foreign leaders, and to force the American public to open its eyes.

Fighting Words

2005-04-14T23:12:00.000-05:00

Sen. Frist and other republicans have accused Democrats of being "against people of faith," comparing the use of the filibuster against conservative judicial nominees to its notorious earlier use against civil rights legislation. The Senator, along with other Christian conservatives, is appearing in a telecast to be distributed to conservative churches across the nation.

The idea appears to be that if you're not for judicial nominees like William G. Myers, a rabid anti-environmentalist who has never served on the bench, and yet is up for a seat on the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, or Terrence W. Boyle known for ignoring Supreme Court precedent and hostility to civil rights law, you are anti-religion. The possibility that people might have religious objections to these individuals (or that religious people might wish to reject the nomination of William Pryor, who filed an amicus brief in Lawrence v. Texas urging the Supreme Court to uphold Texas' sodomy laws) is dismissed out of hand.

I suppose this article stuck out for me- because it strikes to the heart of what this site is about. There is more to religion, Christian or otherwise, than hating gay people and being against abortion. And many religious people, including Christians like myself, are pro-choice and pro-gay rights for religious reasons. We cannot allow Frist to hijack the Christian message, or to equate being opposed to packing the courts with radical, partial judges with anti-Christian bigotry.

It's ironic, of course, to advocate the "nuclear option" in a judicial controversy on the basis of allegiance to a man who famously encouraged people not to judge others. That this irony is apparently lost on Sen. Frist makes the current attack all the more distasteful.

My home state lives up to its expectations

2005-04-14T12:05:00.000-05:00

The Oregon Supreme Court handed down its decision in Li/Kennedy v. State of Oregon, invalidating over 3000 gay marriages performed in Multnomah County last year. It's odd, knowing in advance that it was likely (given that Oregon voters passed a constitutional amendment in November banning gay marriage), makes it no less disappointing. It's also odd, how set backs in Oregon - where I haven't been in residence for over 4 years - have the power to make me infinitely sadder than set backs in other states. Somehow, it's only to be expected if yahoos in other states screw up, but when my yahoos do it, it's a personal affront.

The Governor of Oregon, Ted Kulongowski is working with a bipartisan group of legislators on a civil union bill this year. And while I am in favor of every advance in this field no matter how incremental (not that this would be a small advance), somehow I wonder if this is the right approach. One of the reasons many people reacted against the Multnomah County decision to issue marriage licenses- was that it was done by fiat almost. There was no public deliberation; it was simply handed down from on high. Given that voters passed a constitutional ban on gay marriage this past November (Oregon's constitution is ridiculously easy to amend, but that's a story for another day)- would it be better to put civil unions before the voters as a referendum?

I'm struggling between two ideas here - I believe strongly in the right of gay couples to form the very same kind of legal unions as straight ones. But at the same time, my instincts say that it might be easier to convince people - the very people who were miffed at the decision of the Multnomah County commissioners - and to overcome prejudices, if it was put to voters directly. I guess somewhere I still have hope that the good people of Oregon would approve civil unions when they wouldn't approve gay marriage... yet.

I know, I know, civil rights are rarely won without a struggle - and that the long lessons of the as-yet unfinished fight for full equality for African American citizens tell us that sometimes legal recognition has to come from on high before people learn tolerance and acceptance... but still. Somehow, I still have enough faith in Oregonians to think they could pass a civil union referendum - and that the prejudice which won out last November will not last forever.

For me, the struggle for gay rights is not only a struggle for laws protecting the full civil equality of gay citizens - it a struggle to turn the hearts and change the minds of those who would bar gay marriage. To convince those very people who voted "yes" last November. May God help us.

Question of the Week - April 11

2005-04-11T14:14:00.000-05:00

How important is a religious response to the DeLay ethics scandals? What, if anything, should progrssive religious people do?

To comment, or read other responses, click onthe word "comment" below.

Remembering the Pope

2005-04-06T17:09:00.000-05:00

Kristof makes an excellent point to those who wish to honor John Paul II's positive legacy - that defending the defenceless in Darfur would be truly appropriate way to mourn him - not the pomp and circumstance that is to come. (Not that trl editor is opposed to pomp and circumstance per se - funerals are about giving mourners a chance to see their dead honored).

On the other hand, Andrew Sullivan has some excellent, thought provoking things to say about the moral deficit displayed by the Roman pontiff with regard to the scandal of child abuse by priests.

trl editor's take is that people - even great religious leaders - are morally complex; that human beings - even God's vicars - can be hugely compassionate in some aspects of life and largely blind in others; and that, if a great, compassionate, human being can have such failings - how much we are all prey to varieties of moral blindness. May we all strive to overcome them in our lives.

Question of the Week - April 4th

2005-04-04T00:58:00.000-05:00

What do you think will be John Paul II's lasting legacy?

To read responses orleave your own comment click onthe word "comment" below.

1920-2005

2005-04-02T16:41:00.000-06:00

The Religious Left mourns the passing of Karol Wojtyla of Poland, better known as Pope John Paul II. We stand in solidarity with Catholics everywhere in this time of grief. We particularly remember Pope John Paul II for his concern for the poor and his deep opposition to war.

The 10 Commandments

2005-04-01T08:02:00.000-06:00

Check out an interesting polemic in Salon - discussing the posting of the 10 Commandments in public buildings and the de-Christianisation of America. A friend of mine wondered why no Christians ever try to get the Beatitudes or Jesus' greatest commandment carved in marble on a courthouse.

Is this what it takes to bring unity to the middle east?

2005-03-31T08:46:00.000-06:00

Muslim, Jewish and Christian leaders unite in opposition to World Pride being held in Jerusalem. Really, Bush should give homosexuals more credit - it appears that a common prejudice is what it takes to bring peace to the middle east.

Another kind of christian response to Schiavo

2005-03-28T17:28:00.000-06:00

Neal Boortz has an interesting take on the Terri Schiavo case - that given the Christian belief in life after death, Mrs. Schiavo should be allowed to die is rather a blessing than a condemnation.
Similar commentary from Jesuit Rev. John J. Paris.

The Religious Left and the Rise of Conservative Christianity in the Third World

2005-03-26T14:10:00.000-06:00

Here is an interesting Op-Ed from the NY Times about the rapidly growing evangelical/Pentecostal Christianity and Islam.

The question that this raises for me is: What should the Religious Left be doing about the rise of very socially conservative Christianity and Islam in the Third World? Should we not be concerned and leave the conservative missionaries to do their thing? Should we be concerned for marginalized groups like women, queers, and members of other faiths as conservative Christianity and Islam gain clout? Please post your feelings on this, mine follow below:

Nicholas Kristof’s observation on the rise of Anglicanism in Africa comes as no surprise to any one who has been following the plight of the Anglican church following the elevation of openly gay Gene Robison to the position of Bishop of New Hampshire. The most vocal opposition to his elevation has come from the African Anglican churches, and most media outlets will note towards the bottom of an article that the Nigerian Anglican church alone has more members than the US Episcopalian church. What doesn’t often get mentioned is my favorite anecdote from the discussions over a schism in the Anglican church. In its short form: at one of the large international meetings of the Anglican primates, one of the senior bishops from Nigeria took the podium, delivered a long diatribe against homosexuality, and left the conference room, followed by his two wives.

This just goes to show the gap that exists between this new and rapidly growing Christianity in the Third World and the old, and some would say dying, Christianity in the West. No one is surprised that as Christianity grows in different parts of the world, it absorbs local customs, adapting them to fit within a Christian framework or adapting the Christian framework to preserve those traditions. Christmas arose in Europe as a major feast partially in reaction to the pagan Solstice celebrations. Women were excluded from leading the worship service as early Christianity began absorbing the gynophobic traditions of the Greco-Roman world. Polygamy is accepted in the Nigerian Anglican church. Homosexuality is becoming more and more accepted in the US Episcopalian church.

The absorption of local culture is not an evil. It is both necessary and unavoidable. What makes Christianity work for people from New Hampshire is may not be what makes Christianity work for Nigerians. These differences across cultures within the church do, however, create a need for improved and increased dialogue and understanding. As the church develops one way in New Hampshire and another way in Nigeria, the risk continually increases for what is currently happening: New Hampshire has developed to a point that Nigeria considers to be heresy.

Whether this quarrel could have been avoided is debatable. Either way, greater communication of theological developments before the elevation could have softened the blow of the elevation and made communication after it easier. I am not advocating that the American Episcopalians needed to ask for permission from the Africans before elevating Gene Robinson. They acted completely appropriately within the structure of the Anglican Communion, which emphasizes local control. But, if a rational dialogue had already been happening across the Anglican Communion on the issue of homosexuality, there would be a basis for discussion after the elevation instead of the current dialogue, which has been largely emotional and uncompromising.

What the Anglican Church is currently going through should be a warning to all other faiths. The issues on which we diverge, whether it be members of our faith on a different continent or members of a different faith down the street, should not simply be left untouched, like giant white (or pink) elephants, because we are uncomfortable engaging this or that issue. When that happens, we are heading towards a breaking point and a violent reaction from those who disagree with us. How much better is a series of heated rational arguments over a hypothetical situation instead of a schism over a highly divisive real-life affair.

As Christianity and Islam spread across the Third World, we in the Religious Left need to maintain relationships and dialogues with these growing communities. Mutual understanding can soften the blow when one of us does something that seems heretical to the other. When communication becomes strained, both sides must remain understanding and patient. We must never be the one to cut off communication, but if it is cut off, we must let the other side know that we are ready to reengage at any time. And as we engage in this communication, we must not just engage on issues on which we disagree, but also on issues in which we can easily find common ground, like poverty, worker’s rights, education, and hunger.

It is also important that we are there for individuals who are rejected or marginalized by the socially conservative. Queers, women, and any one else who is pushed out of this conservative Christianity needs to know there is still a place for them in the liberal Christianity. We should feel especially called to provide a religious space for those who seek it, but are being denied it. And as we provide this space in the present, the hope is that through dialogue over time, the need for a separate space will disappear.

We are not trying to convince conservative African Anglicans that homosexuality is acceptable, or that any of our other beliefs that are different from theirs are superior. Rather what we are trying to create is an environment of understanding. Some disagreements don’t have an easy answer, and some don’t have any answer. Even so, we are called to engage in discussion and work together as much as possible on issues on which we agree. Over time, all will grow through our interactions. This solution is frustrating because it requires patience, both over a long period of time and through many disagreements, but it is the solution that I feel called to.

While the analogy is very strained, I find it helpful to try to learn from the Reformation. The differences between the Protestants and the Catholics were great, and both sides only engaged on their differences, rather than over their common ground. As a result, reconciliation has only been happening now, centuries later. While the danger of such a schism as the Reformation seems unlikely, we want to avoid any schism. Now, as ever, the Religious Left should feel called to work to increase communication and understanding across denominations, faiths, cultures, and geographies.

Question of the Week - March 21

2005-03-21T16:38:00.000-06:00

Here's the question of the week for discussion and comment:

What is the progressive religious response to the case of Terri Schiavo Is Congress' action to reinsert her food tube appropriate? We'd especially love to hear from liberal catholics on this one.

To respond and read other responses - click on the word "comments" below.

Faith, Left, Right and Social Privilege

2005-03-15T19:12:00.000-06:00

Mother Jones has a very thoughtful article up called Left Right and Wrong.
As Guido Calabresi put it during a lecture - "Where you stand depends on where you sit." If you're someone who always gets to sit at the front of the bus, the issues are likely to look very different to you than if you are relegated to the back...

Question of the Week - March 15th

2005-03-15T12:56:00.000-06:00

Question of the week for your comment and response:

Is there a legitimate, non-religious case for banning same-sex civil marriage?

To read responses and post your own comments, click on the word "comment" below.

TRL news

2005-03-15T12:49:00.000-06:00

The Religious Left apologizes for a temporary posting recession - it is finals period at UofC where most of our posters are in residence.

In other news - The Religious Left may soon be moving to a new, expanded site - to include such features as a discussion forum, articles, book reviews and a separate section for posting really long live-blogs... Updates will be forthcoming.

Interesting Salon Article

2005-03-10T08:18:00.000-06:00

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/03/10/religious_left/index_np.html

This is a great article that summarizes the history of the fall of the religious left from prominence in the 60's and some of the biggest hurdles the religious left faces today.

Perhaps we could draft a letter about what we're trying to do and send it in to Salon in responce to this article? It would be a great way to get our name out there.

Question of the Week

2005-03-06T16:23:00.000-06:00

For discussion:

What does it mean to be "against the war" now, post Iraqi elections? How can we reconcile the good that has so clearly come from the invasision/occupation (elections and a shot at democracy, for example) with the evil that it has caused (the death of thousands of iraqi civilians and foreign troops, for example)?

To comment, and read other responses - click on the word "comment" directly below this post.

Progressives and the Iraq War

2005-03-02T13:52:00.000-06:00

Sojourners is helping people find local vigils for the second anniversary of the Iraq war. There are all kinds of events going on the weekend of March 18th.

Faith Voices for the Common Good is sponsoring an online event- they're hoping for a million people to participate in the production of a declaration on the Iraqi war: "Against the Iraq War and Affirming God's Future for Us All." To participate, check out the Faith Voices site. Honestly, I'm not sure what to make of this last one - their project could either be the emergence of the lowest common denominator or an extremely empowering session, bringing together people in a collaboration which otherwise could never happen. Should be interesting to see.

Live: Politics of Jesus

2005-02-28T12:03:00.000-06:00

The Religious Left has the distinct honor to be live-blogged today by Debbie Lloyd. We're hosting The Politics of Jesus in a Distracted Age - a discussion by Prof. Michael Budde and Fr. Mike Ivers.

Questions - email to trleditor@yahoo.com

V. Lloyd discussed topics from the previous lunch panels. There was some discussion about the inception The Religious Left organization which began after the recent national election. People at this meeting are from a variety of academic disciplines. Introductions of these distinguished speakers were made.
“Welcome to Professor Michael Budde and Fr. Mike Ivers.”

Prepared remarks…

Prof. Budde begins… His academic interests include exploring long term questions of theology and public engagement... in what ways do churches interact with community events... church's influence as cultural factors. He compared the time spent engaging in making money...16,000 jingles and marketing messages per day… which is significantly more time than spent on faith matters (discipleship, etc). The tie-in to politics is the establishment of alliegence. He tells his undergraduates that there are three factors needed to maintain the state ... “those who will kill for it, die for it, pay for it." Expressing the idea that churches are adopting forprofit strategies.

Fr. Mike continues... Talking about Jim Wallis's, God's Politics. "Read this book if you haven't already." Is there a politics of God? An agenda? A mission?

He grew up in southside of Chicago and was a Catholic priest for 27 years. His ministry was in the Black community. He was involved with the early civil rights movement. His 2000 sabatical in Taos which focused on the black experience changed his professional course. In 2001 he started organization, Good City (insert link to website). He married in 2002. Now at the age of 58 he reflects with a wealth of human experiences. Good City helps to start nonprofits. He has met with the White House to discuss faith-based innitiatives. He says “I'm certain that I don't know what I don't know."

In closing he makes reference to the book, God's Politics, and cites some ways that Jesus fit the concepts described. Jesus's politics was to be with the poor (quotes scripture). He encourages all to view life as an opportunity rather than as a chore or rote action.

Open to discussion...

Prof. Budde was asked about the Ecclesia Project (insert link to website).
Prof. Budde says that the group tries to find what kind of practices or common ground can be found from very different denominations. The group does traditional scholarly work and helps to radicalize people within their own congregations.

Father Mike was asked to further describe the Good City project. It is described as a faith-based organization working on social issues. He was asked about how he deals with the problem of denomination battles and says that it isn't a problem for his organization. They seek common ground to work together and share resources. In the past government funding was not available but now some of the funds from faith-based initiatives are available for community projects. The Clinton administration had a faith-based policy called …. But did not receive as much publicity as the Bush policy. Attempts are made to cross political party lines and denominational lines. "Opportunity for the politics of Jesus to be real."

Question: How to deal with class differences… differences that may exist between the congregation and the social groups the congregation wants to help? Most members of congregations are about the same social class and this may cause problems. The questioner says that interfaith work can do some class crossings but how deal with this issue?

Response: Fr. Mike... one of the challenges of the ministry. Need to reach out. Encourages the richness of diversity.

Response: Prof Budde... difficult to deal with when not coming from a trinity point of view (question is from aspiring UU pastor).

Question: The concept of sharing resources with other churches is part of the mission of churches in India but personal beliefs are still not addressed. We're not asking, “Why impoverished”? We know that the reason is that they are being exploited. The questioner feels that this "sharing of resources" is not the answer. The resources can address immediate issues but not the root cause of the issues.

Response: Fr. Mike... development of relationships is most important. People may gather together to clean up city lots, but the one to one relationships developed during that clean up project is most important.

Response: Prof Budde... Be aware of “book activism” versus the influence needed on a deeper level. Today the conservatives have allowed the public use of imperial language. What does it mean to be a citizen of the empire? Today there are fewer differences between existing political parties. He made some comments about God's Politics... knows some of the history of the author but hasn't read the book as yet. He notes changes of author's thoughts over time.

V. Lloyd... time running out.
Prof Budde... He would like to turn the topic back to the group although there isn’t too much time.

Comments from group member... said that it was only through community action projects that she had connected with religious thought.

Prof Budde... 60% of population did not read a book last year. How much of the church’s mission is sustained merely through tradition and inertia inspite of our many screw ups?

Comments from group member... Seems to be witnessing the death of the church and through that death, the church will find new life.

Thanks to everyone attending and particularly to our panelists. A fascinating and thought-provoking discussion.

Question of the Week, Part the First

2005-02-28T01:22:00.000-06:00

A new feature here on The Religious Left - A new question each week for response and commentary. And our first entry:

What constitutes a morally good nation? Does such a thing exist?

Opinions? Comments?

Live-Blogging: The Church as Counter-culture

2005-02-24T12:12:00.000-06:00

'Church and Community: Counter-Culture to the Free Market?'
with Prof. Stephen Long and Allan Howe

Questions? Email trleditor@yahoo.com

Prof. Long – Markets as feeding fundamental wrongs of society...
became interested when working as missionary in Honduras – worked with women processing lobsters – who couldn’t afford to buy the product of their labors. Saw this as a fundamental injustice and indefensible as such

Afterwards came to study economics- like theology, it is a system of value and there is no single “answer” for why things are the way are… too many people see this as a “natural” system which cannot be changed – and it’s not.

Adam Smith’s followers tend to assume a natural order – a sense of will or progress to market forces – economics text books never claim to be doing dogmatic theology, but they are.
The one reference to the invisible hand (which Neibuhr called original sin): act for the good of others and things go badly, act selfishly and help everyone…

What is this invisible hand? Nature? God? Bowmel and Blinder's econtext book talks about this as "just the way things are" and accepted by everyone. This is nothing but dogmatism.

Allan Howe- leader of Christian intensional community (Reba Fellowship) in Evanston, IL.
The idea of intentional communities goes back to scripture. Jesus and his followers were a pretty intentional community. After Jesus’ death – we see early Christian followers living together sharing all possessions in common. People have lived in these kind of movements and communities throughout church history

Reba Place Fellowship stands with the Anabaptist radical reformation movement – with the idea to live like those early Christians lived & be just as radical and evangelical in their living. Often this assumes a communal form.

Reba Place Fellowship was formed by Mennonite religious students who compared their lives at Mennonite Seminary with their scripture – and felt a disconnect. The idea was that to live in fellowship people required proximity - they now own 24 buildings. The design was about Christian sharing – people put paychecks into shared bank account and received back an allowance based on their needs. Now there’s a corporation which manages the various properties and charities.

Reba Place has always wanted to promote a diverse neighborhood - and have become the single largest affordable housing agent in Evanston. Reba Place is not just counter cultural in faith and ideology but also in practices and way of life.

Long - Adam Smith was intentional in developing an alternative theology... Even if we agree with the UofC economic philosophy - that in the global economy a rising tide lifts all boats, religious people should still oppose the idea that it holds the answers. People now look to the stock market pages in the morning rather than reading their bible.

Markets are inevitable - the question is what kidn of exchange is being produced. I think there is a global market that works on producing desire that sucks us in. It destroys local culture and doesn't have to. Students usually think that the problem of modern culture is forced on us by diversity - but have never had to encounter Islamic philosophy. Aquinas had to engage with Islam and Judaism. Our problem is not diversity but homogenity. The difference in America is like the difference at the food court at the mall.

We have obligation to speak beliefs as Christians, or Jews or muslims - we want to engage with people's particularities - and that applies to Adam Smith's followers as well.

Solutions? We don’t have to produce and engineer a global system - we have to focus on local, immediate problems.

Howe - solutions are diverse. Look at micro-economies set up by/for african americans in segregated South. Amish communties' micro-enterprises in furniture which keep the work closeto home. There is alot of room for Christians to be the bridge builder between lots of little economies. Look at the 10 Thousand Villages folks - by paying wages for goods, they can provide work for people all around the world.

Long: Michael Novak has essay saying that the multi-national corporation is one of the forms of the body of Christ in the modern world. Was that part of Smith’s vision?

John Paul has said that not paying a fair wage to people is as great a sin as abortion – but we don’t see bishops exercising church discipline on these issues like they do on abortion.

Howe: We challenge all Christian to think as to whether mutual aid isn’t built into the idea of Christianity. We are pretty short on models of what is possible for Christianity in terms of economic creativity. We need to get involved and try things.

Q- how does Reba make positive contributions, rather than simply separating themselves?

Howe: We have kept the torch alight for those who are looking for Christian alternative ways of living. At only 45 years, we are the oldest urban intentional community in North America. I think young people are now looking for new ways to be Christian in the city.

Long: To be able to have a community where people can live safely and without fear is a huge contribution. What it requires is commitment to place, a sense of community and fellowship. That’s what changes places and people.

Howe: Many of the members of Reba community have ordinary jobs and much of the resources come fromthis. We also have a childhood early learnign center and started a 10 Thousand vilalges store. We are not there to advocate in Washington, we are trying to figure out how to lead a mutual Christian life and figure that God will see how to make us useful.

Two Upcoming Events: "Church as Counter-Culture" & "Politics of Jesus"

2005-02-18T13:34:00.000-06:00

'Church and Community: Counter-Culture to the Free Market?'

with Prof. Stephen Long and Allan Howe

Thursday, 2/24, 12:00 noon-1:30 p.m., Swift Hall 400 (1025 East 58th Street)

A brown bag lunch discussion with Stephen Long (Northwestern/Garrett Seminary) and Allan Howe. Long is a professor of theology and the author of Divine Economy: Theology and the Market (published in the 'Radical Orthodoxy' series). Howe is the leader of the Reba Place Fellowship, a Mennonite intentional Christian community in Chicago; he has been active in civil rights and Christian pacifist movements. This is the third in a series of weekly "Faith and Justice" brown bag lunch discussions organized by The Religious Left, a student group at the Divinity School. For more information, please contact trleditor@yahoo.com. The mission statement of the group can be found here (scroll down). A poster advertising the event can be found here.

------------------

'The Politics of Jesus in a Distracted Age'

with Prof. Michael Budde and Father Mike Ivers

Monday, 2/28, 12:00 noon-1:30 p.m.

Swift Hall 400 (1025 East 58th Street)

A brown bag lunch discussion with Michael Budde (DePaul) and Father Mike Ivers. In addition to teaching in the political science department at DePaul, Budde is the author of The (Magic) Kingdom of God: Christianity and Global Culture Industries among other books. He is also the founder and coordinator of The Ekklesia Project, an ecumenical network of scholars and church leaders focused on radical discipleship and society. Fr. Ivers ministered to a predominantly African-American parish for a number of years before becoming President of Goodcity, a Chicago community development non-profit. In 2001 he was appointed as a Commissioner on the Chicago Housing Commission. This is the fourth "Faith and Justice" brown bag lunch discussion organized by The Religious Left, a student group at the Divinity School. For more information, please contact trleditor@yahoo.com.

Live: A conversation with Prof. Paul Mendes-Flohr

2005-02-15T12:07:00.000-06:00

We are pleased to host this afternoon a lunch discussion with Paul Mendes-Flohr focusing on:
A Land of Two Peoples: A Vision of Israeli/Palestinian Reconciliation

Questions to ask Prof. Mendes-Flohr? Email trleditor@yahoo.com

I share the anguish of most thinking people over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I once heard a proposed solution of creating a complete exact replica of Jerusalem down to the stones themselves and then Palestinians and Jews could each take one. I am not here to discuss fantasy solutions but real ones.

Both communities are separated not only by the wall that is being constructed but also by walls of suspicion and fear. They have ample reason not to trust each other.

My own experience in trying to bridge the walls, to overcome the distrust goes back many years to the first Intifada. Friends and I tried to create dialogue groups at the time to help people reach out to each other.

Most of the Israelis who participated were academics- and as such rather supercilious and haughty. My friends had come to lecture, to tell how much they knew. The Palestinians who came weren’t academics and were often talked down to. There was a missed opportunity to truly listen, and the groups dwindled.

Real conversation, real friendship takes place first by listening. The few Israelis who were left in the group found that they first needed to listen to the Palestinian’s stories, their histories and that that would lead into Palestinians listening to Israeli stories. That’s what real friendship is based on. It is difficult sometimes to truly listen to these stories – for Israelis to accept that Palestinians are not strangers to the land, are not interlopers. It is hard for Palestinians to truly hear the holocaust aspects of the Jewish story. But this is what led to us bonding as friends. Birthdays, Weddings, etcetera.

Trust is not an intellectual exercise – it is a personal one. growing to listen to others stories and integrating them into your own life. It seems obvious, but it is very rarely done.

The ultimate challenge is being able to balance my own needs with the needs of the other. Dialogue is not negotiation – it is the only way to make negotiation anything other than a power struggle. Trust can only come through true dialogue.

A Land of Two Peoples - walls build up fear and distrust and the current wall is not only being constructed from concrete.

Question: How much do you think the breakdown of Camp David was a failure in communication and how much do you think it was about other issues?

Most Palestinians with whom I came in contact felt that Arafat made a great error, politically speaking. That there was room for dialogue. It wasn’t on that level that he felt offended. He felt that they weren’t genuine partners to the discussion, that he was being out-maneuvered. We all know how we can offend one another.

Question: When we are thinking about possibilities of dialogue – by sharing stories, a very evolutionary change process, does that foreclose the possibility for revolutionary change?

Maybe – It might lead to a space where we can accommodate each other. It’s true change by dialogue may be evolutionary but the results might be revolutionary. I don’t see that that mode of solution would preclude anyone, prophetic or otherwise. It creates the groundwork for solutions. Political solutions are abundant – there are think tanks everywhere and they more or less agree with each other on what a solution might be – dividing the land, sharing the land. But the trust which would allow us to share it, that is what is lacking.

Question: How do you elevate that discussion and sharing of stories on the national level?

I have been involved in programs precisely on this question. One program (using funds from the EC) works on bringing people together based on the traumas at the heart of the two communities – the Holocaust on one hand and the creation of the State of Israeli on the other. We bring Palestinian to see art, music poetry on the topic of the Holocaust and what it meant to the Jewish people, and likewise bringing Jews to see art, music and poetry on how the creation of Israeli affected Palestinians. And based on those experiences, we are creating an education program.

Question: Is there a place for religious dialogue? Is it useful or necessary?

While religious dialogue has been going on for longer than political dialogue, it is very limited. It’s well funded, better funded than secular dialogue, but very limited. The vocabulary of religious reflection and the manner of religious reflection is so fundamentally different between western and eastern communities. Most western people are not capable of appreciating the depth and beauty of storytelling as religious dialogue.
Most of the principles in the conflict tend to be secular. Those people who are religious don’t seem to be participating in the dialogue. That’s something we might want to look at.

Question: Would creating a common enemy be useful?

Even if it were possible, or practical, it wouldn’t be fruitful. The solution is between the two peoples- not to looking outside of the land.

It’s not enough for a handful of radicals to create another option – we have to do the hard work of reaching out to the farmers the workers of both communities. It is the myopia of intellectuals thinking “we’ve got it right and the people have it wrong.” The solution can’t be created that way.

Question: Does shared talking about oppression help?

Both communities have to reassess nationalism or group identity. We need a very immediate solution to create a modus of living together. Both sides are oppressed by the vision of right and wrong. Buber said that casting the situation as a tragic one is a way of foreclosing a solution - both sides see selves as victims, maybe that is our oppression.

The wall is cemented by the status of being a victim, of being oppressed. I'm not so eager to look for an outside oppressor. The opporessor is in here (gestures to head).

Question: To what extent do the group identities need to change to experience true dialogue? If your identity is about conflict and oppression?

Identity is ontologically always about opposition – we always define ourselves in opposition to other people. There are philosophers who say we should withdraw from the world, because all being, all acting involves opposition (witness Schopenhauer).

Buber develops the line of demarcation – how can I secure my basic needs and limit the pain and deprivation that implies to another person? The line of demarcation is how I can secure my own dignity & limit the harm. For him this was the criterion for Israeli-Palestinian solutions.
It would undoubtedly be much better, easier for the Palestinians if we all just disappeared- if everyone evacuated the Holy Land and moved to Hyde Park. Or vice versa. but we both are there and are staying so we need to find a solution. Help you satisfy your needs, help me satisfy mine. When the Messiah comes no doubt he will find a much better solution.

Question: Sometimes even within the kind of dialogue you are talking about- with real, personal relationships – does not in fact change the situation under debate. We still believe the other absolutely wrong.

As long as religions believe they hold onto absolute truth, there’s a kind of cognitive dissonance going on. What dialogue can do is help people see that their opponent is not a fool, is a graced human being, with whom compromise is possible. If you focus on the doctrinal you'll be shortcircuted before you begin.

Question: The kind of dialogue you are talking about is a long on going process about fundamentally re-wiring the peoples of two cultures. Isn’t there room for more nuts and bolts of diplomatic work to stop the bleeding?

Of course – especially with regard to improving the material situation of the Palestinians – upwards of 60% unemployment. How can we work on the conflict without dealing with these material issues. The fact is that these issues need to be dealt with.

Question: What do you think about the current developments? The discussions about discussion? Are you hopeful?

I think it is obviously a positive thing. As even Sharon put it, and I have to admit I don’t have much respect for the gentleman, has called it a “window of opportunity”. I think we need to do all we can to push the window further open.

Question: Do dialogue groups work at all- they tend to be always the same people, deracinated intellectuals who don’t change the conversation as a whole?

The reconciliation needs to take place on many levels - dialogue can’t be the only solution, but it is a necessary part.

Israeli/Palestinian Reconciliation Live-Blogging

2005-02-15T10:37:00.000-06:00

Tune in at noon CST for live blogging of:
A land of Two Peoples: A Vision of Israeli/Palestinian Reconciliation, a discussion with Prof. Paul Mendes-Flohr.

More on Family Values and Gay Children

2005-02-15T00:20:00.001-06:00

The Washington Post's article on Maya Keyes. The things that seem most tragic: how young she is (despite her precociousness), and how common her situation is.

Christian family values and gay children

2005-02-12T14:10:00.000-06:00

Andrew Sullivan's blog picks out 2 incidents of late that bring the issues of christian family love and gay children into sharp relief. The first - Alan Keyes, that paragon of moral virtue, throwing his daughter out because she's gay. The second - the president of The New Brunswick Theological Seminary being ousted for performing the wedding ceremony of his gay daughter.

There are two things going on here - Christian love and judgment based on supposedly Christian principles - and the two are deadly enemies. It is unconscionable that someone who is commanded to "Be compassionate, as your Father is compassionate," (Luke 6:36) could turn away their own child. Christians are to be known for their love of one another, for their love of their neighbors and the whole world. The lie behind "loving the sinner but hating the sin" comes to the front here.

By contrast, Rev. Norman Kansfield, demonstrating both normal family love and radical Christian love, married his daughter to her partner in a ceremony in Massachusetts. Rev. Kansfield is now facing discipline from his denomination for his action.

To me, the fight over "moral values" (narrowly defined, of course, as gays and abortion) within politics and social life speaks to the diffculty we all have in carrying out Christ's message of radical love. Sometimes, it is most difficult to love those who seem the most different (witness the demonization of Muslims during part of the "war on terror) - but often it is those closest to home, our own friends and children who are hard to love.

Let's try to remember, during this time of Lent, Isaiah's words about the true meaning of penitence for sins (Isaiah 58:5-7):

5 Is this the kind of fast I have chosen,
only a day for a man to humble himself?
Is it only for bowing one's head like a reed
and for lying on sackcloth and ashes?
Is that what you call a fast,
a day acceptable to the LORD ?
6 Is not this the kind of fasting I have chosen:
to loose the chains of injustice
and untie the cords of the yoke,
to set the oppressed free
and break every yoke?
7 Is it not to share your food with the hungry
and to provide the poor wanderer with shelter-
when you see the naked, to clothe him,
and not to turn away from your own flesh and blood?”

Tuesday 2/15 Event

2005-02-11T13:16:00.000-06:00

**A Land of Two Peoples:
A Vision for Israeli/Palestinian Reconciliation**

Professor Paul Mendes-Flohr
Tuesday 2/15, 12:00 noon-1:30 p.m., Swift Hall 400 (1025 East 58th Street)

The second in a "Faith and Justice" brown bag lunch discussions, this event will feature Paul Mendes-Flohr, Professor of Jewish Thought at Hebrew University (Jerusalem) and at the University of Chicago Divinity School, discussing the situation in Israel/Palestine, Martin Buber, prospects for reconciliation, and what it means to be in the "religious left." He is the author/editor of several books including "A Land of Two Peoples: Martin Buber on Jews and Arabs" and "From Mysticism to Dialogue." The Religious Left is a student group at the Divinity School. For more information, please contact trleditor@yahoo.com. The mission statement of The Religious Left can be found by clicking here and scrolling down. There will be live blogging taking place on this web site during the event so if you are not able to attend in person, surf on over here.

Christianity and American Empire

2005-02-10T12:23:00.000-06:00

Live blogging of Lunch discussion with John Fish and Sharon Hunter-Smith
**many apologies- were having problems with our connection- this may be slower than planned**

Email Questions to trleditor@yahoo.com and we'll pose them to our guests

Sharon Hunter-Smith:
1. Interested, because of University Church involvement in US actions in Guatamala
2. There are many kinds of Christianity in the world some of whom are quite pleased that George Bush was elected president.

“I was trying to think of options for a Christian Left – I don’t want it to be a mirror image of the Christian Right. I worry about any group that thinks they have God’s backing of their actions. People on the left are a minority - If there is ever a successful left we’re talking about coalition building.”

John Fish:
Clearly we are an empire- the real thing to argue is if this is a good thing or a bad thing. We have 275 bases around the world on every continent. Our military budget is massive. This gets us into endless wars. Erodes democracy at home – security always trumps freedom & it brings out the worst in us- witness Abu Ghraib.
Quoting Reinhold Neibuhr – nations always act out of self-interest and always defend their actions out of morality

12:36PM

Sharon Hunter-Smith
We all participate in the wider culture whether we want to or not.
As a nation, we all deceive ourselves - it has been an eye opener for me to see how America has been responsible for over throwing other governments – by ourselves or by giving out CIA training to the folks who do.
The CIA funding whole psychology departments in the 50s to get information about how to better psychologically torture people- responses to stress etcetera.
I don’t think people on the right are aware of this.
American torture manuals have been distributed through USAID (based on the psychology studies) via the Public Safety Officers (at US embassies?) to police and others in foreign countries. If you read declassified information – the state department is getting regular reports on this.
We have always run our empire through proxies – it provides deniability.

John Fish
You don’t have to have colonies to have empire.

Question – by saying “many citizens don’t know what’s going on” are you letting them off the hook? People recognize what’s going on, they just ignore it.

Hunter-Smith-
There’s a whole discussion on torture going on right now that just appalls me – people are claiming that we need to torture because of how awful the enemy is.
Fish-
We are bordering on a secret government – the disinformation coming out of the Bush administration is astonishing.
But at the same time, we want to appear to the American people that we are doing something good and noble, spreading Democracy. We have to cover up what

Question – If Christians need to be in the oppositional and non-Constantinian position (in opposition to empire and not in conformity to it- what should that look like?
Should it be in a prophetic way? (protest rallies etcetera) or in a counter-culture way (of creating a vision of some other way to be in than imperial way)?

Fish
Similar to 60’s question of whether we should go out and “live the kingdom” and not worry about outside world - either you have given up on outside or you believe only way to change is by example.
I believe in having the church using a prophetic voice.

12:40PM

Question - how does faith relate to all of this?
In some ways, the faith propagated is one in the righteousness of what we are doing and the evil of who our opponents are.

Fish’s Question:
Why not just link up with a left group – there must be some around? What does the Christian left have to add?

Hunter-Smith
The Christian left can add the sentiment that the ends can never justify the means. We can have the humility to say we believe all human have dignity and we can never violate this.

Audience:
You can’t talk about American empire without talking about American Christian Empire.
We need to create something that is distinctively different from right/left divide.
12:55PM

Fish-
Going back to Cornell West, I think there is a vital role for Christian left – to have a voice within the Christian church. Historically speaking, the Christian left has been so important in our progressive movements.

Audience:
I think the language used has been problematic. We need to talk about empire in an economic sense. We may pull our troops out of Iraq, but our companies are still going to be there.
We need to find ways not to attack the issues of the right without attacking the person. Leftist people tend to think that people on the right don’t really believe what they believe - and that’s an attack on their integrity.

Audience:
What people got elected for – Bush and Cheney got elected due the beneficence of Halliburton and other corporate sponsors and that’s the agenda they are really going to push – they pay lip service to many of the conservative right ideas, but the agenda that gets past is not the personal morality agenda but the corporate agenda.

Question: how can liberal Christians reach out to other Christians?
Fish:
I tend to more comfortable with people who think like me politically than with fellow Christians – who might be all over the map. Their expressions can be so antithetical to what I believe the bible requires. Which is a problem. We don’t feel a connection just because we all claim to be Christians

Hunter-Smith
You can be religiously conservative and politically liberal and vice versa. There is some value to Christians getting together and talking over what the bible means to them and their views. It seems to me pretty clear that large parts of the bible are about social justice.

Audience: often the discussion gets into problems based on biblical literalism or interpretation – how do people who disagree on these issues start having a biblical dialogue

Often people get hung up also on who’s a Christian – many traditions exclude all others as truly “Christian”.

We find ourselves as Americans in the world - and many of us tend to swear off other groups

Conclusion - time to head off to the next event. Please pass along any other questions via email and we can quiz the participants

Jim Wallis and God's Politics

2005-02-09T18:50:00.000-06:00

The Chicago Theological Seminary Co-op Bookstore plays host tonight to a discussion of Jim Wallis' book - God's Politics: Why the Right Gets it Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It

The Co-op has been kind enough not only to invite us to live blog this event,
but also to set up routers and power cords to enable the operation. Speaking tonight are
Jim Wallis, founder of Sojourners; Susan Thistlewaite, president of the Chicago Theological Seminary, and Melissa Harris-Lacewell, political science professor at the University of Chicago.

We're waiting for Mr. Wallis to get started, and I have a preliminary concern- why God's Politics? Shouldn't it be politics about God? or maybe that's the point - that people are claiming to speak on God's behalf in the political realm
Wallis first liberal Call & Response: "The monologue of the religious right on faith and politics, is over" Sounds nice doesn't it?

First biblical reference: If you have faith even the side of a mustard seed you can move mountains” Faith is meant for big things – His question is –what big things are we going to do with our faith?

2nd liberal call-response: "Budgets are moral documents. This budget needs a moral values audit!”

Gratuitous (and obligatory) Daily Show Re-Cap - not quite as funny without Jon Stewart... But he gives the impact of the show- people who definitely wouldn't heard him otherwise writing and calling - "people are hungry for a new discussion on faith, value and politics"

First actual call-response:
Wallis: Fighting poverty is a moral issue! Amen?
Crowd (and me): Amen
A little tepid - I don't the United Church of Christ crowd is really used to call and response - Alas!

At Wheaton College (a preeminent evangelical training school) yesterday: Wallis asked: What does it mean to be an evangelical? Are you an evangelical or just a conservative?

What a revolution it would be to move biblical literalists and evangelicals to look harder at other moral values in the bible..

A partial answer to my question –Wallis says we need to ask to be on God’s side. Dr. Martin Luther King was an evangelical and he talked about racism and poverty.

President Thistlewaite- Dr. King received his first ever honorary degree from CTS, in the same chapel we are currently in.
We need to scrap the entire left-right paradigm.

1. Received email from South Africa : the main issues are always – wealth poverty, good news to the poor, justice and injustice

2. Liberals tend to be embarrassed by the language of faith – but “get over it”
You can use passion and humor- like the UCC

Gratuitous SpongeBob – James Dobson reference
"My friends, first they came for Tinky-Winky, and we said nothing"

Melissa Harris-Lacewell
Promises not to be polite:
"Why was Janet Jackson’s breast a moral issue? The reaction to a black woman’s breast revealed on national television by a white boy reveals that the left has had no say in what public morality is."

"Why is there no black comic on the daily show- even in the heights of racism, people have always thought black people were funny!"

"The white public discourse wrong about race – and while I loved this book, the chapter on race made me crazy.”

“Black Christians have never found it difficult to be black, evangelical, and progressive at the same time. If we want to see how to combine these things, that's where we need to look.”

“We need to look at the electoral map one more time we need to see there are no blue states left there are only blue cities. The blue voters are black people, brown people and the white people who live around them.”

The older black man in front of me appears to be the only one in the room who really believes in call-response & he keeps trying to add them in everywhere - I think he's my new favorite person ever.

One of my favorite things about Jim Wallis is the way in which he is unabashedly evanglical and christian and yet makes everyone else feel welcome too - he manages to evangelize just from the joy in which he is what he is - and doesn't ever appear to be judging the as-yet unconverted. Unlike some liberal commentators, I think it is a virtue that he is so clear about where he comes from and why he does what he does.

Q & A:
Question from the crowd: Are we (the left) doing the same thing that the right is doing by talking about religion and values in politics?

Wallis: James Dobson, Jerry Falwell are theocrats- I think they would take over if they could and force their agenda. I think most of the constituents of the religious right are not- they are people who feel in danger, under attack. A lot of people feel their values are under assault – and they are. But it’s not Sponge Bob, it’s corporate America that is leading the assault.
Merely to bring religious language into the public sphere is not theocratic. Religion must be disciplined by democracy – you can’t just win arguments because you are religious, yo0u still have to persuade each other.

Harris-Lacewell: there are widespread misconceptions that the left is entirely secular and the right is entirely religious, both of which are incorrect. Part of the separation of church and state is that the church is on both sides
People feel their values are attacked- but primarily by black bodies and gay and lesbian bodies - so that "Desperate Housewives" is not an attack on the family, but Janet Jackson’s breast is. People’s values are under attack but those values are clearly racialized.

Question from the crowd: How can we start a conversation about this in our home churches?

Wallis: "What changes history are social movements. And the best ones have a spiritual foundation. how do you build one? How do you move from doing ministry to action?
If the churches quit their ministering to the poor and sick the cities would fall apart in about 48 hours.
The answer is something about getting the message out- James Dobson is the most frequent talk radio commentator in America.
"You don’t replace one wet-fingered politician with another- you have to change the wind"

If this transcript of Wallis response seems disjointed, that's because it was. Maybe part of the problem is that the solution is local & he's a national figure? Thistlewaite tells the questioner to email her for more information ;^)

Events:

A delightful old grandmotherly school teacher asks how she can organize her elementary school students to further the cause.
Rev. Hamell – Chair of DNC Hyde Park branch – apologizes for losing the election.

Harris-Lacewell: how we will liberate gays/lesbians, women and other groups, will come from the struggles of the people who are racially marginalized.

Wallis: Someone at a book-signing told him “It’s easier to come out as gay in Boston than it is to come out as religious in the Democratic Party.” A lot of religious folks feel disrespected by the Democrats. I think the issue of poverty is where we start.
"Let’s be honest, John Kerry did not give black Democrats a lot to vote for."

Thistlewaite: The Democrats just need to pick a message and stick to it. People are struggling to catch the American Dream. I know were people on the left and we get easily bored- it’s tiring saying freedom 49 times. The most important thing said tonight: We need to focus on one message and we need to say it with one voice.

Wallis: “9 million families are working hard and not making it. That’s not what America believes in – if you work hard you shouldn’t be poor. This is not a right and left issue this is a right and wrong issue.”

"Poverty is a unifying issue – you can get the evangelical alliance there and the world council of churches – that’s like the Crips and the Bloods!"

Question: Right is pushing the idea of voluntary giving as the solution to economic injustice- how can we speak out?
Thistlewaite: How many students have you organized?
Questioner (Who turns out to be our own Matt Patton: Well, actually I’m with The Religious Left group at the U of C
Thistlewaite: A group of 4 students came to Bill Buckley and asked how should they organize and out of that came the Dartmouth Review. The key is campus organizing. Go convert the U of C and then move on to the next campus.
Wallis: Don't ever think you are too small to deal with the problem. Don't ask "Where are the Martin Luther Kings now?" Don't you understand- we are the ones we have been waiting for."

That's the end of the event - book signings and commentary by the author... Many, many thanks to The Co-op and Jim Wallis, President Thistlewaite and Professor Harris-Lacewell. Synthesis in a bit.

Consensus and Sir Mix-A-Lot

2005-02-08T01:40:00.000-06:00

I have always detested the song “Baby Got Back” by Sir Mix-A-Lot. While certain liberal-esque friends have defended it as arguing against the accepted standards of beauty and body size for women, I’ve always felt it’s merely more of the same in a different guise. Yes, women with large posteriors (like myself) are not usually celebrated as the ideal body type in the media (at least up until the advent of J-Lo). But that song merely substitutes one absurd body image for another – the female body part of the hour changes from large boobs to tiny waistlines to gigantic rumps – but the attention is still focused on the sexualized female body.

Which is part of the reason why I love so much the brilliant spoof – Baby Got Book - performed by a “Sir Reads-A-Lot”. It strikes me as a great example of unrecognized consensus between right and left. I, a lefty, hate Baby Got Back, because I think it’s sexist. Some folks from the conservative end of things dislike it because it’s sexual – and voila, we have a consensus.
Similarly with last year’s Janet Jackson Super Bowl scandal – conservatives didn’t like it because they don’t want to have breasts shown on prime-time television, I and other liberal types hated it because of the violence against women demonstrated in Timberlake’s performance.

This is *not* a call for censorship – I agree with the ACLU on issues of government censorship. This note is about the issues we can find consensus on. There are many issues on which liberals and conservatives can agree – for differing reasons. Without delving too far into trite platitudes, I think part of election recovery needs to be looking for where we, as liberals can agree with the folks who won – not merely how we can beat them the next time around (though I’m in favor of that too).

Live-Blogging Comes to The Religious Left

2005-02-07T13:26:00.000-06:00

This website will be hosting 2 live-blogging events this week:

1. Jim Wallis, author of God's Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It , will be discussing his book at the Seminary Co-op (http://semcoop.booksense.com/) on Wednesday, the 9th, starting at 7PM central time. Also speaking will be Chicago Theological Seminary president Susan Thistlethwaite, and University of Chicago political science professor Melissa Harris-Lacewell.

2. In our new "faith and Justice' series of lunch discussions:

**Christianity and American Empire**
Thursday, Feb. 10, 12:00 noon-1:30 p.m.

Featuring John Fish and Sharon Hunter-Smith. Fish received his Ph.D. from the Divinity School and taught at the University of Chicago. He is the author of the books Black Power/White Control and The Edge of the Ghetto: A Study of Church Involvement in Community Organization. Hunter-Smith also attended the Divinity School and is now a human rights activist with the Chicago Metropolitan Sanctuary Alliance.

We look forward to your commentary and response on these events.

"The Greening of Evangelicals"

2005-02-07T12:51:00.000-06:00

neat article from the Washington Post on evangelical Christians recently acquired interest in the environment.

Two Upcoming Events at U. of Chicago

2005-02-04T17:18:00.000-06:00

**Christianity and American Empire**
Thursday, Feb. 10, 12:00 noon-1:30 p.m.
Swift 400, 1025 East 58th Street, Chicago

The first in a series of weekly "Faith and Justice" brown bag lunch discussions, this event will feature John Fish and Sharon Hunter-Smith. Fish received his Ph.D. from the Divinity School and taught at the University of Chicago. He is the author of the books Black Power/White Control and The Edge of the Ghetto: A Study of Church Involvement in Community Organization. Hunter- Smith also attended the Divinity School and is now a human rights activist with the Chicago Metropolitan Sanctuary Alliance. The event is organized by The Religious Left, a student group at the Divinity School (trleditor@yahoo.com). (a poster for the event is here, a paper by Fish is here, and The Religious Left mission statement is here (scroll down).) If you are far away, fear not! There will be live blogging so tune in to this web site during the event.

**Prof. Mendes-Flohr Discussing Israel/Palestine**
Tuesday, Feb. 15, 12:00 noon-1:30 p.m.
Swift 400, 1025 East 58th Street, Chicago

The second in the "Faith and Justice" series, this event will feature Paul Mendes-Flohr, Professor of Jewish Thought at Hebrew University (Jerusalem) and at the University of Chicago Divnity School, discussing the situation in Israel/Palestine, faith, and prospects for reconciliation. He is the author of several books including "A Land of Two Peoples: Martin Buber and the Arabs" and "From Mysticism to Dialogue." The event is organized by The Religious Left, a student group at the Divinity School (trleditor@yahoo.com; mission statement)

'The Delusional is No Longer Marginal'

2005-02-03T10:34:00.000-06:00

Bill Moyers, PBS television personality, wrote these words in Sunday's Minneapolis Star-Tribune. He continues:

"One of the biggest changes in politics in my lifetime is that the delusional is no longer marginal. It has come in from the fringe, to sit in the seat of power in the Oval Office and in Congress. For the first time in our history, ideology and theology hold a monopoly of power in Washington.

Theology asserts propositions that cannot be proven true; ideologues hold stoutly to a worldview despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality. When ideology and theology couple, their offspring are not always bad but they are always blind. And there is the danger: voters and politicians alike, oblivious to the facts.

Remember James Watt, President Ronald Reagan's first secretary of the interior? My favorite online environmental journal, the ever-engaging Grist, reminded us recently of how James Watt told the U.S. Congress that protecting natural resources was unimportant in light of the imminent return of Jesus Christ. In public testimony he said, 'after the last tree is felled, Christ will come back'."

and he goes on, with good politics, but a rather underdeveloped appreciation of the subtelties of Christianity, to say the least. As it happens, Moyers received a divinity degree from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary and was a Baptist pastor before becoming a TV journalist. Recently he's written more about religion: Genesis and the Millenium and a forward to Jim Wallis' Faith Works: How Faith Based Organizations Are Changing Lives, Neighborhoods, and America

Is this post about activism, or theology?

2005-01-30T11:59:00.000-06:00

I only watch TV on late Saturday nights, but this week while surfing I caught part of the first broadcast of "Faith Under Fire" on the Pax network. Unfortunately, this seems to be a show where the partisan moderator and his chosen "Christian Nationalist" representative confront a victim-of-the-week. The few minutes of the show that I saw have left me livid, I'm afraid. This week's victim was a representative of the Baha'i faith, and he seemed to be partially prepared for the shouting, insults, and interruptions by his interrogators, but the climate was definitely hostile. I was astonished to witness the "moderator" actually say to the Baha'i representative "Wow, it sounds like he's calling your prophet a false prophet!" Referring, of course, to the Xtian guest's remarks disparaging Bahaullah.

The website for the show calls this a presentation of these issues in "the marketplace of ideas", but it's a marketplace, clearly, where the Xtian Nationalist side has a huge marketing advantage, and all others are left to defend themselves on their own. In what real marketplace would it be tolerated that one vendor constantly be allowed to interrupt the very salespitch of all other vendors?

Of course, religious discussion deserves better than this sham. I'm left with an ominous feeling about the future, and not for the first time. Today, as part of my minor research on the program, I discovered that the Pax network, which I had always thought of as a Xtian-run network with an admirable name despite their sometimes-biased programming, was actually named after the founder, Bill Paxon. Now that I know, I'm not surprised that he chose such a personal, yet misleading, name for his network.

Another Niebuhr on Empire

2005-01-29T10:42:00.000-06:00

Although I definitely sympathize with Dr. Fish's comments about American empire, my undergraduate memories of Reinhold Niebuhr are from his famous exchange with his brother H. Richard Niebuhr on whether the US should involve itself in the beginnings of WWII at the time of the Japanese invasion of Manchuria. Reinhold argued for US intervention because of the impossibility of human perfection and the always alread tragic state of mankind:

"Love may qualify the social struggle of history but it will never abolish it, and those who make the attempt to bring society under the dominion of perfect love will die on the cross. And those who behold the cross are quire right in seeing it as a revelation of the divine, of what man ought to be cannot be, at least not so long as he is enmeshed in the processes of history."

But H. Richard argued for "the grace of doing nothing." He came to this conclusion based on his faith on the action of God in history, in a Christian philosophy of history, in a Christian International. What we ought to be doing, H. Richard says, is a "rigid self-analysis," to think about how Japanese Empire is not so unlike American Empire, and to make space for the possibility of God's work. He concludes:

"The inactivity of radical Christianity is not the inactivity of those who call evil good: it is the inaction of those who do not judge their neighbors because they cannot fool themselves into a sense of superior righteousness. It is not the inactivity of a resigned patience, but of a patience that is full of hope and is based on faith. It is not the inactivity of the non-combatant, for it knows that there are no non-combatants, that everyone is involved, that China is being crucified (though the term is very inaccurate) by our sins and those of the whole world. It is not the inactivity of the merciless, for works of mercy must be performed though they are only palliates to ease present pain while the process of healing depends on deeper, more actual and urgent forces.

But if there is no God, of if God is up in heaven and not in time itself, it is a very foolish inactivity."

The whole exchange can be found here (from a neat site called "Radical Faith"). In terms of a whole range of issues, from promoting war on Iraq to World Bank development aid to supporting gay marriage, H. Richard's "grace of doing nothing" does have a certain appeal.

Jim Wallis to Speak in Chicago

2005-01-28T16:15:00.000-06:00

Jim Wallis will discuss his new book, God's Politics, at the Seminary Co-op Bookstore, 5757 S. University Ave., at 7pm Wednesday, Feb. 9. The Co-op is inviting a couple of other folks to participate in the discussion, including Susan Thistlewaite, president of CTS, and Prof. Melissa Harris-Lacewell.

The Religious Left will be attending en masse- and will post synopses and commentary for discussion.

Christianity and American Empire

2005-01-28T15:56:00.000-06:00

The following are excerpts from a paper by John Fish* (the whole paper can be found here). Dr. Fish will be discussing Christianity and American Empire along with Sharon Hunter-Smith at a lunch-discussion sponsored by The Religious Left at the University of Chicago on Thursday, February 10 (check back here for more information as the event approaches) --

"A year ago I wrote to a number of close friends my deep concerns about the war in Iraq. I argued that we are in a war of choice and not a war of necessity. We entered into a war that was based neither on sound intelligence nor on sufficient input from experts in Middle East culture, politics, and religion. It is an ideological war. We have acted with little support from friends around the world. We acted unilaterally because we could. In doing so we have squandered the good will and support we had after 9/11. We failed to focus on terrorism and instead initiated a war to remove Saddam Hussein and “bring democracy to the Middle East.” I suggested that the war would be counterproductive and that it would fuel terrorism and make us and the rest of the world less safe. The results thus far are worse that I anticipated a year ago.

The war in Iraq has not gone well. Expecting to be welcomed as liberators we were not prepared for occupation. Insurgency which was deemed insignificant a year ago has increased dramatically. We have turned many Iraqis against us. Our torture of detainees, many of whom are innocent civilians, has become for the Arab world a symbol of evil. The goal of regime change, which was the not-so-hidden goal of this war in the first place, does not seem to be working as we had planned. In fact, the prospect of a stable, peaceful, democratic United States ally in the Middle East is no longer regarded by most analysts as likely. A war that was started through deception and continues with disinformation has little promise of having a positive outcome. The war is simply a mess. The best anyone seems to be able to say is that the world is better off without Saddam. For this we have not yet seen all the costs.

I began to reflect upon a piece of work I did fifty years ago during my senior year at Princeton University. I wrote my senior thesis on theologian and social analyst Reinhold Niebuhr. I read all the books and articles Niebuhr had written up to 1955. A few of them, Moral Man and Immoral Society, Children of Light and Children of Darkness, The Nature and Destiny of Man, Irony of American History, are classics. While Niebuhr focused much of his attention on the Third Reich and on Communist expansion, much of what he had to say is very relevant 50 years later and speaks to our current concern about America as the sole world superpower. A few months ago I began to read again, The Irony of American History. Here, and I will share with you at some length, are some of the insights of that book written in 1952:

If virtue becomes vice through some hidden defect in the virtue; if strength
becomes weakness because of the vanity to which strength may prompt a mighty
man or nation; if security is transmuted into insecurity because too much reliance
is placed upon it; if wisdom becomes folly because it does not know its own
limits – in all such cases the situation is ironic (p.viii)

Imperialism is a perennial problem of human existence; for powerful nations and
individuals inevitably tend to use the weak as instruments of their purposes
(p.113)

The evil in human history is regarded as the consequence of man’s wrong use of
his unique capacities. The wrong use is always due to some failure to recognize
the limits of his capacities of power, wisdom, and virtue. (p156)
-----
*: John Fish received a B.A. from Princeton, an M.Div. from Union Theological Seminary and a Ph.D. from the University of Chicago Divinity School, where he also taught. He is the author of Black Power/White Control: The Struggle of the Woodlawn Organization in Chicago and The Edge of the Ghetto: A Study of Church Involvement in Community Organization. Additionally, Dr. Fish founded the Princeton Project 55 Public Interest Program. He is a member of the United Church of Christ.

'I Support Separation of Church and Hate'

2005-01-28T08:31:00.000-06:00

here's a site with bumperstickers and other merchandise.
some of them quite pithy, all "religious left."
(they are not affiliated with this site)

'Amazing True Story of a Liberal Evangelical'

2005-01-24T09:50:00.000-06:00

The Boston Globe has a story today about Jim Wallis and an interview with him. He's a "self-described progressive evangelical" and his new book about left religious politics is currently #2 at amazon. questions about evangelicalism vs. fundamentalism, religious pluralism, etc. He is editor of Sojourners magazine.

A Queer Inaugural

2005-01-23T00:25:00.000-06:00

I missed the President’s Inaugural Address. But unlike one of my friends who tried to watch it, but became to emotional to watch before the President began, I simply was too busy when the speech was being made. Class, homework, my job. Life keeps me on my toes and rarely gives me free time to listen to a barrage of right-wing extremism and bull shit. Or so I thought the address would be. Then I read a transcript.

The President and his speech writers had a lot to say. As a queer, Christian, and leftist, college student, I rarely ever agree with a thing Bush or his party has to say. What struck me was how much of the language Bush used is exactly the kind of language I would use if I were writing a speech to the country addressing the issue of queer rights.

Granted there are some extreme differences in what the language I used would be referring to. The President’s speech was an enthusiastic defense of an interventionist foreign policy. Having failed to justify the war in Iraq with connections to al Qaeda or with WMDs , he now couches it in human rights. (But that’s a whole other can of worms.)
This couching makes it even harder for me to read the President’s speech and makes me all the more glad I didn’t have to listen to it live. While Bush claims that “from the day of our founding, we [America] have proclaimed that every man and woman on this Earth has rights, and dignity and matchless value because they bear the image of the maker of heaven and Earth,” he and his party are attempting to force second-class-citizen status on the queer community.
The hypocrisy of his party’s line becomes so readily apparent when one puts actions next to Bush’s very own words. He claims: “We will persistently clarify the choice before every ruler and every nation -- the moral choice between oppression, which is always wrong, and freedom, which is eternally right.” And yet the freedom to marry, the freedom from discrimination in hiring and housing, the freedom to serve in the military, and the freedom to adopt and raise children are all being threatened by the policies of the Republican party. While Bush claims “that edifice of character is built in families, supported by communities with standards, and sustained in our national life by the truths of Sinai, the Sermon on the Mount, the words of the Koran and the varied faiths of our people,” he and his party continue to work to deny the right of same-couples to form legally recognized families.
The low point of the speech, for me at least, is when Bush goes so far as to declare: “Americans, at our best, value the life we see in one another and must always remember that even the unwanted have worth. And our country must abandon all the habits of racism because we cannot carry the message of freedom and the baggage of bigotry at the same time.” Does this man not recognize that his party has built bigotry into its platform and continues to deny the value of the lives of queer people? The Republican party has slashed budgets to programs that work to fight the spread of HIV in the queer community and has failed to live up to its pledges to work to fight the global AIDS pandemic.

Despite all the hypocrisy, the Republican party controls the federal government. What is a young, queer, Christian, leftist to do? He should listen to Bush’s speech and take what he has to say to heart. While Bush’s actions have proven to be less than moral, some of his words can really speak to those of us who feel lost in the current political atmosphere.

Bush tells us that “freedom, by its nature, must be chosen and defended by citizens and sustained by the rule of law and the protection of minorities. And when the soul of a nation finally speaks, the institutions that arise may reflect customs and traditions very different from our own.” I’m still waiting for the soul of our nation to speak, and when it does speak up for “the protection of minorities,” there will arise many institutions that are very different from the President’s institutions of inequality and discrimination.

Bush believes that “history has an ebb and flow of justice, but history also has a visible direction set by liberty and the author of liberty.” I believe that he is right. Right now, he and his bigots might be in charge, but that doesn’t mean that in the end, the ideals of equality won’t finally some through for the queer community.

That said, Bush has some other pearls of wisdom for us. “We go forward with complete confidence in the eventual triumph of freedom. Not because history runs on the wheels of inevitability; it is human choices that move events… America, in this young century, proclaims liberty throughout all the world and to all the inhabitants thereof. Renewed in our strength -- tested, but not weary -- we are ready for the greatest achievements in the history of freedom.” It is human choices that move events, human choices AND human actions, that is.

We have come through the first four years of the Bush presidency tested. And some of us are weary. But we are also on the brink of one of the great achievements in the history of freedom. The love that for so many centuries dared not to speak its name is poised to become so accepted that its name may fail to raise an eyebrow. We can turn “gay marriage” into just plain “marriage.” We can make the discrimination against queers in housing and employment seem as arcane as segregation. But we need to get over whatever pain we might feel at the inauguration and find in ourselves the strength to proclaim equality for queers to all the world.

Abraham Lincoln said, and Bush quoted him, that "Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves; and, under the rule of a just God, cannot long retain it." Whether or not you believe in a just God, or any God, or many gods, Bush will soon find out that if he continues his bigotry, he and his party will lose their majorities and their moral clout, and those who stand for equality and human rights for all Americans will take up the reigns of this country. We just have to work to make it happen.

Theopolitical Imagination

2005-01-21T10:09:00.000-06:00

if you haven't taken a look at william cavanaugh's book, "Theopolitical Imagination," I'd highly recommend it.

In line with the most interesting recent theological trends (cf the "Challenges in Contemporary Theology" and "Radical Orthodoxy" series of books published by Blackwell and Routledge, respectively), Cavanaugh sees the modern-secular-liberal-democratic-capitalist State as offering a theology, a myth of the world in which the world is composed of little atomized human beings all nicely organized into sovereign States. the private sphere and the public sphere are completely distinct -- feelings and emotions (and hence religion) happen in private, 'politics' happens in public. Without this distinction, everyone would be fighting everyone else: the State is our Savior.

The way to combat this Myth of the State is with another myth, this one more palatable... the Christian "myth." Whether or not you are Christian, the idea of countering the State-as-Religion (with its nationalistic, patriotic rituals, etc.) with and alternative myth is very powerful. In writing about what is important about the Christian myth, Cavanaugh points to (universalizable) features of a counter-myth: for instance, Christianity has the Eucharist which unifies differences without elimating them around the globe: a counter-politics to globalization. all together, very provacative and highly readable, with minimal academic jargon.

(there's also a (surprisingly) good review on amazon here)

online religious left organizing

2005-01-21T09:35:00.000-06:00

Here are a couple online groups doing "religious left" type organizing --

The Ekklesia Project (http://www.ekklesiaproject.org/)

This is a Christian (and quite Christian) group centered around Stanley Hauerwas (the pacifist who was named by Time Magazine "America's Best Theologian" and called the James Carville of contemporary theology). They are very into building Christian community, Christianity as a counter-politics to secular liberal democracy, peace and justice work, etc. Their web site has online forums and pamphlets on things like "Pentecostal Pacifism" and "Listening to Scripture in a Technological Age." You can register to gain access to the forums without having to e-sign their declaration of principles.

The Catholic Peace Fellowship (http://www.catholicpeacefellowship.org/)

A Catholic group in the Catholic Worker tradition. Founded in the 60s, and taking its Catholicism as seriously as its peace and justice work, the web site has the group's newsletter and other information. Some very cool stuff, like an effort to kick ROTC groups off the campuses of Catholic colleges and resources of conscientious objectors.

The Disseminary (http://disseminary.org/)

I just found this and it looks like it is just getting set up (like The Religous Left...) but has lots of potential. The part of the site that has some neat content now is the "Radical Orthodoxy Roundtable" discussion -- http://disseminary.org/seminar/radox/ (see the entries and comments on the right). more on 'radical orthodoxy' later...

Jim Willis' God's Politics part 1

2005-01-19T00:11:00.000-06:00

Jim Willis was promoting his book on The Daily Show tonight. I haven't read it yet (being buried under a mound of Pseudo-Dionysius) but he sounded many correct notes on the show- that morality is about more than just abortion and gay marriage, and that that Christian morality, scripturally speaking, ought to have something to do with helping the poor, righting injustices and the condition of the environment. Even more impressive he managed to tell not just one, but two, conversion stories (including one direct scripture citation) without Stewart having to cut in with a new line of conversation. No insult to Stewart intended - not all guests are so conversationally adept.

The one piece that hung with me was his religious (or “faith inspired”) versus “spiritual” divide. I think the word “spiritual” tends to get thrown around mercilessly these days - to the extent it loses definition. Willis appeared to be saying that we (I'm not entirely sure who the we is. He's an evangelical, but seemed to be talking liberal-speak) ought to be trying to bring both explicitly religious people and non-religious together under the same political banners - not because of shared political beliefs but because of a shared “spirituality” which pertains to both. Does it really? I think respect for persons requires that we accept the atheist/humanist at his word, rather than - just as much as we need to accept the religious person's word about their faith, rather than turning to Marx or Freud to explain it. A (minor) religious studies pet peeve.

All that is not to say we don't need to get religious and non-religious people together under the same political banners - we do. It's just that I can live with them having very different reasons for being there.

More on Willis soon.

What gives?

2005-01-17T16:13:00.000-06:00

Here's a question:

How does the academic/intellectual study of religion relate to the practice of religion and politics on the ground For example, how does what we want to do on this website relate to what Nancy and Steve Smith of Kansas City believe and do in the political and religious realms? Does, and how does, what get written up on any given blog impact: a. election results b. political action undertaken by religious people or c. the beliefs of religious individuals about the political realm?

This question occurs as I sit in a div school class with professors and students talking endlessly about “what is religion” and defining it increasingly abstract ways.

Last Meeting/Next meeting

2005-01-17T15:40:00.000-06:00

Last Thursday's meeting was mainly taken up with adminstrative details:

-We will be applying for RSO funding through the university of Chicago - the funds will be used to set up the site and possibly help out with a conference being organized by Meadville Lombard on religion and politics

-elections are to be held this thursday- Swift 200, 5pm

-In response to commentaries from the blogging world, we are adding a bunch of new posters to this blog - so that site will be less an announcement board - and closer to making a start on our goals.

Next meeting Thursday, the 20th in Swift 200 at 5PM

Updates & New Quarter

2005-01-05T23:58:00.000-06:00

So the end of an academic quarter isn't the best time to launch a collaborative website- alas. Sincere apologies to those not on the academic schedule, from one who is still working on african (as opposed to blogger) time.

News:
1. We may not be a simple blog much longer, as it isn't the best format for our goals (see below). Site is under development this quarter. Many thanks to those who have taken an interest thus far.
2. 1st meeting of Quarter- Thursday the 13th, 5PM Swift Hall 200 at the U Chicago.

Re-written mission statement as follows:
Mission Statement

Our Goals:

To broaden a currently narrow discussion on morals and values, and specifically religious ones, within the American political context

To advocate for the realization of the values and ideals of the religious left in American politics and policy

We approach these goals through the creation of different kinds of forums. In particular, we would like to create electronic and real world forums to productively address the following objectives:

1. Explore and clarify the shared values of the left, their relation to religious faith and to the politics and policies espoused by the left.

2. Analyze the shift in religio-political values in the last 40 years, in the interests of improving communication of the values and morals of the left, both in religious and political contexts; Create resources to enable politicians, religious leaders and activists to do a better job of communicating those values.

3. Provide opportunities for action and activism within the religious left community.

4. Help find the “unrecognized consensus values,” by encouraging dialogue between religious individuals across the political spectrum.

December 2nd

2004-12-01T01:02:00.000-06:00

Our second meeting, discussing form and content for the site will be held:

Thursday, Dec. 2nd at 5PM in Swift 200

See you there.

Thursday meeting: the problem, and our goals

2004-11-23T17:42:00.000-06:00

Thanks to the Economist (our favorite magazine) for the link.

In the meeting last Thursday, we tried to clarify the problems to which we are addressing ourselves. Specifically:
o Lack of definition/clarity in the left's connection to its values; in the left's vision
o The left's failure to talk more explicitly about its values, their religious source(s) and their connection to policies and plan; referencing Lakoff - the lack of a persuasive moral metaphor with which to express what are, religiously and morally grounded ideals and policy commitments
o Gap between the left and the “red-state other”- a lack of understanding and communication between people on issues for which there is an unrecognized consensus of shared values
o Need to move from an exterior discussion of “values” to an emphasis, within churches and religious institutions on “lived belief”;
o Failure of liberal Christians to confront others of the same faith, to talk about political issues from an explicitly religious standpoint
o Failure to capitalize on inter-religious agreements to promote shared values

Our goal, with this nascent website is:

To broaden a currently narrow discussion on morals and values (and specifically religious ones) within the American political and social context.

We approach this goal through the creation of different kinds of forums. In particular, we would like to create electronic and real world forums to productively explore the questions:

1. What are the shared values, how do they relate to religious faith and what is their connection to the policies and programs currently espoused by the left?

2. How can the left do a better job of communicating those values and morals, both in religious and political contexts? What resources can we provide for politicians, religious leaders and activists to do a better job of communication?

3. How can we provide opportunities for action, help to find the “unrecognized consensus values” which unite us and

The question for the next meeting: what kinds of activities (electronic and otherwise) will best meet these objectives? What should The Religious Left site look like in order to address these questions? Some examples might be: regular columns on religious issues, politics or the media; papers from various thinkers on the subjects; blogging by interested parties; php bulletin board discussions; sponsored events - lectures, worship services, protest marches

We also need to look at how we can organize our resources to create this content. We have the advantage of a diverse set of academic backgrounds/interests (the meeting was attended by pastors-to-be (and a contingent from Meadville Lombard Theological School), political science students, theology students, sociology types and some gay rights activists.) - how can we make good use of this set of talents/interests?

The next meeting is December 2nd, at 5PM in Swift Hall (on the University of Chicago campus), Room 200.

And the reading list now includes: Lakoff and the Economist's election breakdown.

Agenda for Thursday

2004-11-15T17:25:00.000-06:00

Here's the agenda for Thursday's organizational meeting. If you can't make it, please post your ideas and comments so we can try and include them. (If you are not a "blogger" member, you can always post anonymously or email your ideas to me)

1. Introductions

2. General overview/discussion of the issues - what is the problem we are addressing?

3. Setting of goals and objectives for the group - what do we want to do?

4. Activity planning - what kind of content will enable us to meet those goals?

5. Designing the site - what kind of form should the website take, to best present that content?

6. Dividing of responsibilities - what needs to be done, who's going to do the work and how will we organize it?

It's a big agenda for a short meeting, so come prepared to work on these questions… I look forward to hearing all your ideas on Thursday.

Falwell starts "Faith and Values Coalition"

2004-11-11T11:04:00.000-06:00

Check this out:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041110/ap_on_re_us/falwell_new_coalition

What values are they talking about?
1. lobbying to get pro-lifers onthe court
2. constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage
3. getting another George Bush elected in 2008.

I think I like best that Tim LaHaye (of "Left Behind" fame) is their spiritual overseer.

Organizational meeting

2004-11-10T17:29:00.000-06:00

There's going to be an organizational meeting for this site, in Chicago:

Thursday, November 18th at 5PM
At the UofC Divinity School: Swift 200

For those of you not able to join us in the Windy City, I'll post an agenda in the next few days so that you can throw in your insights.

Thanks!

2004-11-09T11:59:00.000-06:00

Tyler continues:
Um, by wondering about Heidegger I mean to wonder about someone Strauss reacted against. I don't really know enough to know about Heidegger and Nazism, but heaven knows I wouldn't want any part of that moral vacuum. I ask about him merely to say, "Could someone explain him to me and if he has any relevance here?" (I don't know that he does or if he doesn't.)

The central questions

2004-11-09T11:19:00.000-06:00

First steps/questions
It seems like we're grappling with any number of issues; maybe we need a brainstorming session that would come up with a list that could then be boiled down into a couple main issues.

Part that you've clearly identified is, "Hey, how do we show people that there are plenty of values (religious and secular) embodied in liberalism?" Do we also want to pursue how conservatism (and the Republican party) has some major failings in the values-realm?

Approach
So we can trace the history of all of this, but I'm primarily interested in understanding history as a way towards actions that will shift the value-winds in our favor.

I'm not interested in converting fundamentalists to our cause (I _may_ be interested in painting Christian fundamentalists as dangerous threats to important American/moderate Christian values. Fundamentalists have a great way of always being embattled: by the gays, the secular humanists, the abortion doctors, etc. To make liberals embattled may well be honest and necessary). I am interested in people of faith understanding what values liberals (and Democrats) believe in. Heretofore, liberals and Democrats have been very inarticulate.

Areas of research
One of the most fascinating aspects of the Republican party is the coming together of fundamentalist Christianity and Leo Strauss's disciples (neo-conservatism). As I understand them, they both believe in Right vs Wrong and that gives them enormous strength.

Here's a good introduction to Strauss: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Strauss

I don't know nearly enough to answer the following questions: To win the hearts and minds of middle America, do we need to find a liberal version of Strauss (saying, there really are Right and Wrong) or do we need to throw our lot in with anti-Strauss philosophies? Can mainstream Christianity join with Heidegger? What place do relativism, scientism, historicism, and nihilism have in this? Are they wrong for our cause? What position do we take on the tension between faith and reason (Strauss sees reason as deteriorating our society)?

These are almost certainly not the correct first questions, but maybe they'll get some juices flowing.

Tyler

Other ideas

2004-11-06T17:54:00.000-06:00

Another friend suggests using a PHP bulletin board as a better way to post articles, have discussions etcetra- I have no idea as to which medium would be better, I suppose it depends on the content. Ideas?

T also writes:
>At any rate, I'm looking forward to contributing. You gonna put together a reading
>list? "What's the Matter with Kansas" will be on my list after my temporary hiatus from >politics.

I love the idea of a reading list- other suggestions?

Reaction

2004-11-05T16:08:00.000-06:00

From Ben Carter:
>This is just what (we) the country needs.
>warning! this website could be huge.
>very very very good.
>BC
>
>now, you just need some content.
>the blog is cool, this idea could also work in a bulletin
>board format, where each of your proposed topics could be discussed.

Other commentators on the same page

2004-11-05T15:25:00.000-06:00

Check out http://www.tikkun.org/
They seem to be thinking on similar lines post-tuesday.

What could this site be?

2004-11-05T03:15:00.001-06:00

- a forum for presentation and discussion of scholarly work
- a chat forum to talk, vent, discuss, plan and analyse
- a resource for preachers, rabbis, imams, politicians, activists etcetra
- on-going commentary on day-to-day events and news
- an opinion journal featuring articles from different commentators
- a source of publicity for real-world activism and action
- a place of connection for diverse liberal theological traditions

All of the above? Something else entirely?

"Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free..."

2004-11-05T00:49:00.000-06:00

Welcome to The Religious Left-

This site was created as a first anguished but active response to the re-election of President Bush on November 2nd. Numerous commentators have claimed that Bush's victory was in large part due to the massive turn out on the part of religious conservatives and evangelicals, who swept Bush to victory on a "values" agenda.

This blog is the first baby step to question that agenda, to challenge the right's claim on religious and moral language in the political realm and to develop and promote positive, religious understandings, which can provide the moral foundation for the liberal democratic political tradition and enable progressive politics to speak mroe effectively to religious people

I welcome all thoughts and suggestions as this site debuts. I hope to make this an interactive and active blog, to bring in many opinions and views, and to build a real world coalition that can take back, not only the White House, but also the religious and moral language which rightly belongs to a much wider community that Christian evangelicals…

Ideas? Comments? Want to contribute to this Blog? Help set its goals and agenda? Email me.

Oh- and we may need a different name. There appear to be several “religious left” sites but it's all I could come up with since Tuesday night.

Help develop the core principles of this site… and decide where we're going from here.

Allie