Jump to content

Religious Left


RubyHypatia
 Share

Recommended Posts

Double standard? Not on this issue.

 

It's pretty rare for politicians on the left to try and legislate their version of christianity. They may talk the (religious) talk... but they actively work to deny rights for gays and racial minorities (I know that being OPENLY racist has gone out of style for social conservatively lately... but they have a long history, deep roots, and a vested interest in their racism. I'm also aware of the democrats' own history of racism, but the coalitions have re-aligned. Social conservatives are almost ENTIRELY republican these days.)

 

The lefties ARE politicians- and they pretty much HAVE to give a shout-out to Jesus now and then to get elected. But I don't see them promoting war based on voices in their head. I don't see them opposing abortion, gambling, alcohol, or the teaching of evolution based on their bronze-age-goat-herder book.

 

But all that is the Republican Party's stock and trade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

Everyone has their own personal beliefs, but it seems pretty clear that it is the 'right' that attempts (and sometimes succeeds) to turn those beliefs in to laws that affect everyone else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Right by and large wants to outlaw abortions, wants to outlaw gay marriage, wants prayer in school, wants to fight wars on religious grounds and the like all because that's what their dogma teaches. They believe to allow or not allow some of the above is the same as sinning and causing the US to turn from GAWD.

 

The Left doesn't feel the need to legislate their personal belief, even tho they are people of faith.

 

There is no double standard, why people have a hard time seeing the difference is beyond me. :shrug:

 

Again, Obama mentions Jesus Christ, he also mentions the Holy Koran and the Torah, He also includes Atheists and people of other faiths, He attempts to include everyone. The Xtians pick out his "support" for the Holy Koran and Mohammad by cherry picking his speeches to make it appear he says something he doesn't say. The problem with including everyone is.... Cherry picking becomes easier.

 

Because of the former administration Obama HAS to talk about Faith, it was a large driving part of why we went to war, putting our collective heads in the sand and saying... Oh Noooooo he's talking about XYZ religion is being obtuse to the fact of what has gotten us to where we are today. Bridges need to be built, He has to be extremely diplomatic to allow the ME to know we aren't the great Satan, That we are a country built on many different beliefs. Giving respect earns respect. I think he's doing a job most can't do when it comes to this area. We have a recent history and a Sitting president who said out right God was behind this war and guided him, The current president has to UNDO a gross image to restore our integrity, and YES he has to mention faith. There is NO way around it if we want to build bridges.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Davka
The Left doesn't feel the need to legislate their personal belief, even tho they are people of faith.

OK, playing Devil's advocate here - liberal Christianity is very much about liberation theology, the rights of the downtrodden, leveling the playing field, etc etc. How is it that when the political left - many of whom are members of liberal churches - seek to legislate this kind of thing, it's not the same as the Religious Right cramming the Bible into the Constitution?

 

I mean, sure, the political left doesn't go around trumpeting Jesus as the reason for their legislative pushes, but then that's never been the style of liberal Christianity. It's the fundies who stand on street corners waving Bibles. The liberal wing of Christianity is too busy fomenting revolution in El Salvador to waste time trying to win converts in the USA.

 

So is it possible that it's just the lack of "jesus told me to do this" rhetoric that gives those on the left with religious motivations a pass?

 

(I'm still waiting for a politician to claim that the Flying Spaghetti Monster told him to run for Congress)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Left doesn't feel the need to legislate their personal belief, even tho they are people of faith.

OK, playing Devil's advocate here - liberal Christianity is very much about liberation theology, the rights of the downtrodden, leveling the playing field, etc etc. How is it that when the political left - many of whom are members of liberal churches - seek to legislate this kind of thing, it's not the same as the Religious Right cramming the Bible into the Constitution?

 

I mean, sure, the political left doesn't go around trumpeting Jesus as the reason for their legislative pushes, but then that's never been the style of liberal Christianity. It's the fundies who stand on street corners waving Bibles. The liberal wing of Christianity is too busy fomenting revolution in El Salvador to waste time trying to win converts in the USA.

 

So is it possible that it's just the lack of "jesus told me to do this" rhetoric that gives those on the left with religious motivations a pass?

 

(I'm still waiting for a politician to claim that the Flying Spaghetti Monster told him to run for Congress)

 

If one is going to play devils advocate, they should at least make some sort of semblance to the positions at hand. 3 whole paragraphs that say absolutely nothing, Wow you really have a knack for talking in circles and not making a point.

:ugh:

1) No idea about El Salvador or what you mean. They are mainly Roman Catholic there, how does this relate to liberal xtianity or discuss the United States Government positions between the right and the left?

 

2) We are not talking about different degrees of being a follower of Christ, we are talking about the difference between LEGISLATING FAITH, and having a personal conviction but not advocating it as a law for others to follow.

 

3) No person in any part of this country today, even the liberal New England would be elected to an office touting FSM as God... The only ones who don't find that offensive are the non- believers. It's great for talking in theory but would never happen in todays climate, and again is moot to the OP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Davka
3 whole paragraphs that say absolutely nothing, Wow you really have a knack for talking in circles and not making a point.

OK, I'll spell it out for you. I'll try not to use big words.

 

1) Religious Right politicians like to legislate their version of morality, and holler "this hyar law is for all the GODLY True Americanz! Puh-rayse Jeeeeeeeezusss!"

 

2) Religious Left politicians similarly legislate their version of morality. They do this whenever passing laws which have social justice as their basis. They do not generally tend to invoke Jesus, Moses, or the FSM when doing so.

 

Therefore, when people on the left legislate morality which is informed and influenced by liberal Christianity, they are doing the same thing that the right wingnuts are doing. The only difference is that the people on the left don't preach religion at us when they do it - or at least, not very loudly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2) Religious Left politicians similarly legislate their version of morality. They do this whenever passing laws which have social justice as their basis. They do not generally tend to invoke Jesus, Moses, or the FSM when doing so.

 

Therefore, when people on the left legislate morality which is informed and influenced by liberal Christianity, they are doing the same thing that the right wingnuts are doing. The only difference is that the people on the left don't preach religion at us when they do it - or at least, not very loudly.

 

 

What sort of "Morality" do you consider the left attempting to legislate, and what proof do you have it's influenced by any brand of Christianity?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest QuidEstCaritas?
The Left doesn't feel the need to legislate their personal belief, even tho they are people of faith.

 

lol.

 

The Left legislates the "social gospel" in the form of foodstamps, welfare, state assistance.

 

The Left legislates one of the tenth commandments by standing against the death penalty and trying to get it outlawed everywhere.

 

The Left legislates coercive law and proposes taxes that make it harder for people to hurt their own bodies with things like tobacco and alcohol (teetotaller) probably because the body is a "Temple of the Holy Spirit".

 

 

Don't get me wrong, it's not that I necessarily disagree with their conclusions but let's be consistent here, they do legislate personal belief. It's just that their personal belief is a hell of a lot more humane (in general). Then again people like Rev. Wright push for things that are clearly leftist in theological origin, I can't recall what Wright pushed for off the top of my head but I remember seeing a video of Wright. I could dig it up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.

 

Q,

 

Didn't we come to an agreement to avoid each other? :unsure:

 

The Left legislates the "social gospel" in the form of foodstamps, welfare, state assistance.

 

Yeah and the right has social gospel in the form of Corporate welfare, and Corporate state assistance. Your Social Gospel is your own label for some fictional dogma and is in no way related to Christianity. The Left doesn't worship the state and treat the state as god as much as the right likes to propagate that lie.

 

The Left legislates one of the tenth commandments by standing against the death penalty and trying to get it outlawed everywhere.

 

Really? I'm anti-Death penalty and it has zero basis coming from the buybull, I also happen to identify myself as Liberal and lean to the left on most issues that are having to do with social issues. I am not anti-death penalty because of some obscure rules in the buybull, I am anti-Death penalty because I don't believe 1) Justice is blind, Most people that end up on death row are to poor to afford their attorney however people of lets say OJ Simpson's income bracket can afford as many top lawyers to create reasonable doubt. 2) I don't trust the Justice system enough, many people end up falsely accused and found guilty only to be found innocent from "NEW" DNA evidence some 30 years later. 3) I think the US Government is to corrupt, and I do not put it past them to create evidence to help their cases along, Such was the case FBI’s Legacy of Shame: Timeline of the FBI’s four-decades long cover-up of complicity in Edward Deegan’s murder, and the agencies frame-up of four innocent men LINK HERE

 

The Left legislates coercive law and proposes taxes that make it harder for people to hurt their own bodies with things like tobacco and alcohol (teetotaller) probably because the body is a "Temple of the Holy Spirit".

 

What the......?

 

Uhh No, it's PROBABLY more to do creating more revenue for the states. Much like the Seatbelt law (Under Reagan, and rewarded states with Fedal tax moneys for putting the SB law into effect) States create these luxury taxes because it's a way to make easy money off of things lots of people do. It has Jack to do with the random and nonfounding statement of Probably because the body is a temple.. You are completely reaching in that comment.

 

Then again people like Rev. Wright push for things that are clearly leftist in theological origin, I can't recall what Wright pushed for off the top of my head but I remember seeing a video of Wright. I could dig it up.

 

I'm sorry, what office does Rev.Wright hold again, and how is he in charge of US or State policy's?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest QuidEstCaritas?

Japedo the topic is Leftist politics + theological underpinnings, hence my posts. There are plenty of theological underpinnings for lots and lots of Leftist things, and as you astutely pointed out corporate welfare is a Rightist view (although I don't think it's related to an understanding of the social gospel).

 

Religion and Politics intermesh considerably for most people, the Religion justifying the Politics. To make a claim that somehow this just doesn't happen on the Left is a bit naive, it happens everyday. It's just that when it does happen it generally happens in such a manner that emphasizes restraint to violence of any sort towards any human person or groups of human persons. So there is indeed this underlying effect where the humanity of people is respected more, and that's a good underlying trend. Of course I think most of that has been largely neutered after Sept 11th and that the Left has been forced into the Right field. I mean to say that if we are torturing terrorists and reinstating military tribunals then how compassionate can we say we really are? I mean we already saw how compassionate Bush was with his "Compassionate Evangelicalism", but if Obama continues Military Tribunals under the illegal Military Commissions Act, then how long before people start getting tortured en masse under the US Patriot Act?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaZ4_Iwzvhk...feature=related

 

That guy himself has stated that torture is continuing to happen at Gitmo. Do I believe him? Damn right I do.

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/02/us/02detain.html

 

China Inspired Interrogations at Guantánamo

 

Correction Appended

 

QUOTE

WASHINGTON — The military trainers who came to Guantánamo Bay in December 2002 based an entire interrogation class on a chart showing the effects of “coercive management techniques” for possible use on prisoners, including “sleep deprivation,” “prolonged constraint,” and “exposure.

 

What the trainers did not say, and may not have known, was that their chart had been copied verbatim from a 1957 Air Force study of Chinese Communist techniques used during the Korean War to obtain confessions, many of them false, from American prisoners.

 

The recycled chart is the latest and most vivid evidence of the way Communist interrogation methods that the United States long described as torture became the basis for interrogations both by the military at the base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and by the Central Intelligence Agency.

END QUOTE

 

 

As long as this stuff keeps going on I won't trust anything "Leftists" have to say about anything. I already distrust the GOP completely and I already view the GWOT as absurdly unconstitutional, illegal, and thoroughly fascist in nature. Maybe Communist is a better word? It's certainly Totalitarian what we are doing with the GWOT, and it has to STOP. Why the FUCK are we torturing people like the Commies did? Why did that happen for YEARS and YEARS under Bush, and why is it STILL happening under Obama? This shit HAS to STOP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's certainly Totalitarian what we are doing with the GWOT, and it has to STOP. Why the FUCK are we torturing people like the Commies did? Why did that happen for YEARS and YEARS under Bush, and why is it STILL happening under Obama? This shit HAS to STOP.

 

Q,

 

I will say that I absolutely agree with this statement 100%, Yes It does have to stop and charges need to be filed against those who's involved. I'm not going to derail the thread with our strong disagreement about torture, You say Obama is doing it, I disagree we'll leave that part and agree to disagree.

 

Lastly, I just want to state, There is a reason that the right labels the left GODLESS. :shrug:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So is it possible that it's just the lack of "jesus told me to do this" rhetoric that gives those on the left with religious motivations a pass?

 

 

Well, you have yet to prove that it they are actually doing it because they think Jesus told them to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest QuidEstCaritas?
It's certainly Totalitarian what we are doing with the GWOT, and it has to STOP. Why the FUCK are we torturing people like the Commies did? Why did that happen for YEARS and YEARS under Bush, and why is it STILL happening under Obama? This shit HAS to STOP.

 

Q,

 

I will say that I absolutely agree with this statement 100%, Yes It does have to stop and charges need to be filed against those who's involved. I'm not going to derail the thread with our strong disagreement about torture, You say Obama is doing it, I disagree we'll leave that part and agree to disagree.

 

Lastly, I just want to state, There is a reason that the right labels the left GODLESS. :shrug:

 

 

I liked the way you ended this so you'll get no beef from me. Fair enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Davka
Well, you have yet to prove that it they are actually doing it because they think Jesus told them to.

I'm not sure anyone in politics really thinks Jesus told them to do stuff, but the religious right claims they do. Christians on the left state, in essence, that what they propose is "the Christian thing to do." Obama does this:

 

Obama invokes Jesus more than Bush did

By Eamon Javers

Politico

 

He's done it while talking about abortion and the Middle East, even the economy. The references serve at once as an affirmation of his faith and a rebuke against a rumor that persists for some to this day.

 

As president, Barack Obama has mentioned Jesus Christ in a number of high-profile public speeches — something his predecessor George W. Bush rarely did in such settings, even though Bush's Christian faith was at the core of his political identity.

 

. . .

 

And a month before that, Obama mentioned Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount at Georgetown University to make the case for his economic policies. Obama retold the story of two men, one who built his house on a pile of sand and the other who built his on a rock: “We cannot rebuild this economy on the same pile of sand,” Obama said. “We must build our house upon a rock.”

 

Here's the rest of the article.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that the big difference is that one side claims Jesus as a reason and justification for screwing over the country (especially if you're a minority, queer, non-xtian, etc.). Typically the left tries to come up with a reason that doesn't involve a 2k year old dead guy before screwing everyone over.

 

I'd point out that in the end, either side, everyone gets screwed. Or at least that has been the case historically.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think both sides have their share of religious-laced politics. I also think that as of late, in America, the right wing has been the party hijacked by the religious most frequently. Now that we have a Democratic president, the religious left want to get in on it, too. I wonder how many centuries it will take before there is religion-free politics in America?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I think everyone tries to legislate their morality. And if they are Christians, whether they say so or not, they think they are doing God's will. Someone said Obama had to suck up to the Christians. Did he also have to attend Rev. Wright's church for fifteen years? There are things on both sides of the aisle I disagree with. In the end when I go to the voting booth, religion is hardy a consideration because no matter who becomes president, atheism will continue to grow here in America.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure anyone in politics really thinks Jesus told them to do stuff, but the religious right claims they do. Christians on the left state, in essence, that what they propose is "the Christian thing to do." Obama does this:

 

Obama invokes Jesus more than Bush did

By Eamon Javers

Politico

 

He's done it while talking about abortion and the Middle East, even the economy. The references serve at once as an affirmation of his faith and a rebuke against a rumor that persists for some to this day.

 

As president, Barack Obama has mentioned Jesus Christ in a number of high-profile public speeches — something his predecessor George W. Bush rarely did in such settings, even though Bush's Christian faith was at the core of his political identity.

 

. . .

 

And a month before that, Obama mentioned Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount at Georgetown University to make the case for his economic policies. Obama retold the story of two men, one who built his house on a pile of sand and the other who built his on a rock: “We cannot rebuild this economy on the same pile of sand,” Obama said. “We must build our house upon a rock.”

 

Here's the rest of the article.

 

Seems like a bit of a stretch. The story about building a house upon a rock has absolutely nothing to do with economics. I don't know how anyone could take what he said and think that it meant that he's handling the economy the way he is because this parable is about economics.

 

 

The very same article says that he mentioned Jesus when talking about abortion, but that his stance is contrary to the Bible because he supports abortion. You need to learn the difference between commenting on the Bible while talking about policies and actually using the Bible to support your stance. I think you're just desperate to find a way to condemn people on the left. Unfortunately for you, you're failing miserably.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Davka
I'm not sure anyone in politics really thinks Jesus told them to do stuff, but the religious right claims they do. Christians on the left state, in essence, that what they propose is "the Christian thing to do." Obama does this:

 

 

Seems like a bit of a stretch. The story about building a house upon a rock has absolutely nothing to do with economics. I don't know how anyone could take what he said and think that it meant that he's handling the economy the way he is because this parable is about economics.

That's not what I'm saying. I repeat: Christians on the left state, in essence, that what they propose is "the Christian thing to do." By quoting the Bible, Obama is seeking "Bible cred."

 

The right and left approach this subject very differently, but both invoke the Bible to bolster their positions. The right says "God told us to do this!" The left says "what we are doing is in accordance with the teachings of Jesus."

 

The very same article says that he mentioned Jesus when talking about abortion, but that his stance is contrary to the Bible because he supports abortion.

Since the Bible does not mention abortion, that's a bit of a stretch. Obama gives Christianity lip-service whenever he talks bout abortion.

 

You need to learn the difference between commenting on the Bible while talking about policies and actually using the Bible to support your stance.

I know the difference. In fact, that's pretty much what I'm trying to say: the right uses the Bible as if it were ultimate truth to back their play, while the left simply references the Bible so people will know they're "good Christians." I far prefer the left's approach, but it amounts to the same thing: pandering to the Church.

 

And since something like 80% of Americans self-identify as Christians, it would be political suicide to do otherwise.

I think you're just desperate to find a way to condemn people on the left. Unfortunately for you, you're failing miserably.

You'd be wrong there, on both counts. I voted for Obama, and I think he's doing an excellent job - for a politician. I'm simply pointing out that both sides play the religion card. In Obama's case, I think it's a very shrewd move, calculated to pull nominally Christian moderates away from the GOP. Kudos for that, sez me.

 

But let's not pretend that they're not all playing politics. Both sides are mostly self-serving scum. That's what politics turns you into, unless you are exceptionally strong-willed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of the religious left, PZ Meyers posted a blog entry recently about a new belief of the religious left to establish a liberal theocracy instead of a conversative one. http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/06...na.php#comments

Netroots Nation, the big lefty political/blogging meeting, is organizing sessions for their conference in August. Unfortunately, they seem have given up on the idea of a secular nation, because this one session on A New Progressive Vision for Church and State has a bizarre description.

 

The old liberal vision of a total separation of religion from politics has been discredited. Despite growing secularization, a secular progressive majority is still impossible, and a new two-part approach is needed--one that first admits that there is no political wall of separation. Voters must be allowed, without criticism, to propose policies based on religious belief. But, when government speaks and acts, messages must be universal. The burden is on religious believers, therefore, to explain public references like "under God" in universal terms. For example, the word "God" can refer to the ceaseless creativity of the universe and the objective validity of human rights. Promoting and accepting religious images as universal will help heal culture-war divisions and promote the formation of a broad-based progressive coalition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.