Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.
Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.
Re-examining 'The Left Hand of God'
Also in Media and Technology
Media Coverage of Obama and McCain: "Nuts" or a "Disgrace"?
Eric Boehlert
Deceptive Questioning in Washington Post's McCain-Friendly Poll on Iraq
The Bad Frame: Why Are the New Yorker, Salon and Other Liberal Media Doing the Right's Dirty Work?
Don Hazen
Love Bites: An Interview With Toby Barlow
Tony DuShane
FISA Bill's Real Target: What Remains of Our Open Society
Chris Hedges
NY Times: Rush Limbaugh's Newest Lapdog
Eric Boehlert
A number of the comments from last Friday's interview with Michael Lerner brought a phrase of evangelical leader Jim Wallis' into sharp relief: The Left Doesn't Get It.
This problem is clearly not one of intellect as many commenters brought complex analyses, astute observations and impressive historical citations to bear. It's more like a blind spot; seeing what they wanted to see and addressing straw men while missing the essential point. That point, ironically, was one of the foundations for Lerner's entire book: that progressives have an irrational fear of religion.
For AlterNet readers who don't believe their comments are heard or make a difference, by the way, I attended a book signing earlier this week for The Left Hand of God near Rockefeller Center in Manhattan. In the middle of the talk, Lerner directed the audience to AlterNet's comments while making a point both about the rich debate taking place and the Left's refusal to let go of its religiophobia.
The most common misconception about the interview was that Lerner had somehow recommended that Democrats and Progressives seek to blur the church-state boundary -- an idea mentioned nowhere in the interview or excerpt. A faith-based reading, if you like.
What Lerner does suggest is that we try to understand what attracts moderates to the Religious Right and not to simply provide more facts:
You can't undermine that attachment by arguments against what is really peripheral to their motivation. Yet there is nothing fundamentally irrational about being motivated by a desire to be part of a loving community or to want a world with less materialism and selfishness. What is irrational is that the Left is unable to see that this very desire is a positive and healthy desire, and that it could best be addressed by a progressive spiritual critique of capitalist society which is, as I show in my book, the source of the materialism and seflishness that people are seeking to escape.
Despite the inclusion of this passage in the interview, some attempted the "just a bit more information!" approach without even referring to the fact that this was explicitly the mindset under the microscope.
Lerner's goal, both with the book and with his Network of Spiritual Progressives, is to build a religious Left that helps to locate issues on an ethical map, to connect civic issues to the spiritual concerns of Americans.
Besides, whether progressives like it or not, there is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits or even suggests that God stay out of politics. No religion may be established, but that's a far cry from the dream of a religion-cleansed state. Why such a state is expected to be different in any case is unclear, though it remains the grail in many progressive and intellectual circles.
One comment begins: "In my world, religion has to get checked at the door." Well sure, it's fine to hold that belief and to work toward it if you so choose, but we don't live in a series of discrete political worlds; we live in overlapping and interdependent ones. We either tangle with the one we've got or risk irrelevance.
In addition, the fight against fundamentalism in all forms is a fight against those who've closed themselves off and claim that only their world view has validity. Granted, the commenter isn't suggesting that religion be banned nor that retribution should follow, but the tendency to stop listening to others, to have no desire to reach common ground, is exactly what Lerner's addressing. Our own prejudices are interfering with our ability to build a more effective political movement and a better world.
The skepticism and fear with which progressives view the integration of religion, God and power is of course not unwarranted. But the conflation of God and bad politics, what many of the disagreements are predicated on, is faulty. God and good politics can play nice together.
Check out the Abolitionists, the civil rights movement, Thomas Paine, the Plowshares Movement or even this item on Catholics and birth control in Tuesday's PEEK. Or this, from commenter dlf:
"If the Black church, some Southern Baptist, and many Jewish pioneers hadn't been involved in the Civil Rights Movement, we would not be where we are today. In fact I dare to say that "Brokeback Mountain," the Women's movement, the United Farm Workers and many other things would not exist today if not for the religious leaders who moved to the front of the movement and carried it forward."
Evan Derkacz is AlterNet's associate editor and writer of Peek, the blog of blogs.
Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Media and Technology! Sign up now »