You can be an ethical person without being religious. And you can be both. Being religious means you accept the religious tenets of your chosen religion. Ethics is something else. It is a concern about standards of behavior. Osama bin Laden was very religious but not very ethical.He thought it was ok to fly a plane into a building and kill thousands of people because he didn't think much of American foreign policy toward the Middle East.
A religion can teach the importance of good behavior. Or it can persuade its believers they are special and don't need to
be held accountable for their actions because they are "saved".

I listened to the how the media handled the subject of religion and voters over the last several elections and it made me cringe. So much of what I heard was insincere and uninformed. There was an element of propaganda as well.
It is still going on today as candidates try to "out religion" one another because they feel it's what the voters want to hear.

I think I can speak for most voters when I say what we want are decent people who don't try to lie, manipulate and deceive their way into office. President Bush obviously had a hidden agenda when he came into office regarding religion. Most people admire a person who lives by their religious principles but it is hard to imagine what those principles might be with the Bush administration. We have been lied into a war most don't support. Ordinary people mater less than big corporations and it appears to be ok to lie if you get away with it. And if you don't get away with it, then just pretend you did.

George Bush has given religion a bad name. The media has allowed this to happen out of fear or indifference. It is up to ordinary Americans to restore our country by demanding accountability and honesty in our government and in the media.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If you think that the term "Religious Left" is an oxy moron then, by all means, read the writings of the trappist monk, Thomas Merton. For twenty years, between 1948 and 1968, he was the prolific voice of not only peace but racial justice as well.

Read the writings of Dorothy Day. In 1929, she and her spiritual mentor, Peter Maurin, founded the newspaper, The Catholic Worker which was dedicated to feeding and sheltering the homeless. To this day, the proce of the paper is still, as it was almost eighty years ago, a penny per copy. For a subscription write to:

The Catholic Worker
36 East 1st Street
New York, NY 10003
(212) 777-9617
(212) 677-8627

Yes, Virginia, the Religious Left is alive and well.

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY.
"The Rant" by Tom Degan

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Go ahead and hate your neighbor, go ahead and cheat a friend. Do it in the name of heaven, you can justify it in the end. There won't be any trumpets blowing come the judgement day, on the bloody morning after, one tin soldier rides away".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Part of the problem is that many individuals in the media are irreligious, and progressives respect others' beliefs rather than evangelize. News schedules often preclude attendance at religious services, and a lot of journalists are uninformed. Last year I attended a conference of the Network of Spiritual Progressives in DC , and the coverage was mixed and sometimes dismissive, yet there was a stunning outpouring of 1200 Reform Jews, United Church of Christ, Catholics, Anglicans, Unitarian-Universalists, Buddhists, Wiccans, people who call themselves "spiritual but not religious" and a few Muslims. Reporters don't seem to know what to make of religious people who define themselves more by their actions than their beliefs. I'm UU and when I point out that we're gay-friendly and more than half of our ministers are women, the usual response is "Well, you're not mainstream."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Thank you Joshua Holland for this helpful post. It's really difficult for a leftist who is also a practicing Christian to avoid feeling that everyone disdains them.

I'm painfully aware of the hateful stuff being preached at many churches. However, the church where I lead music is: pretty much gay-friendly (wish I could say that more unconditionally, but there are a few of us who remain tied to old ways of thinking about this, though they don't assert that as policy or try to chase anybody away), theologically progressive (again with a few exceptions among the membership), involved in a consortium of congregations working on local justice issues (transportation and affordable housing), part of a group called PACEM which rotates housing homeless men and women. I'd characterize it as "center-left" on the spectrum of churches in the USA. If it were up to me, we'd be further left, but I don't own the place, after all.

I don't claim for a minute that this is typical. "Centrist" is a good word to describe most churches I've been in contact with.
The point here to me is not to say "just stop worrying, we're really nice people who mean you no harm." No, that's naive. The church is a very old institution with deep cultural roots, and when it's wrong about social and economic justice it has big consequences. When churches influence young people into harassment and even violence against their gay peers, that's a big problem. When "evangelicals" (a much abused word) are in positions of policy-making at high levels of government, that's a big deal.

No, the point is that on a local, movement-building level, the secular left has always done best when it is in alliance with religious progressives. And the majority of Americans who are believers of one kind or another are always healthier as political actors and as community members when their faith is confidently informed by notions of justice that are at least partly Judaic in origin in our culture. We do better to build each other up than to tear each other down, and our children will be better off if we can work this out instead of living in suspicion and anger.

Let's stand up to hatred and greed wherever we find it, and let's welcome work for justice and peace, no matter whose name it's being done in.

peace to all

ken

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The nation would be better off with a strong progressive religious force that could balance the Right-Wing believers who follow Dobson and Robertson. But the right wingers, hate them as you will, became a force not because of their religion but because they could generate significant support for social conservative causes in elections and in legislative debates. They garnered a few scalps of hapless liberal candidates who stood in their way, and in the 2000 and 2004 elections they provided the margin of victory for W in several key states.

Until the progressives'clergy can rack up some kills, they will remain an occasional item of interest in the religion pages of the NY Times and Washington Post. But what can they do in Ohio and West Virginia?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The old saw says news is not "dog bites man" but "man bites dog." So it is true that one will find more news from those whose religious outlook requires an on-going battle between Satan and the angels along with an expectation of the imminent end of the world. Those are long on melodrama and short on knowledge and information.

It's the difference between, say, educational television and commercial television. Yes, we will hear about educational programming when there is some spectacular innovation--a series long in the works, or offering new discoveries. But tv news is about Rosie and Brittany and Lindsey. Information has always been less marketable than gossip.

That's only a problem for anyone who has not learned to be selective about what and who gets their attention. That is, only a problem for the immature and those who take media seriously. For those who take religion seriously (other than its political impact, and the view expressed upthread that fundamentalism has become so bankrupt that it becomes the arm of a political party dependent on fear and distrust of diversity is correct; refer to the Martin Marty Center study of the subject) religion measured by its commercial success misunderstands what religion is all about.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

When they call me or send me a letter, I inform their caller why they are no longer getting a donation from me.

By the way, how interesting to see the chalice of the Unitarian Universalists on this piece. As a long time UU, I thank you.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

According to the latest Yearbook of American Churches there are 168 million church members in the U.S. (out of a population of 300 million). This, however, does not count megachurches and independent churches which would add, let's say, another 32 million (to use round figures). So, there are 200 million church members in the U.S. Most churches I know are apolitical. They feed the poor, teach moral values, do good work, but tend to shy away from endorsing political parties. The so-called progressive churches are those connected with the National Council of Churches. They total 44 million, or 22% of the total. And, a high percentage of the members of those churches are conservative in politics (70% of all United Methodists live in red states). If one must divide religious people into conservative and liberal, if TV commentators quote conservatives more than liberals by a ratio of 3.8 to one, that is still not reflecting the true percentages of liberal and conservative. Furthermore, the same "conservative" spokespersons are quoted all the time (and these are not reflective of evangelicals as a whole). The media is so far removed from the religious world they go to outspoken and controversial figures to get the few quotes they want. In addition, the media, like the universities, is basically hostile to the people (and their views) they quote. So, this is a complex situation. Robert Edgar of the National Council of Churches (supported more by liberal secular foundations and organizations than by churches) would like to see himself as speaking for a big group of Christians. But his base continues to shrink. Several Alternet writers have identified themselves with the UU (Unitarian-Universalist). These folk are highly progressive, political, and intellectual, but with 214,000 thousand members they represent only one-tenth of one percent of the whole of church members in America. The religious world is very diverse. I agree the media needs to be representative when it seeks to understand religious ideas. But Robert Edgar and the National Council of Churches is not the place to begin. Perhaps now that Jerry Falwell is not around, the media can find someone more representative on the conservative side.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

David Ray Griffin, author of: Spirituality and Society: Postmodern Visions; Sacred Interconnections: Postmodern Spirituality, Political Economy, and Art; God and Religion in the Postmodern World: Essays in Postmodern Theology; Jewish Theology and Process Thought; and many other theological works . . . has been not only completely ignored by corporate media, but character assasinated.

David Ray Griffin's thoughtful approach to theology, has carried over into his brilliant examination of the official myth of 9/11, in his groundbreaking books:
-- Christian Faith and the Truth Behind 9/11: A Call to Reflection and Action
-- Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory
-- 9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out
-- The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions And Distortions
-- The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11

Griffin makes the case that it is impossible for a real Christian to pretend to believe the government lies about 9/11, and thereby by into the mythological reasons for stripping civil liberties at home and bombing innocents in foriegn lands in a global grab for oil.

Griffin's Christian views are much more valid and relevant than Falwell's were, or any of the "Family" organization nutbags the media trots out to speak for Christians.

However, corporate media ignores him. Unfortunately, so does AlterNet and the so-called "left" media. Griffin has made a tremendous contribution to the national discussion on the event that turned our world upside down . . . and Alternet, et al ignore him.

Shouldn't AlterNet, Huffington Post, DailyKos, and others, have regular columns from such a voice of progressive Christianity?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

As a UU and Pagan, I also thank you for the Chalice and Flame logo. I must make an effort to hear news or opinions from progressives on religion and spirituality in American public life, because the msm chooses to give them little space. I, also, am choosy about what gets my attention, and am never afraid to speak up. We must all raise our voices over those who seek to control all aspects of our public and private lives, as the religious right (which is neither religious nor right) seeks to do. We must always step up our efforts for peace, the environment and social justice, for these are the true moral imperatives of these times and all times.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

As a UU and Pagan, I also thank you for the Chalice and Flame logo. I must make an effort to hear news or opinions from progressives on religion and spirituality in American public life, because the msm chooses to give them little space. I, also, am choosy about what gets my attention, and am never afraid to speak up. We must all raise our voices over those who seek to control all aspects of our public and private lives, as the religious right (which is neither religious nor right) seeks to do. We must always step up our efforts for peace, the environment and social justice, for these are the true moral imperatives of these times and all times.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Overall critique of the Religious Right
Talk to Action
The Interfaith Alliance
Tikkun Magazine
Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice

Christian Sites
The Center for Progressive Christianity
The Christian Alliance for Progress
National Catholic Reporter, published by lay Catholics. Sr. Joan Chittister is a gem.
Catholics for a Free Choice

Muslim Sites
Ali Eteraz
Liberal Islam Network
Not exactly a Muslim site, but lots of good information from Juan Cole on Islam at Informed Comment

My compilation of essential religious left texts
So you'd like to combine religion and progressive politics - amazon guide

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I appreciate this article. (And am relieved to agree with Josh about anything after his recent nasty phase; hope his dyspepsia or whatever is over.) But as long as AlterNet continues its obvious editorial policy of running a WEEKLY atheism versus religion piece -- duh, you ran one just yesterday, remember? -- it'll be easy to forget there's such a thing as a religious left!

Yeah, we all have fun with the atheism pieces, me too. But enough already.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Instead of prattling on about the tired and beaten-to-death subject of relgion, why don't you get back to your (strangely absent as of late) unconditional praise For Hugo Chavez. I see that you haven't penned an article that pertains to the "Latin American Worker's Paradise" in quite some time, so I thought I would give you an incentive.

Funny, you've been strangely silent regarding his little nationalization rampages and free media muffle, but then again who needs opposition of any kind - it's just unhealthy for democracy. Think there will be more rioting, er, dancing in the streets today?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I wrote this for a blog post, but it still applies:
One big factor in the skewed coverage is that reporters pay attention to the loud and the new or exceptional. In this context, the rather sudden rise of the KnowNothings to political power, which they had previously avoided, was News in a way that the presence, and slow decline, of the liberal churches was not.

Another big factor, of course, was the validation of the Religious Right by the rise of "conservatism" (I don't see anything conservative about it, but that's by the way.) The right-wing churches may have actually gained in numbers as the mainstream churches declined, too. Other alternatives, like Buddhism and Wicca, certainly did.

However, there is another factor: the liberal churches maintained a deep silence about the impact of the fanatic ones. Even given the skew in coverage, I think we would have heard about emphatic pronouncements that the Rightists were, to say the least, unchristian. For one thing, they would have been on the much-reported topic of the Religious Right. And reporters love a conflict. So if more liberal churches weren't heard from, it's partly because they maintained a very loud silence.

I'm convinced that it took the liberal churches a long time to realize, and admit, that a large portion of the Church had turned bad. There was a strong inclination not to speak evil of "fellow" religionists. They finally seem to have caught on, and further to have realized that they themselves are threatened by the rise of fanaticism with a political face. Not only does it reflect badly on their own religion; but guess who would be the first target if the Falwells actually gained full power? Liberal christians, of course: traitors to the cause.

I should say that I'm personally completely unreligious (Like JH - as he's made clear elsewhere), although I grew up a Presbyterian (the liberal branch - there is also a dominionist branch). Indeed, I don't consider religion a fundamentally positive force. But I do see that the ethical teachings of Jesus put good Christians firmly on the side of progressives, especially when they have also adopted the principles of the Enlightenment: secularism and tolerance. (Which were developed largely to stop the various flavors of Christians from killing each other and a lot of the bystanders. The Religious Wars were fresh history for the Founders.)

Let me clarify the term "secular": it means espousing the separation of religion and state. It does not mean "unreligious". You can be deeply religious and believe that the government has no business meddling with your church, nor vice versa. Indeed, a lot of people are and do. It does mean that the GOVERNMENT should be entirely non-religious. As it turns out, strict secularism empowers religion, which is vastly more important in the US (90%) than in Europe, where many countries have established churches - that is, paid for by the government. And less than 20% of people bother to go to church or pay attention to religious values. It's enough to make me support the establishment of religion. Almost.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ever pass the zipperstrip on Fox News headquarters
on Avenue of the Americas in New York City? You can
watch it for an hour and NEVER find anything good has
happened anywhere on the planet ( or in outer space,
for that matter unless some trillion dollar astronaut
boondoggle is eating cake while the poor and oppressed
down below aren't getting theirs.)

The media thrives on misery. Until Hurricane Katrina
did you see anything for more than a sound bite about
New Orleans? Did anyone do an in-depth report on the
disparity between the hospital services available to whites
and African Americans? Hell no.

Likewise, any serious Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Jain,
Buddhist or Zoroastrian, even, gets no press at all when
touting love for your fellow human, kindness and
charity to the less fortunate, and the value of being
a decent human being.

Sheesh. " What you do to the least of them, you do to Me."
Apparently that part of the Bible is lost on the Media.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The reason for this lack of representation is is simple. The mainstream media intentionally portrays Christians as right-wing radicals and quoting left-wing Christians doesn’t move the story line (dangerous, bigoted and hateful Christians) forward. The MM doesn’t seek comments from Christians in an effort to offer a reasonable counterpoint; otherwise they’d seek out neither right nor left-leaning Christians to obtain their quotes. Instead they’d seek out centrist Christians who represent the views of the 90%, not the 5% residing at each end of the spectrum.

Let’s face it, moderate mainstream Christian views don’t attract media attention because they’re just not “sexy.” AlterNet is really no exception. I’ve looked at the site just about every day for several months now and I can’t recall a single story reflecting such views or portraying Christians as just normal everyday folk who happen to believe in the death, resurrection and saving power of Christ. Can you? I have, however, seen many stories that offer the views of the right end of the spectrum, albeit typically when they make Christianity look silly or stupid. Come to think of it, even the left end of the Christian spectrum is seldom represented here.

I realize that AlterNet doesn’t necessarily seek out quotes from specific people (mainly comments, such as these, from a self-selecting audience), but it does seek out stories about all sorts of subjects from all sorts of media sources. So either there are no stories out there that reflect the view or AlterNet chooses to ignore them. Ditto for the rest of the media.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The icon for this article is the flaming chalice, a flame used to symbolize knowledge and hope created by a Czech nationalist who was killed in a German concentration camp. The flaming chalice was adopted as the symbol of the Unitartian-Universalist Dhurch. The Church was never mentioned in the article. At one time in the 1840's the Universalist church was the largest denomination in the United States, and it was the very first American church to call for the end of slavery. The Unitarians gave us four American presidents as well as Emerson, Thoreau, Clara Barton, and Charles Dickens. The membership of the Church has remained steady while the population of the country has increased. But, if you are looking for THE LIBERAL CHURCH this is it. This may not be the best church, this may not be the church with the most superlatives, but it is probably the most liberal of chuches.
We believe that truth is too important to have someone else tell you what it is. We take from all faith traditions, but we are not Christian, Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, Jewish, Moslem, Buddhist, Confucian, Hindu, Zoroastrian, Wiccan, or Animist. We have pinciples that we follow, but we do not have a fixed set of beliefs. You would think an article about Liberal religion which uses our symbol would at least mention our name.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

As a UU and a Taoist, I appreciate having someone speak up for the religious left in this country. People don't really realize that there are alternatives to fire and brimstone when it comes to spiritual beliefs, which is very unfortunate because I know a lot of people who are searching for meaning and for answers, and look only to the lonely secular dark of Nietzschean philosophy, because the very idea of religious ideology sickens them, for whatever reason. I agree though that UU's yes, are probably one of the most self proclaimed, but what about the United Church of Christ? They have very similar values and are one of the most interesting Christian parties that exists. (Some UU's call them Unitarians Considering Christ.) Anyways, good article; faith is not a derogatory term, and the search for truth doesn't just happen with science.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's true, look how many comments were by unique UU's. WE LOVE YOU ALTERNET.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

... and see in your mind's eye images of people committed to peace who are trying to tackle poverty who want to provide voice for marginalised folk, who welcome and affirm lesbians, gay men, bisexual and transgendered people, who love mercy, who want our political leaders to answer for destructive activity at home and abroad, who seek to address injustice and to be an open door of inclusiveness? Some eat granola and some are vegetarians, too!

When the media, especially American media, seek to learn what the Christian community is thinking about certain issues, they provide quotations from prominent conservative leaders. This, of course excludes opinions from other faiths. You won't hear from the Imams. Gurus or Rabbis. Unfortunately, tight sound bytes do not permit much diversity of thought. So, the hot button issues seem to win the day for a reporter trying to meet a news deadline. The audience they serve is desperately missing out on the community aspect of Christianity.

Folk who notice this discrepancy should contact media outlets and ask them why there was nothing from (give them a list of names) and why the story presented was slanted in favour of this issue or that and why such and such was not mentioned.

This can be particularly effective on the local level when Christian or other religious leaders are called upon for their take on a certain issue or story.

By the way, I need no images of Baptists being all that I mentioned above. I wrote that because I know many of them personally and some of them are Americans, too.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Folks, you aren't going to like what I say but.... on Alternet there are very few dialogues on the liberal wing of Christianity. I talk about Mormonism in the hope that liberal religionists and I can have better understanding of each other. Understanding doesn't require agreement.

Do a study of topics for the past four months to see how many articles discuss the "liberal" Church vs the number of articles that "glorify" atheism. Notice which subjects tend to get the most postings. Look at the name calling that characterizes those posts. I am beginning to think that AlterNet has chosen to become the sanctuary for atheists.

Bottom line, as a reporter I would find it a waste of time to come to AlterNet and would likely write the site off as a place for spewing hatred towards religion. I don't think that is the objective of Alternet is it?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

That leftist "religious" groups are underrepresented in the media surely cannot be news to anyone. What gets eyes / ears on paper, tele, radio etc., other than titillation, fright, and voyeuristic yellow journalism?
Groups that actually are accepting of persons unconditionally, quietly giving food, clothing, shelter & medical care (both physical & mental) just don't make the cut in the quick-&-dirty mass appeal journalism department. More's the pity.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hi,

Many Aussies have been dismayed and embarrassed to discover that at least one Australian works in the new Creationism Museum in the US.

Happily, the media are talking about it:

t-rex on a diet?

It's fluffy news, I know, but please enjoy. :)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Cross-posted from Catholics for Democracy....

The results of the study were overwhelming. While 90% of Americans identify as religious, only 22% identify as belonging to traditionalist faith communities. Yet conservative religious leaders are represented in television media 3.8 times as often as progressive religious leaders; and conservative religious leaders are represented in major newspapers 2.7 times as often as progressive religious leaders.

Sidebar: I think the numbers identifying representation of the respective religious leaders informative and important in-and-of themselves. Contrasting those numbers with the statistics representing who the general population identify as is not entirely helpful. Here is why: I belong to what I presume Media Matters would identify as a traditionalist faith community; yet I self-identify as politically progressive -- though I most certainly mean progressive in a different way than Media Matters does. This contrast implies both a bias and a conclusion on the part of Media Matters that goes beyond what the numbers themselves convey.

...Now I do have a problem with some of the conclusions implied in this study about media bias. Those conclusions are implied in light of who Media Matters is and who Media Matter's audience is. Media Matters looks for bias or dishonesty in the media to favor conservatives. So it can be implied that these numbers were meant to establish that a bias in favor conservative religious leaders exists. I do not really think that is the case, however; though more study would have to be done to confirm my suspicions.

Looking at the conservative religious leaders who have been dominating the media, we see a social club of fanatical nut cases who say the most idiotic and, at times, offensive things. The conservative religious leaders who dominate the media do so because their stupid and offensive comments get attention and raise ratings for the media outlets. Let's face it. Most of the more progressive religious leaders are boring -- in terms of the entertainment factor -- compared to their conservative counterparts.

Secondly, these numbers, to me, reflect a systemic disrespect, on the part of the media and on the part of their respective audiences, towards religion as a whole more so than a bias towards conservative religious leaders. After all, the funny-man image of the conservative religious leaders play into a common, secular stereotype of people of faith. The media allowing those religious leaders a public voice reinforces that stereotype.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Seems that the regular media fits in well with the religious fiction of everything as black and white ( or good and evil) by reducing info to a yes or no 5 second sound bite format. And us, the public appears to have little motivation for thinking outside such a nice simple box. How could the media or its typical drone listener ever handle the concept of a person with a Christian faith, that practices as a Unitarian Universalist ? Nope, that would require thought, and "heaven forbid", research. But those of us who consider alternative information sources have no excuse not to take every opportunity to point the " media drones" to the alternatives -sometimes I find that they actually appreciate the offer -after all a lot of individuals probably aren't happy with the sources ,they've just been "wowed" into a single dimension and don't know how to "get to" the alternatives. If you believe in a media source point everyone there. So here I go - " Between the lines" newscast. Cheers.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Finally, an article on Alternet reaches out to religious progressives rather than simply giving atheists a forum to bash *all* religion as being a bastion of irrationality, dogmatic beliefs, and anti-knowledge. As a religious progressive myself (I'm Wiccan) I think it's important to point out to the many Leftie atheists out there that being religious does not automatically mean that you are against science (though we may ask more questions about the universe than the average atheist), against sex, against a woman's right to choose, against a secular approach to society, or against homosexual marriage, nor do we believe in a Deity who demands blind worship from the human race. Never has my religious beliefs ever deterred me from my progressive political stances (in fact, I'm a socialist) and has never caused my value systems to conflict with my support for civil rights.

However, as another commenter on this article pointed out, too often in the past I have seen articles on Alternet appear to almost glorify atheism, and give the impression that religion in general (rather than particular religious systems) is anti-Left and anti-progressive. I believe that people have the right to dissent from all religious beliefs, but at the same time, I do not want to see atheists completely take over the Left and pigeon-hole all religious people as being inherently against science and knowledge. Kudos to Josh for taking this step...it's very refreshing to see an Alternet writer who doesn't appear to be pushing an atheistic worldview on us. The latter is every bit as distressing to us as when religious fundamentalists attempt to push their more dogmatic systems on everyone.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]