Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

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'

By Evan Derkacz, AlterNet. Posted February 20, 2006.


Comments from our interview with Michael Lerner tended to reinforce his message: that progressives are having a heckuva time trying to understand the Right.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Evan Derkacz

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

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."

Digg!

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 AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Evan agrees with Evan's original opinion. Big surprise.
Posted by: YogiBear on Feb 20, 2006 12:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nice way to "prove" what Lerner said was true and paint any opposition to him as a bunch of lunatics. There are, of course, people who think religion -- all religion -- is bunk and that people are idoits for beleiving in anything. Lerner implies this is many of the people on the left who are this way, which I, and several others tried to point out that we think is either untrue and unproveable. Of course there will always be some people who are absolutely intolerant, and of course those folks will gravitate to online message boards. But that doesn't mean that "most" progressives are that way, or even that it's a large percentage.

This is what some of us were saying and of course, you didn't get it, because it invalidates Lerner's point. I'll beleive it when I see the statistics, the non-slanted survey results, and not before. Because what Lerner was saying is what we on the left have been hearing from the right-wing spin machine for some time -- that liberals are anti-God and anti-spiritual and immoral. I don't buy it -- not without proof. And no proof was presented.

For the record, Evan, cherry picking responses off the Alternet and internet does not prove his point. Show me the polls and then I'll take the Rabbi more seriously.

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

» Nope, you've proved my point Posted by: YogiBear
Them's the facts
Posted by: YogiBear on Feb 20, 2006 1:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Among the most religious students, conservatives outnumber liberals by more than three to one. Highly spiritual students are also likely to be conservative, but more liberals than conservatives are on a spiritual quest, espouse an ethic of caring, and embrace an ecumenical worldview. Similar proportions of conservatives and liberals exhibit high levels of charitable involvement and compassionate self-concept."

http://www.spirituality.ucla.edu/news/2005-04-13.html

"Most progressives are religious. For example, in 2000, 81 percent of Gore voters professed a religious affiliation. That's within shouting distance of the 89 percent of Bush voters who professed a religious affiliation (2000 NSRP).

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=
biJRJ8OVF&b=85292

"One reason the right has reigned despite progress like this is that the tools used for studying and reporting on religion haven't kept pace with the increasingly complex impact of religious convictions on national and international politics. While pollsters' questions show growing sophistication, religious practitioners with progressive public values still have to check the 'other' box in most national surveys. Even John Green's 2004 study (done in conjunction with the Pew Forum), for example, which makes some headway in expressing the diversity of political views within different denominations, still stops short of capturing the full picture."

http://www.slate.com/id/2108753/

Perhaps there are studies that prove me wrong. If so, someone really ought to point them out. That little bit of effort would go a long way toward getting myself and other progressives on the same page as Rabbi Lerner.

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

» RE: Them's the facts Posted by: kittynboi
» RE: Them's the facts Posted by: kingfelix
» New facts Posted by: Mr.Fish
» RE: New facts Posted by: kingfelix
» RE: New facts Posted by: buffeliscious
Faith is not a weapon...
Posted by: Orwells_nightmare on Feb 20, 2006 5:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...for attacking debate. But that's what modern religion has become.

Once again, the cry goes out; what about the white heterosexual Catholics? Who's looking out for their interests? When will their day come in this world? The fat controllers have a nasty habit of casting themselves as victims. I have a question; why are atheists just expected to be tolerant of others religion? I'm a recovering Catholic, brought up in a not particularly religious household, but attending a school which called itself Roman Catholic, surrounded by Roman Catholic teachers(one of whom saw fit to show us a ProLife video of an abortion in progress when we were a shade past eleven) and expected to live by this same religion. After having an epiphany, I put the Christian God away in the same box as Thor, Ra and all the others; still I don't see much of a place for an opinion like mine. Instead, we're expected to live by standards we don't necessarily want anything to do with, like the Schiavos, like gay couples, like intelligent design, like Roe vs Wade, like the women whose pharmacists refused to prescribe the morning-after pill.

We're expected to be tolerant of people of other faiths, which is fine by me, but what about people of no faith? And what about people whose faith is ludicrous?

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

» RE: Faith is not a weapon... Posted by: ehh1443
» RE: Faith is not a weapon... Posted by: Orwells_nightmare
» RE: Faith is not a weapon... Posted by: ehh1443
» RE: Faith is not a weapon... Posted by: Orwells_nightmare
» RE: Faith is not a weapon... Posted by: GTFaypos
» RE: Faith is not a weapon... Posted by: bsbremmer
» RE: Faith is not a weapon... Posted by: ehh1443
» RE: Faith is not a weapon... Posted by: NoPCZone
» RE: Faith is not a weapon... Posted by: mythbuster
» RE: Faith is not a weapon... Posted by: cmysticism
» RE: Faith is not a weapon... Posted by: Holland
» RE: Faith is not a weapon... Posted by: Basenjis
» RE: Faith is not a weapon... Posted by: ConnecttheDots
» RE: Faith is not a weapon... Posted by: aonghus36
» RE: Faith is not a weapon... Posted by: Roverton
otto
Posted by: otto on Feb 20, 2006 5:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thanks., Evan; as you say, God and politics can work nice together. I tend to be religious left; an atheist friend (who died last year) and I together made a presentation to our city council to pass a resolution against the GATS. We often worked together on progressive issues, as we needled each other for our different beliefs. (I see atheism as a "belief" too...who among us can actually PROVE the other side wrong?) If there is a God, and if that is the God I believe in, That God wants to see us all get along, not force our ideas on each other, and work for the common good of everybody. None of us has a corner on the truth, and we all come at it from our respective points of view. And we all have a tendency to dismiss the other side's arguements if they direct most of their efforts at insulting and offending us.
Pride leads to spiritual blindness, and we all have a tendency that way. I seem to mainly see it in my fellow Christians who are "too far to the right", and that makes me question whether THEY really have the message of Christ. I see religion and especially Christianity as a sleeping giant...if we ever got it right, there would be a tremendous force for good in the world. It embarrasses me to use the old Simon and Garfunkel phrase, but with religious people and non-religious people, Christians and non-Christians, I sort of want to be "a bridge over troubled waters".

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

» RE: otto Posted by: kimba
Come On, There Is No God
Posted by: MarcGarvey on Feb 20, 2006 5:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First of all, we need to stop deluding ourselves as to why the so-alled American Left isn't on message regarding communicating with people of faith: many policy-makers and influential constituents don't believe in God. I think we often get sidetracked in minutiae and forget the main issue. And it IS the main issue.

There is no God. Many on the Left know this so there is going to be issues in formulating a coherent message about God from the Left. Is what I'm saying complicated?

MarcG

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

» Come On, There Is No God?!? Posted by: stormchilde1975
» RE: Come On, There Is No God?!? Posted by: techphile
» RE: Come On, There Is No God?!? Posted by: Orwells_nightmare
» RE: Come On, There Is No God?!? Posted by: munchkinpup
» RE: Come On, There Is No God?!? Posted by: stormchilde1975
» RE: Come On, There Is No God?!? Posted by: stevepick
» I knew a girl once... Posted by: Orwells_nightmare
» RE: I knew a girl once... Posted by: garblesnatchy
» RE: I knew a girl once... Posted by: Orwells_nightmare
» RE: Come On, There Is No God Posted by: aonghus36
» RE: Come On, There Is No God Posted by: ConnecttheDots
» RE: Come On, There Is No God Posted by: leland61e
After all...
Posted by: drone on Feb 20, 2006 5:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the caveats of what Lerner's position is not, we're really left holding a secular bag of some "spirituality" catch-all that leaves the same taste in moderately religious mouths as roadkill. The ethos of caring, loving, and healing is not necessarily religious, and it's hard to imagine creating a recruiting organization that peddles that ethos as a counter to the theofascists as somehow a religious option to the conservative churches.

Honestly, in practical terms, what is it exactly that Lerner's asking those on the center-left to do? To "get it"? Hell, I think I've "got it", but the problem is that pandering to the religious sensitivities of people who would like to be members in a progressive coalition but can't because they need God more than they need Justice?

Let the religious left--whoever that actually is--organize and mobilize others of their bent. THat's wonderful. But I doubt they need a lecture on religiophobia in that case. I certainly won't look down on folks with religious sensibilities. My feeling is to just avoid it entirely and not organize along religious or spiritual lines, given that most issues of justice right now are largely material. There are other ways to make those moderates feel at home without that home revolving around their religious belief systems.

In the end, I'm not persuaded that the left is losing potential membership to conservative churches simply because they're thumbing their noses down on religion.

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

» And if... Posted by: buffeliscious
» RE: After all... Posted by: mayangrl
The Answer
Posted by: MarcGarvey on Feb 20, 2006 6:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Now to the real problem with this entire issue.

The corporate desires of the elite controlling the country don't want a populist agenda. A populist agenda is what leftists/liberals/progressives and the country in general has been wanting (according to all the polls) for years.

Instead of doing anything to deliver on that agenda, corporate elites inside and outside the Dem Party, have turned the argument into "We've gotta win elections!"
The incorrect underlying assumption held by the roots of the party being that once they 'win elections!' this populist agenda will move forward. But if one looks at how they are trying to win elections, you can see that this whole plan leads not to a populist or left agenda, but to a corporate agenda.

How God Fits Into What I'm Saying
The ground troops on the American Right have been brainwashed into accepting a corporate agenda that is always that is always dressed up. It always looks like Americana, God, machismo, patriarchy (God, again) and the whole reactionary, regressive agenda. In the corporate Dem Party elites "We Gotta Win Elections!" strategy, the Dem Party must get some of these people on the Right to vote the Dem ticket. In short, they say we can do this if we talk about God. The problem is that God isn't the only or even the biggest reason they vote Republican. So to get them, there's lots of other things we have to do as well. And at the end of the day, we've subverted damn near every principle that made us a different option to begin with and the corporate elites have what they wanted, a Dem politician or a Republican politician either of whom toe the corporate line.

The Real Issue Here And The End of My Post
50% of eligible voters don't vote.
Almost 40% of registered(!!) voters don't vote.
Statistics have always told us that overwhelmingly these potential voters are the poor and folks considered to be ethnic minorities. It has long been understood that the way to get a significant portion of this group onto the electoral playing field is to do progressive, populist politics, to talk about racial discrimination and racial oppression. Buuuuut...
Populist politics means for the masses, not the elite.
Racial discrimination is the main elite tool used to fracture the power of the American working class polity.
So doing what is needed to activate the nonvoting 50% for the Dem Party would mean death to the corporate agenda.

The elites control the Dem Party and corporate elites don't do populism.

The Dem Party corporate elites know that they need to be seen doing something to Win Elections!! and we know what they aren't going to do so what they are going to do is make up these strategies about winning the middle (anything but the nonvoters)
All of this is to ensure that we don't go progressive or populist and stay in line with the corporate agenda.

So this God talk leads to regressive political ends and is counterproductive to the aims of progressive politics.

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

» The Wind Posted by: Timberbee
» Non-voters and why they don't vote Posted by: stormchilde1975
» RE: The Answer Posted by: esactun
» RE: The Answer Posted by: dlf
» RE: The Answer Posted by: kimba
No one group...
Posted by: kelly.nickell on Feb 20, 2006 7:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Holds all the answers.

kittinboi points out an item that rings true to me. The small group of the right that swung things in their favor have taken exclusive ownership of things a great many if not all of us have a stake in ourselves.

I think that the greater number of us have an innate sense of right and wrong, spirituality, etc. By trying to connect with anyone by crafting a message to do so, smacks of the kind of thing we have witnessed; that by putting a fish on our tailgate, or W sticker on the back window of the family SUV, we have created the new high school clique, exclusive in its membership by adherence to its core, schizophrenic tenants. It divides, as is the case today, by forcing us to argue against what we hold near and dear.

I have no irrational fear of religion as Derkatz says, but a very rational fear of people trying to figure out what’s going on in my head, while not really understanding that the responsibility for the thoughts and actions in my head will always be my own. Stay in your own sphere of control, and allow me to find my way with inclusive actions and their description rather than the divisive nature of it projected by your thought into my own head as utterly correct. While it may indeed be correct, it may be parlayed in such a way as to create a fracture in our own way of thinking, simply because the words used were mine, bent around an ideal that is not.

I have a very profound fear of those that want to guide me spiritually simply because it is the most sacred part of my being, the one that has most often been assailed and played on by those primarily of conservative bent, but not exclusive, and as such the one in most need of constant guard.

Looking at it another way, if we do not continually attack the sacred ideals and symbols in our world, how then can we constantly reaffirm their sacred status? If I pass a law to keep one from burning the most sacred symbol of democracy, how do I rectify the meaning of the symbol, what it represents, against the fact that I must pass a law to validate its meaning? For me, religiophobia has great cause for support, for while those that adhere blindly to a way, there are those that must question it, always. The players must understand well their parts in the struggle and realize that the divisive nature of the lip service to a message achieves merit when the message is already there via the innate nature of what we all hold near and dear represented by our actions.

For someone to try to create the marriage of market capitalism and the ways of Jesus Christ sends a message to me; beware the prophet that shows up at your door in rags, wearing a Rolex. The message has fangs, and it cloaks a greater evil; if I do not attack the sacred cow of the right, how ever shall I find out if it is indeed golden, and do I really want a golden cow?

I aint afraid of no stinking religion, just the ones that tell me I shouldn’t be.

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

» RE: No one group... Posted by: Phenix
» RE: No one group... Posted by: kelly.nickell
» RE: No one group... Posted by: kelly.nickell
Nobody Gets It...
Posted by: ehh1443 on Feb 20, 2006 7:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The premise of the left not getting religion should always be juxtaposed next to the deeds of the right. If you examine their deeds you would see clearly that the right doesn't get it either. Or perhaps they do get it, but rather than believing in it, they use it like a shield, as hypocrites do, to cover their tracks as they pursue their self serving agenda. Can anyone really say that the war of aggression against Iraq is consistent with any religious teaching? Can anyone say that the response to Katrina was imbued with religious value? Where is the right on poverty and hunger, I don't see their perspective on these issues based in any religious teaching. Seems to me that the left's position on these issues is more in line with a religious perspective, they just don't acknowledge the source of mercy and compassion to be devine. The right has usurped religion and they use it as a brick bat to beat back any and all opposition to their true religion, which is Corporatism, to which they're attempting to forcibly convert us all.

Disbelief is what characterizes the religion of the right wing political establishment. And once we accept that, the comparison between left and right becomes more correct, and a choice between the lessor of two evils becomes more easily made.

There is no God except Allah, and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah.

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

» RE: Nobody Gets It... Posted by: mozillafs
(Sigh)
Posted by: Moonray on Feb 20, 2006 7:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Considering that a majority of Americans believe in an invisible super-being -- although not a shred of evidence exists that such a being exists -- no wonder we are unable to solve our problems.

The future lies with the progressive, atheistic societies of Northern Europe and Asia, not among the god-worshipping fanatics now running amok around the globe -- including in the USA.

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

» Oh, come off it. Posted by: stormchilde1975
» RE: Oh, come off it. Posted by: EasterBunny
» RE: Oh, come off it......Dumb Bunny! Posted by: mikespindell
» RE: Oh, come off it. Posted by: stormchilde1975
» RE: Oh, come off it. Posted by: EasterBunny
» RE: Oh, come off it. Posted by: aonghus36
» RE: (Sigh) Posted by: EncinoM
» RE: (Sigh) Posted by: Saitia
» Sighs back Posted by: cmysticism
» religion is the one exception? Posted by: EasterBunny
» Your standard of proof Posted by: stormchilde1975
» RE: Your standard of proof Posted by: EasterBunny
» RE: Your standard of proof....Poof Posted by: mikespindell
» EasterBunny is correct Posted by: Moonray
Some folks on the left have trouble hearing each other?
Posted by: Sojourner on Feb 20, 2006 8:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So Lerner wants progressives to be sucked more deeply into the problem of declining synagogue/church/mosque-goers? Thank you, Rabbi Lerner, for further fragmenting progressives in order to save organized religion. True, that is not the framework you write about, but only because you want progressives to play your game—to look good by mealy-mouthing the same old discredited religious vocabulary. In other words, imitate the organized religions. Martin Marty of the U of Chicago Divinity School studied fundamentalism for the last several decades and concludes it is essentially political rather than religious.

No rabbi, et. al., I will not join your version of Book of the Month club, at least not until I see some results. Reach out to the rightwing yourself, say, in the person of Minister Farrakhan. I will join your club when you show me you put your body where your mouth is.

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

Does anybody remember this guy?
Posted by: sausage on Feb 20, 2006 8:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
He was a graduate of Indiana University and Bulter Univsity

He was an ordained minister in the mainstream Christian Church/Disciples Of Christ Protestant denomination.

He organized a Christian-outreach interracial mission to the sick, homeless and unemployed.

He was the friend and supporter of many well-know California Democratic politicians, including then Governor Jerry Brown.

He preached a 'social gospel' of human freedom, equality, and love, which required helping the least and the lowliest of society's members.

Who was this wonderful, though now little known, "liberal" Christian minister?

Jim Jones

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

» So what? Posted by: stormchilde1975
» RE: So what? Posted by: sausage
» RE: So what?...Redux Posted by: mikespindell
» RE: So what? Posted by: stormchilde1975
Exactly who on the Right are we trying to attract to the Left side?
Posted by: EY on Feb 20, 2006 8:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Lerner's theories are not realistic. First, the religious conservatives who vote Republican are really voting for two main issues: pro-life and anti-gay marriages. So exactly how is the Left going to attract these people? Are we now going to change our positions on these issues? "Hey, we're pro-life and anti-gay marriage, too!" In fact, these voters are going to laugh in our faces because it's the ultimate in hypocrisy, saying that we are religious while still maintaining that we are pro-choice and pro-gay marriage. They'll say, "God does not condone killing babies, and the Bible says homosexuality is an abomination!" Of course, they conveniently disregard that the actions of the administration are not very God-like at all. So, there goes those voters.

Second, the rest of the Republican voters are not voting due to religion at all; they are voting for big business. And considering Republicans have always been reliable in cutting taxes for the rich, I doubt the Left will be able to attract these people either.

Those religious moderates who are "motivated by a desire to be part of a loving community or to want a world with less materialism and selfishness" (as Lerner states) ARE PROBABLY ALREADY LEFT LEANING ALREADY!

So again, who exactly are we trying to attract to the Left who are not already on the Left?

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

» Your premise... Posted by: buffeliscious
Yay, super defensive pointless yammering!
Posted by: stormchilde1975 on Feb 20, 2006 8:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Lerner's criticism stands as valid and telling, and virtually all the comments above confirm it.

Providing stats to show that there are plenty of religious lefties doesn't help one bit. The question isn't whether liberals as a whole are godless. The question is whether the left provides a message that mainstream traditional religious types (not loony fundamentalist radicals) can connect with.
There are plenty of traditionally religious types out there who would happily join progressive causes, if they felt they would be welcome - that their views would be acknowledged and their language spoken. Showing that many lefties identify with spirituality in one sense or another does not begin to show that we are doing anything to address the concerns these people have.

What we have instead is a combination of a lack of welcoming messages with polemic anti-faith garbage like about 50% of what is found above. This hardly creates an atmosphere where the churchgoer uncomfortable with certain anti-social conservative policies feels he might be happier switiching teams.

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

Show me, don't tell me.
Posted by: kelly.nickell on Feb 20, 2006 8:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Another way to understand the way I perceive this, is to understand that a great deal of what I write and post on Alternet is a constant self test to see if what I write and what I believe are rectified in the sense that they make the circle and come back to me in such a way that I can be sure that I am clear in my thoughts and actions and guide my life accordingly.

Again, when I see that Derkatz and Lerner seem to think that religiophobia is a problem to be solved in connection to a group, I see that it has alienated at least part of the group, thus creating another splinter whereas I move further away from what I really want for my life, the life of my family and ultimately the life of my group, community, and country.

What is irrational is that the Left is unable to see that this very desire is a positive and healthy desire... Quite patently false in my opinion, whatever desire it is. Sorry Lerner, you are an idiot, and I am too. It is a progressive ideal to understand that for the most part, we all have bonehead moments. It's called humility and some of us on the left have it in spades. That is a problem, not being more arrogant, I suppose.

I exhibit the schizophrenic nature of wanting to be an individual while being a part of the group at the same time. I have always wished that I could lead my life not questioning the sacred status quo – religion, politics, capitalism, you name it, I’m going to look for the things that bite me. That’s my nature, built from the ground up to deconstruct so that I may understand how and why things work. It is my burden to tear down and rebuild, constantly pushing the rock up the hill only to have it roll back down on my soul when I take a moment to rest. I took a rest for a while, and relaxed my questioning of the message crafted for my consumption in the year 2000. The rock has crushed me and my family because I gave up on my quest to be the foil in a friendly duel.

The duel has become more pointed and dangerous because of blind faith in leadership that has no visible support of its core message(s). The things that should be happening in relationship to that message run exactly counter to it, I think. I think this because I believe there is an element in the group that brought and served up morals and values, that knew well our tendency to Not to question the status quo when things are good, marred topically by the trivial dalliances of man, and parlayed that into a leadership council that merely plays a tune that many will follow, until such time as the flock is decimated. Once the flock is left to reorganize itself into a potent force to be reckoned with, the messengers of doom will be left to burn in their own oil. We have been fleeced, so be wary not of those that carry a connection to the masses, but to the actions that the masses carry back to these messengers.

Pretending that we have religiophobia is to ignore the very nature of why we are skeptical, and why what he says rings just as hollow as anything the mouthpieces of the right have to say or perhaps any poor fool of the left that embraces this bullshit manifesto from Lerner. Same trick different party. Leave your message in its holster. You can tell us all you want, but we already know what it is. For the left in any incarnation to have legs going forward, it will have to bring with it a record that proves a certain amount about what is being said in any message. We are all looking for the same things Mr. Lerner, you can throw whatever labels you want on them now. You can craft whatever connection you like, but you had better be ready for an angry contingent that has been crushed by the rock. Our souls are intact, but our body has been broken.

You can count on it to heal; it's one of our greatest assets. It's what we do; cut through the bullshit and git er done.

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

» Gittin' Er Done Posted by: BeeGee
» RE: Gittin' Er Done Posted by: Lauren
I think that there is a pattern being missed
Posted by: NoPCZone on Feb 20, 2006 9:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Most right-wing people who are members of some kind of church/mosque/whatever hold to a belief system that there is only one way to one true god. They are willing to tolerate others who share political views to further their agenda while agreeing to disagree.

Most left-wing people who hold to a faith system (don't call it a church) embrace a very ecumenical, mix and match belief system. The one thing that they do reject is any theology that claims to be the exclusive way to god or truth.

One side accepts everybody (across faith and denomination) who allows many paths to god and the other accepts everybody (across faith and denomination) who see only one way. The difference is not in the brand name or theology, it's the underlying belief that their way is the only way.

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

Much to agree with . . . but . . .
Posted by: richardpmendola on Feb 20, 2006 9:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is normally useful to listen to other sides and to appreciate their hopes and fears as well as what they have to offer. It is normally good and useful to find common ground and work towards shared goals. There are many fine and intelligent people who espouse religious based values. Most of those values are themselves valid in any context. Good on Rabbi Lerner.

My problems with his approach are three. First, any fundamentalist (Christian, Muslim, whatever) would consider me wrong, deluded, and damned. I am not antireligous. I consider myself religious. Sermon on the Mount, stewardship of the earth? How I wish those were the fundamentalist agenda! How often the agenda is control and conversion.

My second problem is with people who hide themselves behind the cross. So Bill Clinton gets caught and calls up Billy Graham for a little prayer time. It is essential for politicians in this country to be seen as Christians--to talk the talk and thus cynically use religion to further their own power.

Finally, the record of pulpits actually promoting the brotherhood and sisterhood of all God's children is, at best, unencouraging. Just from the record, has any branch of religious belief earned any particular moral authority by the sum of its actions? Well, yes, a few. The Quakers, for example, but they are relatively scarce. And then they are not fundamentalist and are instead prepared in quiet to be guided by an inner light.

It seems to me progressives should and must talk to people of good will and should and must undertand the heart of even the angiest fanatic in its fear. But I do swear it is difficult to get along with anyone who is unconditionally right and with zero ability to laugh at himself.

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

» When can we "MoveON"? Posted by: Sojourner
» I do believe you're right ... Posted by: AdamSelene40
I agree with Moonray
Posted by: zooeyhall on Feb 20, 2006 10:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I also agree that the societies of Northern Europe and Asia will progress much further than those that are entangled in the robes of whatever-religion. Northern Europe will/is becoming the area of progressive advancement and innovation, with happier people and less social problems and other ills.

When you take away the artificial restraints imposed by "belief", you get more and better progress!

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

» You're missing something Posted by: stormchilde1975
» RE: I agree with Moonray Posted by: Krotos
The atheist left is actually a weak miniority
Posted by: techphile on Feb 20, 2006 10:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The most recent poll that i saw on the topic on religous affiliation showed that only about 3% of the US population claims to be either agnositc or atheristi

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

The Right is wrong.
Posted by: Slowburn on Feb 20, 2006 10:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How infallible is the subconscious mind? What is that gut filling that we know that what we are taught is right? Is it the same feeling when we are taught something that we believe to be untrue, or is the feeling the same rather it is right or wrong? Are the chances 50 /50 either way? How do we differentiate between a right gut feeling and a wrong gut feeling? Do we JUST know, or must we have another tell us right from wrong?

Can emotions effect the subconscious mind? Can emotions of human beings be manipulated? Did God write the bible or did super naturalist men in an attempt to control men’s believes, and thus their actions write it?
Is it an embellished history book? Was it their intentions to teach fear of god or fear of church? Was that fear intended to be one in the same? Must one belong to a organized religion to be recognized by god?
Is being part of an organized religion required to be part of the modern economic community?

A religion of empire has been established by the Modern organized cult of corporate capitalism. Flying in the face of the sprit of the constitution. History teaches us that religion can be used to control men to disastrous ends. That’s why the writers of the constitution included the barrier for organized religion. They knew full well the consequences of a theocracy. Regrettably, there was no way for them to envision What a religion of greed and lust for wealth could achieve in our modern form of government. The Majority is Under attack by the minority. By systematicaly taring down every thing that the fathers of the constitution intended to make men equal under the law. Right to privacy, due process, address of grievances, and freedom from religion. and the right to have your vote count for the person you voted for. ETC.

I submit that it is the obviously fallacious, and malicious emotional and mechanical control applied by organized religion, conservative owned media, and a modern fascist plutocratic run voting system with intentions of dominion over all as being what us liberals loath.
Not spirituality, being liberal is by definition accepting others beliefs and respecting their point of view. How much of what’s wrong in America today is a result of the ingrained need of humans to be in the dominant tribe regardless of whose right and who’s wrong? It is organized religions that tell men how to feel and think that are the enemy’s in today’s world society. Until men understand the god that the philosopher of Galilee worshiped and the lessons that he taught us they will continue to be manipulated by those that seek control of them for exploitation.
A Man, cannot be untruthful, cruel, or out of control, and claim to have God on his side.
Gandhi.

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

The atheist left is actually a weak miniority
Posted by: techphile on Feb 20, 2006 10:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The most recent poll that i saw on the topic on religous affiliation showed that only about 3% of the US population claims to be either agnositc or atheristic http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.htm. Most democrats and left leaning folks are also religous. many balck people are very religous some are even fundamentalist yet they will vote democratic. If the religous democrats want to blame us secularists for the election losses it will do them no good, people who see the world from a religous frame of mind will have to find some way for the faith to coexsist with their politics and persuade others of the same faith and sect to vote the same way. However this will be difficult to do since most of the issues in this modern world are not dealt with clearly by religons that were established for our ancient ancestors, also religous texts tend to be self-contradictory and even in the same faith there are frequent disputes on interpretation. Also in a nation full of christians, wiccans, animists, buddhists, satanists, hindus, muslims, jews, atheists, jainists, sikhs, santeriaists, and other beliefes not to mention sects I will always believe in a secular state, as some on who has seen the strife that religous politics have caused in every corner of this globe I am completely against government haing anything to do with religion.

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

the secular should have more precise tools to understand religion
Posted by: johnwilkins1672 on Feb 20, 2006 10:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated