Lerner may well be right, but the real question is different.

Why should liberals or for that any other collection of rational human beings be receptive to any other group with obscurantist views that the other group wants to impose on others?

Throughout all of post-medieval history, the left has been at odds with the Church.

Just sayin' that the problem is nothing new...

But secular liberals, who made up about 16% of the Kerry vote (more stats here) seem to have a disproportionate impact on the party's image and approach.

Based on what?

From my perspective, anything other than unquestioning religiosity is seen as "hostility to religion." Maybe you guys need thicker skins. After all, show me all the atheists who hold office in this country.

That's what I thought.

Smeone in the comments of the 'knee-jerk liberals' Sullivan thread pointed out that there's beena lot of religion posts here of late.

If it keeps up, I suggest the name of the blog be changed to 'Religious Animal,' at which point I'm out of here for good.

C'mon. Focus, guys.

Petey is right, because throughout history, religion and the mass hysteria that it can be used to whip up have been great tools of those in power who want to keep the status quo, i.e., the conservatives. Inasmuch as the left wants the power to flow to the people, it has to be by definition at odds with the religious wackos who are easily hoodwinked and co-opted by the establishment.

I agree with nut. This is not the liberal's problem. It a problem of right-wing Christian evangelism.

Petey,

What do you mean by "post-medieval history?"

Also define Church. The capital "C" would seem to imply the Catholic Church. Is that what you mean?

Finally, by left do you include John Lock, Abe Lincoln, Roger Williams or just folks who grew up in the era of social darwinism which can generally be dated from the end of the 19th Century forward?

The left has been at odds with the church because the church has been reactionary. (Mostly, there are some exceptions. These exceptions have tended to be ground into little bits by the powers that run their churches).

I would not characterize it as a "problem".

The Democratic Party keeps nominating believing Christians for president, but most of them have been nice enough not to say that God told them to run for office. By contrast, Republican candidates are always babbling about their supposed religious values and making a big production of claiming God is on their side. (They never remember the parable about the hypocritical Pharisee who prays alound in public and the humble publican who prays quietly and wins greater favor from God thereby.)

As a nonbeliever, I appreciate it when my party's leaders don't rub my nose in their religiosity, but their restraint gives the Christian right the opportunity it needs to denounce Democrats as godless religion-haters. The remedy is not for believing Democrats to prate about God all the time (please, God, no!), but to point out incessantly that the Republicans lie when they claim Christian values. Their devotion to Jesus' principles of meekness, charity, and turning the other cheek is so obviously a sham that even Democrats ought to be able to make that case.

I'm a liberal- a member of the ACLU, Amnesty International, and so forth. I have great respect for individuals of faith regardless of what I think of their religious beliefs. But I don't recall growing up in the 60's that there was anything like today's unholy trinity of evangelical leaders, television, and politics. As a kid I watched Oral Roberts on television on Sunday afternoons (I'm Jewish, but my siblings and I thought he was fascinating) but I don't recall any political messages emanating from evangelicals until the late 1970's, with the rise of religious demagogues like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. Somehow, I don't think that Jesus wants us to drill for oil in Alaska or give tax cuts to the rich-- but now that's part of the party platform and the right wing Christian agenda.

The lack of respect I feel isn't for the individuals who sincerely hold their beliefs; it's for the hypocrites who call for killing and assassinations in the name of Christ (i.e. Robertson calling for "taking out" the President of Venezuala) and for the politicians like Bush and Bill Frist who cloak themselves in religiosity while ordering or condoning acts which would make the Christian Jesus sick.

I don't understand why in the United States the people who want to treat everyone the same, regardless of religion, are seen as "hostile" to those that think that Christianity makes them superior to everyone else.

Oh fucknuts. There's a perception because Republicans insist daily that they're God's Own Party, the media only invites bugshit crazy people like Falwell and Dobson on to represent "the religious" and people like you and Pastor Amy obsess about these mythical people or whatever the fuck WHO HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO PUBLIC VOICE WHATSOVER.

Are these anti-religious people on TV ever? On the op-ed pages? On NPR? Fuck, I doubt if they're even on Pacifica Commie Radio very often. Forget the politicians who obviously aren't towing the Secular Atheist line, where in mainstream political discourse ANYWHERE is this perspective being pushed?

Fucknuts, with allies like these.

I'm sorry, Steve, but you back up your baseless slander against liberals with another person's baseless slander? The charge against you (which we can now be handily extend to Lerner) is that you have internalized a Republican talking point. The commenters to your post demanded that you come up with some evidence to support your claim. You have failed, once again, to do so.

Which leading liberals have evinced this hostility? Name one. Maybe you're thinking of such leading liberals as Al Gore, Bill Clinton, and John Kerry -- all regular churchgoers, in contrast to the leaders of the Republican Party. Perhaps it's the millions of liberals who supported those very religious leaders, maybe they have a hostility toward relgion.

Or not. Perhaps, next time you make broad, sweeping generalizations about liberals, you should come up with some facts, or even just one fact, to support your claims.

Am I being fair when I say that liberal pundits like Waldman and Amy Sullivan are totally lacking in any understanding of the current political dynamic when they continue to insist that as soon as the Democrats wet themselves in baptismal waters and start wearing their religion on their shirts and sleeves the evangelical Christians will flock to the Left at the election time?

Judging by the limited posts here, I'd say there is an obvious hostility toward religious people. I know several devout catholics and evangelicas who actually work for social justice causes--something keyboard politicians only talk about--but have a hard time in liberal circles because of their faith. What's more, these people aren't interested in converting the world. It's easier for "many liberals" to lump them all into narrow minded simpletons which is grossly unfair and unproductive.

To me, fundamentalist atheists are about as open minded as evangelical extremists. Both often complain about being constantly attacked and neither want to work with moderates.

I imagine less than 20% of the American population has a working knowledge of the Bible. If they did, they might question capitalism a bit more critically since usury (a concept most Christians can't even define) is roundly condemned in both the new and old testaments. There are many varieties of religious experience, some of which are amazingly mean-spirited, nasty, and hypocritical. It is these experiences that liberals tend to mock. We do so not because we hate goodness or love or the cosmos but because we're probably more genuinely compassionate than the religious chauvinists who look for scriptural reasons to hate and condemn other people.

Look, while I get just as annoyed as anyone with the derision and contempt spouted about our "sky-friend" or whatever, the fact is that the fundamentalist-- and to a certain extent, evangelical-- God is about as alien to many mainline Protestants like myself as the omnipotent-deity concept is to hardcore atheists. My God is certainly awesome (to quote Barack Obama), but He is not a) my bestest buddy, b) the author of a simple & straightforward instruction manual for getting into heaven, or c) likely to talk to me personally or to be particularly interested in the mundane acts of civil governments. I'm nearly as contemptuous of fundamentalism as many atheists, because it ultimately diminishes both Christianity and our civic principles, and I have to consciously remind myself that I'm supposed to respect their rights to believe as they do even as I fight their desire to dominate the rest of us with those beliefs. It's not easy.

Besides, nonbelievers still have a stake in society (possibly more than most, since an afterlife isn't always promised) and the Democratic Party is as good a political home as any. Maybe I'm just odd, but my principles are solid enough that I'd rather ally myself with others who agree on that score, even if they are boorish about spiritual matters, than deny those principles just so I can feel more like I'm being validated by the party that tries to destroy everything I hold dear.

All the definitions here are rather vague, which is a big part of the problem. I'm troubled by the Rabbi's equation of 'religion' with 'spirituality'. So much of those who call themselves religious on the right are merely tribalists, united with their co-religionists by shared hatreds rather than anything that resembles Christ's message, that's why I prefer the term religiose to describe "Christians" like Geo Bush, Bill O'Reilly or Ann Coulter. I believe in the message of Christ, that message influences my politics and my life. I believe we all have an obligation to feed the hungry, tend to the sick, and comfort the lonely and the hurting. I also believe firmly in the separation of Church and State. There's no damn reason I shouldn't be able to buy beer on Sunday, just to pick a ridiculously reductive but real life example.
As for my elitism, do I look down on those who believe that the planet Earth is 6,000 years old? Do I laugh at those who think dolphins are angels? Yes to both. And I have every intention of continuing to do so.

I would prefer to have this conversation with Rabbi Lerner than with you. Perhaps you should have him guest blog in addition to you and Amy.

In the meantime would you please untie Kevin?

Why don't liberal politicians just go on these evangelical talk shows and talk to the big time evangelicals on national television? What's the big deal? If there's mistrust there it's probably a mistrust that could be ameliorated with outreach and better lines of communication.

Seriously, why didn't John kerry just go on pat robertson's show, or whoever, and talk to them about all the things that are on their mind?

Nut, Rabbi Lerner does not belong to a "group with obscurantist views that [it] wants to impose on others." Most evangelicals don't fit that descrption, either. R. Lerner's point, I think, is rather that hostility towards religious people and their faiths isn't rational, nor is boxing them in with the religious Right. Liberals who are waging a culture war against religion as such will find it that much harder to influence religious voters -- except in a rightward direction.

Nut, you're totally right. If a Democrat goes to Church, he's pandering. If a Democrat goes hunting, he's pandering. But the veep can shoot a man in the face and no one will question his manly-man, true-american bona fides.

Cardinal Mahoney could run as a Democrat and he'd still be accused of "faking" it. If Democrats fall into this trap and try to out-pray the Republicans, they will only face scorn and ridicule from those that use faith as a cover for racism, sexism, xenophobia, etc.

Latts & Jim Nice posting. It's good to get something other than talking points on the go - oh yes. They happen here too.

There may be some fundamentalist atheists lurking somewhere under the beds of conseravtives' children (along with the gays and the blacks and the Muslims and the feminists and the tax and spend liberals--my these kids' beds must be huge) but I have never met one in person. Nor have I seen one on TV or heard on the radio complaining that Republicans are hostile to atheism.

Simply because many Liberals have a much broader sense of spirituality, finding it in Art, books, and eachother does not mean we are hostile towards it.

You have to go as deep as anonymous posters on internet forusm to find any public expression of hostility to religion In the pages of liberal magazines like american prospect? No. On NPR? No. On the "communist news network" CNN? no. On Charlie Rose? No. In the pages of the New York times? no.

We're all incredibly aware of this 16% of Kerry voters who are apparently destroying the Democratic party, but fucknuts they're NO WHERE TO BE FOUND IN THE PUBLIC DISCOURSE.

Except maybe the comments threads on blogs. Quick, call Brent Bozell and Mullah Dobson.

From TUNAMAN: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/3/12/104345/575

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/9178374/gods_senator?rnd=1142140225190&has-player=true&version=6.0.12.1212

Brownback seeks something far more radical: not faith-based politics but faith in place of politics. In his dream America, the one he believes both the Bible and the Constitution promise, the state will simply wither away. In its place will be a country so suffused with God and the free market that the social fabric of the last hundred years -- schools, Social Security, welfare -- will be privatized or simply done away with. There will be no abortions; sex will be confined to heterosexual marriage. Men will lead families, mothers will tend children, and big business and the church will take care of all.

Every Tuesday, before his evening meeting with his prayer brothers, Brownback chairs another small cell -- one explicitly dedicated to altering public policy. It is called the Values Action Team, and it is composed of representatives from leading organizations on the religious right. James Dobson's Focus on the Family sends an emissary, as does the Family Research Council, the Eagle Forum, the Christian Coalition, the Traditional Values Coalition, Concerned Women for America and many more.

How come Evangelicals are never accused of "elitism," when they believe they are specially selected by God and will go on to paradise while everyone who doesn't absolutely believe in everything they sell will roast in hell forever? And when they would deny full legal rights to women and homosexuals?

Waldman's posting is obnoxious. No, I do not tolerate intolerance, and will not start doing so anytime soon.

SCALIA, A THREAT TO AMERICA
Judge Scalia has demonstrated the paucity of his moral character many times in the past but until now I did not think he was deliberately against the Constitution, the one that begins "We the People of the United States.." but here he is on record:

"JUSTICE SCALIA: And when somebody goes by
8 that monument, I don't think they're studying each
9 one of the commandments. It's a symbol of the fact
10 that government comes -- derives its authority from
11 God. And that is, it seems to me, an appropriate
12 symbol to be on State grounds.

3 THOMAS VAN ORDEN, :
4 Petitioner :
5 v. : No. 03-1500
6 RICK PERRY, IN HIS OFFICIAL :
7 CAPACITY AS GOVERNOR OF :
8 TEXAS AND CHAIRMAN, STATE :
9 PRESERVATION BOARD, ET AL.

http://wid.ap.org/documents/scotus/050302perry.pdf

It's not about the beliefs of Evangelicals, it is about them being imposed on the rest of us.

Dolphins as angels? I hadn't heard that one, but it is chuckle-worthy.

WHAT THE FUNDIES REALLY WANT
"Our job is to reclaim America for Christ, whatever the cost," Kennedy says. "As the vice regents of God, we are to exercise godly dominion and influence over our neighborhoods, our schools, our government, our literature and arts, our sports arenas, our entertainment media, our news media, our scientific endeavors -- in short, over every aspect and institution of human society."

- D. James Kennedy, Coral Ridge Ministries
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/_/id/7235393?rnd=1113034924500&has-player=true&version=6.0.12.872

Nor have I seen one on TV or heard on the radio

The guy that went to the Supreme Court to argue that the use of the words "under God" made the Pledge of Allegiance was unconstitutional would fit my definition of a fundamentalist atheist.

The Intelligent Design freaks also hate Western Civilization:

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/wedge.html

WHAT THE ID FOLKS REALLY WANT
Just in case you thought this was purely a free speech or scientific issue:

GOALS
Governing Goals
* To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
* To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God.

Five Year Goals
* To see intelligent design theory as an accepted alternative in the sciences and scientific research being done from the perspective of design theory.
* To see the beginning of the influence of design theory in spheres other than natural science.
* To see major new debates in education, life issues, legal and personal responsibility pushed to the front of the national agenda.

Twenty Year Goals
* To see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science.
* To see design theory application in specific fields, including molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology, physics and cosmology in the natural sciences, psychology, ethics, politics, theology and philosophy in the humanities; to see its innuence in the fine arts.
* To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life.

Mr. Waldman,

As you can see, the political "evangelists" not only hate America, they also hate Western Civilization.

The Nazi's had too political levers that they loved to pull.

The first was fear-mongering the electorate over the threat of 'Bolshevism' in order to manipulate the electorate into being hearded into the Nazi camp. Boshevism was a threat much closer to them than us, especially as Baveria declared itself a Soviet Republic for something like two weeks or so during the chaos after WWI. When a lone Dutch Communist burned down the Reichstag the Nazi's trumped it up as the first event in a wide ranging terrorist plot, sent the army out to guard roads and bridges, trumped up the propaganda and then goaded the Reichstag into the enabling acts handing Hitler dictatorial powers.

That was their foremost lever.

The second lever was the Persecuted Majority theme.

The Nazi's loved to blame the loss of World War I as a result of a stab in the back by liberals and jews, and play the German manority as the victims.

Now we have seen where Bush & co have used fearmongering over terrorism in manner that exactly parallels the Nazis in order to manipulate the electorate.

We haven't seen a terrorist warning since October 2004. Finally the Dubai Port-gate fiasco has blow the cover completely off this meme as nothing other than bogus. So fearmongering over terrorism is running out of gas for them.

Ah but there is still the persecuted majority theme: For the Nazi's it was ethnic Germans, for the Neocons its Christians. And we've seen them play that to a hilt.

This is an election year and they are going to go all out to play the persecuted majority theme, precisely because they are running out of gas and credibility on the fearmongering theme.

South Dakota is outlawing abortion. Missouri Republicans are trying to establish Christianity as the official state religion. Never mind the assurdity this portrays to the first amendment, this is a political year, and they need to set the stage for a persecuted majority.

I am sorry but Christian conservatives deserve to be blasted by liberals, especially by liberal Christians. They are trying to drive a wedge through the country using religion.

I am sorry, but this issue was solved a long time ago. We have all decided a long time ago to just live to gether. We decided a long time ago the each of us would respect the other persons freedom of conscience. We decided that well over 200 years ago when we put it in the constitution.

For the last 200 years, while the rest of the world killed each other over religion, we have lived happily at peace. Protestants and Catholics, who were at each other's throats daily in Europe, would move over hear and find themselves as good neighbors to each other.

Why would we want to throw that away? Well Republicans would, do, and are, just for the sake of getting elected.

If they had valid, good ideas, they wouldn't have to manipulate the public - like a matador waving a red cape infront of a bull.

I would remind the would be bulls, those persecuted majority Christians, what happens to the Bull courtesy of the Matador: he stabs the bull in the back with flowery knives, repeatedly, until the bull dies, to the cheer of his adoring fans.

While the Republicans throw red meat to the conservative christian masses, they are busy undermining working people and the middle classes ability to earn a respectable living.

I wasn't always a liberal, it took Bush to push me into that camp, and I see Christians getting manipulated and allowing Bush to trash our traditional culture of tolerance while he drives a wedge through our society on his way to driving America back into some medieval age. For that, I am hostile.

"Our job is to reclaim America for Christ, whatever the cost...

Wonder what the Great Spirit will have to say about that?

But secular liberals, who made up about 16% of the Kerry vote (more stats here) seem to have a disproportionate impact on the party's image and approach.

I wish we had that disproportionate impact. The right-wingnuts have a disproportionate impact on making it look like we have a disproportionate impact.

Get it?

On people who proclaim their faith too loudly:

Matthew 6

1 "Be careful not to do your 'acts of righteousness' before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.

2 "So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 3 But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4 so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

5 "And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 6 But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. 7And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. 8Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.

"many liberals"?

Name 2 you lying jackass.

Since our countrymen high on Jesus have been tipping elections why not discuss religion, but self-criticism for atheists, no thank you.

lib writes - "Petey is right, because throughout history, religion and the mass hysteria that it can be used to whip up have been great tools of those in power who want to keep the status quo, i.e., the conservatives. Inasmuch as the left wants the power to flow to the people, it has to be by definition at odds with the religious wackos who are easily hoodwinked and co-opted by the establishment."

...you mean wackos like Martin Luther King? The Berrigan brothers? Lech Walesa?

I think you've been reading a different history than I have.

You make a good point I suppose.
Although... I am not quite sure what it is.

Here is my position:

Religion is a mental disease that takes itself way too seriously.

Even worse:

Religious fundamentalists are mass murderers.

Ergo... I don't tolerate religion.

It is not allowed on my private property.

And.. I will write everything I can to chide it, slap it, and slit its throat.

Yep... I am going to poke fun at it and berate it every chance I get.

If you want to make nice with it... be my guest.

But let's be clear on one thing:

The world desperately needs people who say FUCK YOU to fundamentalists.

>

If anyone needed an example of (some) liberals skepticism of things religious, that statement it is.

The statement is so general as to be meaningless (you could say the right has been at odds with the church); at worst simply not true.

Let's see... What left social cause scored the gratest victories in America in the last century? Civil rights? Led by ... Martin Luther King? Based in ... where? Oh, the black churches, that's right...

And as I recall, liberal Protestant churches provided a giant megaphone to antiwar and antinuclear movements in the 60s and 50s, not to mention moral authority.

And where did Pope John Paul come down on Iraq, capital punishment and unbridled capitalism?

And who led the Progressive movement in the 19th and early 20th century? William Jennings Bryan?
(By the way, he opposed evolution because its bastard offspring, social darwinism, provided a pseudo-scientific excuse for the worst depredations of capitalism. A case of the throwing out the baby with the dirty bath water, but it's all beside the point.)

But all good, college- educated real leftists can forget all that; they only need remember the dictum: religion is the opiate of the masses.

the white activists who shaped the Left of the 1960s have remained mired in a culture of hostility toward religion and spirituality

Father Drinan, the Berrigan Brothers, the Rev. Sloane Coffin - all white activists who hated religion.

Lerner is a wanker.

I think the best part of this post is the contorted recasting - almost Andrew Sullivanesque in its deftness - of the libel from "the liberal notion that religious Christians are inherently backwards, regressive and opponents of liberty" to "liberal hostility to evangelical Christianity" - unless, in the poster's mind, the only "religious" Christians are evangelicals.

Hostile to conservative Christianity maybe, but to "spirituality"? What is he smoking? Left-wingers of the 60s generation are heavily into alternative spirituality, most notably Eastern religions. The very term "spirituality" is a cliche in these circles.

You say: "I had been making a narrower point – that many liberals carry an elitist attitude toward evangelical Christians."

So what? Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, along with most of those whom we think of as the intellectual founders of this country, also carried an elitist attitude toward 18th century evangelical christians. Thank goodness that they did.

It's quite depressing that in this day and age we find ourselves fighting over whether we should champion the Enlightenment ideals that this country was founded on, or embrace the more medievalist religious conceptions of government's role--a role that those (to your way of thinking) out-of-touch Founding Fathers sought to vanquish over two centuries ago.

Let's get moving again! We need to come up with new ideas about the relationship of humans to community, to thought and to whatever we define as the spiritual realm--theist or not. What profound paths we might clear if we could move foreward from this old and tired debate. And this is not just a choice we have. At this point, the state of our world demands it.

Bush does not belong to a congregation, has no regular church, and has been thrown out by the Presbyterian church he did claim.

So what the hell is yer point?

CURTISE - And where did Pope John Paul come down on Iraq

I forgot about that one, thanx! Also, the Conference of American Bishops came out against the war

Also, to say the progressive are anti-spiritual is to ignore the incrteasing number of people embracing Buddhism, alternative medicines, and the all-around self-searching that is so antipathetic to fundamnnetalism of every stripe. In other words, rabbi, fuck you if you think you have a lock on what religion is and who cares about it.

wow - this blog is soooo rightwing....

This walman character is now being "fair and balanced" with evangelicalism? jackass.

one merely needs to take a look at evangelicals in America to see that they DESERVE the scorn they receive - they earned every last ounce of it.

waldman is just another example of a once-good (for the sake of argument) democrat who has been so beaten down by the republicans that he's well-internalized their talking points. he now thinks he's being a "calm voice of reason" within the party, when he's really ONLY a trojan horse sent by the republicans.

fuck him and his republican lies.

Digby nailed it hours ago (click here)

I wonder who all the religious candidates we've unfairly scorned in the past would be? Jimmy Carter? Bill Clinton? (and no, having affairs does not mean you are not religious, just a sinner.) Al Gore? John Kerry? They all go to church and profess to be believers. Are they just not religious enough? Now, it's true that the knee-jerk left doesn't much care for Joe Lieberman but that's not because he's a religious man. It's because he is disloyal and enables the right wing. (We knee-jerk left wingers do tend to be dismissive of right wingers, that's true.)

I recall scorning both Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon and neither one of them were particularly religious. Bobby Kennedy was a youthful hero and he was as catholic as they come. In fact, I'm having a hard time coming up with any consistent views on either side toward religious politicians at all.

...

And as for hostility, let's not forget that it was back in 1988 that a future president of the United States said this:

President George H. W. Bush: I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.

Who scorns who again? Perhaps some of these religious politicans could speak to the flock about giving some respect to the non-faithful. It's the Christian thing to do.

Remember that guy who kicked the moneychangers out of the temple? Such hostility!

Although, if I remember right, someone wrote a book about him.

Democrats should not let any wussies who were bullied in the seventh grade join their party.

you heard it here first guys: within 1 year there will be a major announcement on this blog that it's explicitly supporting republicans.

Based solely on the comments to this post, I'd say liberals pretty clearly have a problem with religion. A lot of these comments drip with hostility even as they protest their own innocence.

I say this as a liberal and an atheist. No squishy agnosticism for me -- I am as atheist as they come. I have no love for the religious right, nor for the many Republicans who wrap themselves in the mantle of religion at every opportunity.

But despite this, I can't quite muster the anger that seems to animate, um, nut and Mr. Bigglesworth. I can't quite muster the cynicism.

The hysterical reactions to these posts, more than anything else I've seen or read elsewhere, bear out Steve and Amy's views. We liberals have a religion problem, and we'd better deal with it if progressivism is to have any future in this country.

Why don't liberal politicians just go on these evangelical talk shows and talk to the big time evangelicals on national television? What's the big deal? If there's mistrust there it's probably a mistrust that could be ameliorated with outreach and better lines of communication.

You mean like when both Clintons appeared on stage with Jerry Falwell at his Flushing Meadows (NYC) crusade, to a rousing response from the crowd and not much mention in the national media?

Ignoring the way the entire topic of "religion" has been cheapened and politicized by the GOP does nobody any good.

Steve Waldman,

I'm getting really fed up with the religious people wanting to run things as if they were competent or sane. They're neither.

Fundamentalist Christians and fundamentalist Muslims are ruining the world with their craziness, and religious moderates are their enablers.

Religious people should sit down, shut up and pay attention to those of us who understand objective reality. We'll show you the truth and a way to a better future.

Based solely on the comments to this post, I'd say liberals pretty clearly have a problem with religion. A lot of these comments drip with hostility even as they protest their own innocence.

Based solely on your comment on this post, I'd say you like to beat up the elderly.

Please.

CurtisE - The left will always get behind religious leaders that champions the rights of a minority over the tyranny of the majority.

Most of the religion-related wedge issues that get Democrats into trouble with religious conservatives involve the majority restricting the rights of a minority.

Is Mr. Waldman suggesting that we follow the examplary Tom Delay or Jack Abramoff or Claude Allen in our support of evangelical Christians?

"...you mean wackos like Martin Luther King? The Berrigan brothers? Lech Walesa?"

Ah, yes. the magnificent Lech Walesa, who introduced anti-semitism into his final election campaign by asking why his opponent refused to answer "charges" that he was jewish. "Why are you denying it?" Lech asked. 'There's nothing wrong with jews, so you should feel free to admit it! We have nothing against jews, so admit you're jewish and we'll never bring up the issue again."

Lech Walesa: America's favorite catholic, anti-semitic love-child.

Has Mr. Waldman written on the sorry spectacle of the Catholic church working against John Kerry at the behest of the GWB campaign? His criticism of the Democrats on the religion front would be more credible if he did.

I belong to a bird club. Nobody in the club mentions religion at the meetings. There are no articles about religion in the bird club newsletter. There would be universal astonishment if a speaker at one of our meetings were to attempt to insert religion into a lecture on feather plucking in parrots.

As an atheist, I view religion as similarly irrelevant to politics and social issues, used only by those who want to claim superiority or browbeat others.

To get a feel for the atheist viewpoint, just imagine what you would think if an adult told you a fairy tale (such as Billy Goat Gruff), and after a few sentences, you realized that the person believed that s/he was telling you a true story, complete with talking animals and a troll living under a bridge. Your first thought would be, "This person is psychotic." THAT IS HOW ATHEISTS VIEW STORIES ABOUT AN INCORPOREAL BEING WHO LIVES ABOVE THE SKY, and that is the reason why we fervently wish that you confine your beliefs to your own private sphere. We can connect with you beautifully on the topics of progressive politics with its varying shades of opinion, but there is a fundamental "either/or" when it comes to religion and therefore, a gulf that cannot be breached.

Right. But one should definitely not take Michael Lerner's word for it in terms of liberal attitudes towards religion. Lerner's whole career is built on being the rabbi who talks religion and spirituality to secular liberal Jews who want to get back in touch with their religion without abandoning their political convictions. He's got a vested self-marketing interest in characterizing liberals as more anti-religion than they really are.

Based solely on the comments to this post

So, you support Brownback, Scalia, D. James Kennedy and the ID freaks?

You know nothing of my work.

I heard what you were saying. You, you know nothing of my work. How you ever got to post in a blog in anything is totally amazing.

Based solely on your comment on this post, I'd say you like to beat up the elderly.

Now THAT was funny!

brooksfoe hits the nail on the head. As I said, your using Rabbi Lerner's quote here is meaningless. The debate should be with Rabbi Lerner, who I suspect might be happy to be a guest blogger here.

Thought and policy based on science and reason is unfortunately always going to sound elitist to people who believe the world was created in 6 days and believe that man was created by God out of whole cloth in his present form, and believe that global warming is a faggot hoax. We are getting closer and closer to a time when we cant afford to have our political and policy apparatus held hostage by these people. We just plain won't survive. What needs to happen is for people like you to stand up bravely and tell your fellow Christians that your God doesn't necessarily want the world destroyed real soon. Instead you are saying "the left" should do what? Its not clear what you want.

Hostility to religion? Hardly. If it were a bunch of secularist assholes who want to impose their irrational value systems on my life, both private and public, I would feel exactly the same.

Thanks for playing.

Petey says, "Throughout all of post-medieval history, the left has been at odds with the Church.'

Amen, Petey! And we're proud of it. Liberals have ALWAYS been at odds with the misinterpreters of religion. And we always will be.

LIBERALS were the ones who opposed stoning people to death, burning people at the stake, the Crusades, the Inquisition, genocide, slavery and bigotry in all its forms, which conservative extremists justified time and again with the Bible.

The Ku Klux Klan, the Nazis, European conquerors, slave-owning whites and segregationists all claimed to find support for the most unspeakable actions in the Bible. My guess is either they read it wrong or they were just lying.

You could not be more correct. LIBERALS oppsed all of this evil. And conservatives opposed us every step of the way. Liberals who practice Christianity embrace the religion OF Christ, not the religion ABOUT Christ. We try to be Christlike, which means simply doing what He said.. There are no asterisks in the Bible, no caveats in the Sermon on the Mount. 'Blessed are the PEACEKEEPERS,' said _JESUS CHRIST_. And He did not add, 'Unless you want a war with Iraq.'

While priests commit horrible acts of pedophilia and the Pope looks the other way, and while George Bush allows the execution of children and conducts an unjustified, massively destructive war, you have the nerve to accuse liberals of going against the church. It's not the church we oppose. It's the evil that men do and BLAME on the church and the Bible. Liberals will stop opposing evil as soon as the evil stops, and not a minute before.

In His name and glory,
tblue

Enough with this shit. Have you ever been to Berkeley or San Francisco or Seattle or any other supposed secular blue enclave? The sheer range of religio-spiritual options is overwhelming, especially when compared to Buttfuck, Alabama where the difference between the two fundamentalist protestant churches in town is that maybe you get to handle snakes in one of them. But evangelicals always have to be the victims, don't they? Many, many liberals engage in some formal spiritual practice. But they 1) don't necessarily believe their religion is the one true one and 2) don't insist on pushing it on everyone else (the very definition of evangelical). So really, who's condescending to whom?

Was Mr. Waldman taught how to interact with his readers by the Washington Post Online? At least the critical (and quite valid) comments remain..

secular liberals, who made up about 16% of the Kerry vote (more stats here) seem to have a disproportionate impact on the party's image and approach.

Wrong again. Dobson, Falwell, Robertson, Land, Parshall, Limbaugh and Hannity have a disproportionate impact on the public's perception of liberals.

Evangelicals feel put-upon because the prevailing public (i.e. commercial) culture has figured out that Sex Sells, and that there is no stopping them. Liberals feel put-upon because they feel that the prevailing political (i.e. commercial) culture has figured out they can screw everybody but the rich, and that there is no stopping them.

That having been said, the public position of evangelicals is on average more extreme. To advocate that ID be imposed as the basis of all US science is such a position, and I do not see any push on the left to a comparably doctrinaire view (e.g a Leninist state). To claim that there is symmetry between the two groups in terms of their ambitions for imposing their beliefs on their fellow citizens is absurd.

the white activists who shaped the Left of the 1960s have remained mired in a culture of hostility toward religion and spirituality

Many of the white activists who shaped the Left of the 1960s still live here (on the Left Coast), and most of them have a deep yearning towards religion and/or spirituality. They just don't confuse religion and spirituality with the Roman Catholic church and its Evangelical mirrors.

There are two strains of punditocracy that are destroying the Democratic Party. Mr. Waldman and Ms. Sullivan are the examples of the first one that insists that we cow down to the extreme Christian right who stand for everything that we do not want this country to become.

The other stream of pundits are the ones who keep on telling us that we are weak on security despite all the fucks ups of the Republican President during the last five years.

"But secular liberals, who made up about 16% of the Kerry vote (more stats here) seem to have a disproportionate impact on the party's image and approach."

As it was discussed, "image" part of the statement is probably correct, but "approach"? "Party's approach" should describe, well, the approach typical for the ranking members of the party, elected officials etc. "Ultraliberal activists at dailykos" rather regularly support Sen. Reid and senatorial candidate Casey, two anti-choice politicians, not to mention a slew of pro-choice religious politicians.

So we are left with the image. Not only the party is liberal, it is "ultra-liberal", as attested by such stalwarts like Sen. Reid or Sen. Clinton, and the most representative personalities are Gitlin, Berube and Ward Churchill (the first two are the most dangerous professors in the land, and the latter is the most reviled one).

So what should be done with this "godless image"? Perhaps "secular liberals" should shut up and let more "mainstream liberals" create the party's image, without distractions offered by the seculars. We have truly comfy seats at the end of the bus.

I wanted to post in disgust at this post's internalization of a talking point, failure to provide anything like evidence, and a counterpoint about what tolerance on the left is all about... but the comments here were outstanding... thoughtful, precise, funny... etc.

Then crabshack says this group has a problem with religion... I just can't stand it! Then problem is very obviously with the politicization of religion. If you are not a believer, it is very hard to live in Fox News Americs, with Christians supposedly persecuted every day, despite having every advantage one could ask for... Then being called unAmerican by H.W. Bush (infamously), and panned on a friendly blog.

Do we hate Jesse Jackson, MLK, Carter or a host of other Left-leaning icons for their religious values... of course not... TOLERANCE, baby, that's where it's at... and religious folks aren't always good at it. Some are... we dig them. But many aren't.

Can't pin the problem over here.

Must you repeat this slander? I'm a liberal. I know lots of liberals. Neither I nor anyone I know has an "elitist" attitude towards evangelicals. As a liberal and a religious non-conformist who grew up in the Deep South and still lives there, I'm sick to death of conservative Christians whining about how they are put upon by "liberal elites." They need to look to their own house and see whose toes they've been stepping on before they complain about anyone else.

If there's anything evangelicals hate more than secularism, it's American Buddhism. They compete in the same market.

You know just as I think I ought to buy back my bet with Marc Cooper on how few seats the Democrats will win on 06, because of the stunning ineptitude the Administration (those guys are supposed to be good at this politics stuff, even if some of the 'running the country' stuff appears to be beyond them...) is showing - then I pop into a thread like this and realize how disconnected the vocal netroots is from most of America - yeah, yeah, I know you're proud of it.

Just don't expect to win many elections.

And I'll toss out one of my favorite quotes, from radical rightie (not really) John Schaar - "Finally, if political education is to effective it must grow from a spirit of humility on the part of the teachers, and they must overcome the tendencies toward self-righteousness and self-pity which set the tone of youth and student politics in the 1960's. The teachers must acknowledge common origins and common burdens with the taught, stressing connection and membership, rather than distance and superiority. Only from these roots can trust and hopeful common action grow."

Poor and powerless people depend on progressives to be effective...you're letting them down.

A.L.

Steve J had it right.

Perhaps Mr. Lerner would have us all commit suicide.

"Overwhelmingly, the white activists who shaped the Left of the 1960s have remained mired in a culture of hostility toward religion and spirituality."

You could as easily have said "Overwhelmingly the white activists who shaped the Right of the 1980s have remained mired in a culture of hostility towards civil society and the life of the mind."

What was really true, however, was that white activists of the 60s were against religions that did not give women and minorities equal status, religions that supported an unjust war, and religions that focused on crossing one's "t"s and dotting ones "i"s rather than developing an authentic spiritual and ethical relationship with the planet. Conservatives, for their part, were against a government and an academia that they did not control and that they were ideologically and intellectually opposed to.

You are, at the heart of your argument, confusing opposition to institutions with opposition to concepts.

Conservatives formed their own institutions--formidable think tanks that today develop and make policy based upon their concepts.

We on the left are also in the midst, as many posts have noted, of creating our own spiritual institutions-- separate from those churches now controlled by the right.

It would be much more helpful if we could spend our time talking about the meaning of liberal or progressive ethics and spirituality here, instead of having to defend ourselves because we dare to criticise right-wing institutions for usurping many mainstream institutions of religion and spirituality.

Let's talk instead about what it means to ethically and spiritually believe in human freedom and dignity, the right of all humans to grow up in a secure world where war has been abolished, and personal choice--whether it involves reproductive rights or marriage equality.

Because, ya know what? At the end of the day, it all does come down to that.

I have as much fear and hatred of our home grown theocrats as I do of the Taliban and those loonies.
I was raised in a staunch Catholic family that made sacrifices to send all 8 kids to parochial grade school and high school.
We studied church history and were taught that the Reformation was a direct result of corruption in the church.
How are any of these theocrats, east or west, not making the same errors?
A pox on all their houses.

it's American Buddhism. They compete in the same market.

Posted by: brooksfoe on March 13, 2006 at 1:31 AM | PERMALINK

What is American Buddhism? Which sacred text is it linked to?

If you believe that morality and religion are the same thing, then I can't help you.

was raised in a staunch Catholic family that made sacrifices to send all 8 kids to parochial grade school and high school.
We studied church history and were taught that the Reformation was a direct result of corruption in the church.

Posted by: ccweasel on March 13, 2006 at 1:39 AM | PERMALINK

And modern american thinking would have wiped out 6 of your siblings in the womb instead of making any 'sacrifices'.

Which 6 of your siblings are an 'error'?

Modern American thinking would not have wiped out any siblings in the womb.

Modern American thinking would have celebrated as many children as the family wanted to have.

Because, ya know what? At the end of the day, it all does come down to that.

Posted by: af on March 13, 2006 at 1:35 AM | PERMALINK

Well, what do you consider human?

I say the 8 month old unborn child is at least part human.

I say the Iraqi victims starving to death, because the international community is too gutless to go beyond ineffective sanctions are also human.

In fact, modern American thinking would have just asked people like you to get your grubby hands off his mother's womb. Cos you know what? It's none of your business.

It is natural that everyone believes their religious views are right. Evegelicals believe they are right and are quite vocal about it. That is their privelge as Americans. Why should secular people be expected sure of thier views or less vocal? The real source on any perceived "elitism" towards religion is due to disgust with the religous bigotry of the Christian Right. Contempt for bigotry is nothing to appologize for.

I have heard that some Eastern religions believe that when an abortion is performed, the soul of the fetus merely travels off and finds a more hospitable womb.

Who are you to assert that your belief is superior to this?

And here comes the parade of Fox News Democrats. Jiminy Crickets. Just tell me when Kevin gets back.

The navel-gazing stupidity of this post is mind-boggling.

I have no "attitude" toward Evangelical Christians (and what is their attitude toward me, by the way?). However, I object to their desire for theocracy. This is not complicated.

Now, let's discuss all of the other conservative talking points about liberals and wring our hands and wonder if perhaps they might be ACTUALLY true? Come, let us continue to let our opponents set the terms for our debate.

I am sick of the notion that deference must be paid to every cockamamie superstition that comes down the pike. I can tolerate the most inane beliefs that you can throw at me - including even Scientology. But don't expect me to "respect" such tripe just because to "disrespect" it might hurt someone's tender feelings. I am politically savvy enough to realize that the Dems aren't going to win elections by slagging religion - but I honestly don't think most Dems share my disdain for religion, either. The long and the short of it is, humankind is everywhere and for the foreseeable future in thrall to religious superstition. I'll continue to vote for progressive, generally Democratic candidates who profess a belief in god because, to paraphrase George Orwell: All religions are toxic, but some religions are less toxic than others.

"What is American Buddhism? Which sacred text is it linked to?"
McA, check out Gary Snyder's Smokey the Bear Sutra from 35 or more years ago.

"I had been making a narrower point – that many liberals carry an elitist attitude toward evangelical Christians."

Um- isn't it also the case that evangelical Christians hold an elitist attitude towards many liberals? Along the lines of, 'I'm going to heaven and you're going to hell'.

Who's eliting who?

What is American Buddhism? Which sacred text is it linked to?

It's just an umbrella term for all the Buddhist establishments which are rooted in the US. It's not like a distinct sect or anything. It's like saying "Vietnamese Buddhism"; it encompasses a lot of different stuff. There are certain tendencies though, owing partly to the historical accident of which Buddhist influences have gained exposure in the US at different times through different people, and partly owing to which strands in Buddhism have resonated strongly with aspects of American culture. Not surprising e.g. that Zen is stronger in the US than one might expect, looking at the rest of the world, what with its strong concern with the aesthetics and ethics of randomness - a powerful issue in the American psyche. Anyway, if you're a lost soul in California or Colorado, evangelicals and Buddhists are in direct competition to help you out - though the evangelicals obviously do so more aggressively.

You know...we do have hostility toward religious leaders and some sects. But you know why we have such a knee-jerk reaction to religion?

Because it's used as a truncheon. It's used to beat us over the head for not being pious enough, not being 'spiritual' enough, not being sufficiently expoitative of the faith in front of live national audiences.

Yes, there are a few people here who are irrationally hostile toward religion. But in many ways, I don't blame them. Because religious leaders and people who have taken faith and warped it into political ploys have ursurped the idea of faith into something that it SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN.

People have brought up MLK as an example of the left 'abandoning' it's religious roots. I'd say it was more of the religious 'roots' (if by roots we mean religiousity-based special interests like Dobson, Falwell, and his ilk) that have abandoned the work of people like MLK.

I don't think this is a problem with just liberals, and liberals aren't even the worst offenders. It's a problem with politics, and the way that it has warped how religion is seen in this country. Tell me where the Christian love is in how the supposedly oh-so-religious Right tells the poor to fend for themselves. Where is it in the warmongering? Where is it in the disregard for their God's green earth?

No, no, no, no, NO, this is not about liberal elitists. This is about the warped image of religion, and how it has forced people to take sides, with all too many liberals being forced to take what amounts to an 'anti-religious' stand to go against those who have exploited, raped, and perverted what is a wonderful, loving, PROGRESSIVE philosophy and faith.

THe hostility isn't from liberals toward Christians. It's from these so-called Christians toward Christianity, taking away the voice from true, common Christians who may or may not actually come down on their side of the issues. And Mr Waldman, you're buying into their spin, dammit.

"Many liberals"

The vapid, evasive weaseliness of that phrase immediately sent up a red flag.

I don't suppose the next time you repeat the rankest Republican slanders of liberals you could cite some, how you say, evidence, rather than quoting somebody else's meaningless generalization? Start with demonstrating that most "elite liberals" preferred the non-church-going George W. Bush to the church-going Southern Baptist Al Gore--that would seem to be an inevtibale logical conclusion of your thesis.

I'm tired of all these atheists all over the media tearing down religion, and I'm sickened by the sight of all these religious organizations getting shafted by the anti-religious liberal government. Or not.

Lerner is full of republican talking-point shit, which it seems is the only weapon that Armed Liberal and MA are carrying. Leave your backards ideas of what god is or does out of politics, and nobody will care how crazy you actually are.

Hey lookie it's Marc Danziger the ooh scary armed liberal and fluffer of Roger El Simon, pajamaman.

Hey Marc Danziger, stick your arms up your ass and pull the trigger mister scary armed liberal.

Stephen Waldman,

I'm more than a little tired of this theme. Why should I have to give up my moral principals to make nice with the religious? Could you please go off and lecture the evangelicals and the religious about their hostility to liberalism?

Liberalism is the home to human values. Liberalism prizes diversity and skepticism and the human spirit. Liberalism cares about the humanity and the dignity of each person. Liberalism values knowledge and the struggle to understand.

What do liberals have to apologize for? Excessive faith in human perfectability? Caring too much about offending some people's sensibilities? Excessive tolerance?

Let's face it, the evangelicals are hostile to these things.

OK in the spirit of getting along I'll apologize for the excesses of liberalism and I repudiate them.

Now it's your turn. I'll willing to be on your side, and the side of Rabbi Lerner and Amy Sullivan, when you start repudiating the evils of religion.

Let's start with the genocide of the Chaldeans. Do all think that genocide is a bad thing? I do. I'm guessing that the three of you won't agree to condemn the Chaldean genocide since your God sponsored it and then there was the whole "Chosen People" thing. Since you don't condemn genocide in general, we aren't on the same side.

What about infanticide? Are you for or against? No, I don't mean abortion, I'm talking about the killing of adult children, like Isaac and Jesus. Are you against it? No? Then we aren't on the same side.

Ritual sacrifice? Cannibalism? I'm against these. What about you? Do you repudiate them or are you eagerly slurping gone God's bloond and choking down God's body.

The one positive thing that can be said about religion is that most of the practicioners are hypocrites. Otherwise they'd be inhuman monsters.

McA: What are you doing to stop forced abortions and the "One Child, One Family" policy in China? Don't preach to us, please, until you get your own house in order.

"Hey, to you I'm an atheist. To God, I'm the loyal opposition." -- Woody Allen

The last presidential candidate to (sort of) attack fundamentalist right-wing Christianity was, interestingly enough, John McCain. And we all know how well that worked for him.

Do you have any idea how frustrating it is to know that someone who publicly states having my spiritual/religious beliefs (I'm an agnostic) can't get elected to high office? Don't tell me about the poor victimized religious people that can't shape the party. Everything, every message, is catered to avoid upsetting their sensibilities.

Exactly what policy change should the Democratic party make? Abandon abortion rights? Gay marriage (which virtually every Democratic presidential nominee has opposed, dodging by talking about states' rights and civil unions)? Go with abstinence only sex education that doesn't work, and leads to more abortions?

Democrats already campaign for v-chip technologies and labels on CDs and against video game violence.

Amy Sullivan wants us to support Bible infomercials in public schools. Personally, I think it's pretty cheap to turn our kids' educational curricula into a voter outreach program, but hey, if that's what it takes, I can probably live with it. And guess what? Democrats are already doing this! Hey, I can even live with stupid monuments, if push comes to shove. Just not in the judiciary, please. I'm pretty sure Buddhists are still innocent until proven guilty. And while we're at it, knock yourselves out with the Pledge of Allegiance. But I honestly don't believe any of these moves would make much of an impression.

So we can either abandon gays, women, and civil liberties, or religious people can fucking grow up, stop whining, and realize that a person doesn't have to invoke God at every opportunity (which, guess what, they already fucking do) to be a good, competent moral leader.

And maybe they can try to keep in mind what it would be like if the majority religion in the country were Judaism or Islam or Hinduism, or Adonai forbid, atheism. Separation of church and state protects us all.

To be fair to Rabbi Lerner, we really don't know what he believes about all of this. We just have Waldman using his quotation to prop up Waldman's smear.

I will note (as DCC points out) that Tikkun's mailing address is wonderful Shattuck Avenue, Berkeley California. I cannot begin to tell you how many churches and spiritual organizations are in Berkeley. Probably hundreds if not thousands.

Because of the sheer numbers of these places there are probably fewer fundamentalists per capita than in other locations. Add in to the wonderful diversity of people, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc. I suspect it is this fact that upsets the fundies.

But liberal I attended High Holiday services with Rabbi Lerne