Forums Index >> General >> The New Evangelical
Page : <1> :
In our country, that faith-based radicalism helped drive the abolition movement, the cause of women's suffrage, the reform of prisons and mental hospitals. It was not long ago that the three-time Democratic candidate for president, William Jennings Bryan—who championed legalizing strikes, giving the vote to women and a progressive income tax—was also a fervent, Bible-quoting evangelical. A politically progressive evangelicalism is not an innovation, it is a revival; not a fresh track in the snow, but a rutted path of American history.
Unfortunately, the "Moral Majority / family values" gang has warped and twisted the point of view that many evangelical Christians (me included) hold on to. I found the article a good read, and the impacts of this renewed interest in doing well for those who are less powerful is about to take shape. I'm optimistic in the possibility of thoughtful discourse around real issues like wages, poverty, and human rights. I want to see a solid progressive agenda taken up.
Here's a good line...
Republicans will find it increasingly difficult to appeal to the new evangelicals with tired symbols like school prayer or the posting of the Ten Commandments.
I think we're about to see the impact of this. Election day tomorrow!
Humanism always was close from fundamental 'Christian' values of charity, ministering to the poor and the weak, social justice, etc. Except is was a secular conception of doing good - no need for an organized religion, for good expresses itself through the order and justice and goodness of the world.
If you do good, you feel good.
The religious extreme-right is about Puritanism - polishing the outside of the cup, looking good outside.
Hopeful that the Jesus Wing of the evangelical movement overtakes the Puritanical Wing. Good article. Btw, I think a lot of the abuse and disparagement directed at christianity occasionally here in the forums is push-back against these Religious Right types. It isn't the faith per se...its the faithful. No one ever beats up on the quakers, or the amish in these forums, yet the worship the same faith. To some degree, I think its the evangelical aspect that can rub folks the wrong way...the arrogance of the act of attempting to convince you that your beliefs are somehow wrong or inferior, I think that arrogance sparks the polemic.
I don't see the same sort of polemic taking shape against the return to the ol' evangelical movements mentioned in the article. Legislating morality, and attempting to codify your religious beliefs through politics...that is what chaps many of our hides. Looking out for the down-trodden, demanding justice, fighting the good fight and so on...these ideas unite christians and liberals. Its the kind of christianity atheists like me can get behind. Who couldn't?
Oh yeah, I guess the religious right couldn't...the religious right movement was only really ever about power. The GOP used them for power in return for the promise of giving them more of a stake in the political process. They essentially promised to privilege their religion over others. Of course the WH wasn't foolish enough to make this promise in earnest. Not all at once anyway.
Last edited: Monday, November 06, 2006 at 8:06:08 PM
Stink you say it like we want to yell at them instead of turn them away from idolatry (praying to saints...) and stuff.
Pray to GOD for him to reveal himself to you.
I don't follow, jake. What?
You referring to this?
The arrogance of the act of attempting to convince you that your beliefs are somehow wrong or inferior, I think that arrogance sparks the polemic.
I don't think there are many people out there worshipping saints.
Hmmm... Maybe Jacob is taking a shot at Catholicism, but I could be wrong. (The praying to saints thing..)
Stink..
I completely agree with you on this one. Seperation of Church and State my not be specifically stated in the constitution but it is an logical conclusion of the Bill of Rights. Historically, no religion has ever taken political power without abusing the rights of other beliefs.
On the other hand the common positive social goals of most religions can be a very powerful political tool.
Modern liberalism has defined the belief in truth as the enemy of tolerance because absolute claims of right and wrong lead to coercion. And religious claims, in this view, are the most intolerant of all, and should be radically privatized so no one's morality gets "imposed" on another. It is difficult for liberals and Democrats to appeal to religious people while declaring their deepest motivations a threat to the republic. And it is difficult to imagine the history of the republic if this narrow view had prevailed. How does moral skepticism and privatized religion motivate decades of struggle against slavery, or lead men and women, step by step, toward the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma?
Who can buy this simplistic, nonsensical dilemma of choosing between either the public adoption of an intolerant faith claiming to possess exclusive “Truth” or suffer the consequences of abandoning human moral values and civilization altogether?
...................................
If there is really no truth, why believe in, or sacrifice for, the self-evident truths of the Declaration of Independence?
Lovely! I can safely predict Michael Gerson will not be remembered by the objectivity and subtleness of his views. Apparently this man can't understand that religious freedom and tolerance is much more valuable than any dogmatic belief or self-proclaimed "truths".
Last edited: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 at 6:27:59 AM
Page : <1> :
: :
This article had a good explanation I thought.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15566389/site/newsweek/
Take a look and comment. Thanks!
Last edited: Monday, November 06, 2006 at 8:12:18 AM