This Is A Most Impressive Contributor List (4.00 / 1)

I hope that people here appreciate that.  Part of problem, of course, is that many will not.  Just bringing this group of contributors together so that those who don't know them can meet them all at once is a considerable added bonus of this book.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 13:05:21 PM CDT

there are, of course (4.00 / 1)

lots more fine thinkers and activist out there too. And I hope that they surface and make themselves heard as this conversation goes forward.

Indeed, as the conversation opens up to become less about niche marketing in an election year -- to one of power, and resources and capacity building for social change, the entire nature of the conversation changes.

Joan Brown Campbell addressed it this way in her introduction:

Our respective religious traditions and the responsibilities and opportunities of constitutional democracy require us not to turn away from an engagement with the powers and principalities of our day. The question is not whether there should be interaction between faith and politics; rather the question is how progressive
people of faith should engage in public life. The fact that the excesses of the Religious Right have in the eyes of many compromised the integrity of faith in public life should not deter progressive people from responsible citizenship.

---

by: Frederick Clarkson @ Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 13:20:47 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Never Under-Estimate The Power Of A Bad Example (4.00 / 1)

Regarding Joan's intro: The religious right has been so corrupting, abusive, deceitful, and just downright evil in so many ways that most people seem incapable of even thinking there could be a different way--as if our own history had nothing to teach us to the contrary.

One aspect of this corrective is to consider the examples of John Locke and Martin Luther King.

Locke was the figure who more or less perfected the modern liberal argument for separation of church and state.  But this was aimed squarely against attempts to use the coercive power of the state against individual conscience.  Moral principles that received broad support from the faith community weren't even part of his argument.

King was, of course, not just a religious figure in his own right, drawing on his own faith tradition.  His speeches and writings repeatedly interwove secular and religious arguments and citations, and did so both effortlessly and seamlessly, reflecting his onw well-integrated thinking.

There are many other examples, as well.  But these two are so culturally prominent, it's hard to understand how their examples can be so easily overlooked.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 13:38:15 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Positive Examples (0.00 / 0)

are easily overlooked I think, in large part because are in attentive to our own history and our own place in it. Marshall Ganz has much to say about this in his opening essay, as we consider who we are in relation to where we came from; it is out of this that we gain strength in figuring out where we need to go.  

---

by: Frederick Clarkson @ Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 13:44:13 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Locke (0.00 / 0)

Paul, would you direct me to a good starting place in reading Locke in this regard?  

---

by: fordgreene @ Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 14:45:00 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well, It's Not In Great Depth (0.00 / 0)

But the Dictionary of the History of Ideas entry on
Liberalism provides a good overview and orientation.  It makes it clear, for example, that Locke is not so much the original thinker he is often portrayed as, but rather a great integrator and organizer of arguments that others had developed for decades before him.

There are two different aspects of Locke's thought that fit together on this.  His thinking about religious liberty directly, which descends from figures like Spinoza, and his theory of government, social contract theory (his version of which differs significantly from Hobbes) which is a bottom-up secular alternative to the divine right of kings.

In the first instance, he draws a sharp distinction between religious and civil authority, and argues that coerced religious conversion cannot save anyone's soul, since only a voluntary profession of faith can be morally valid.  Hence, civil authorities have no business meddling in matters of faith.  This religious/civil distinction, in turn, is supported by his theory of government, which gives a secular account of the roots of govenment authority.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 15:01:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Religious Establishment (0.00 / 0)

You note that Locke "draws a sharp distinction between religious and civil authority, and argues that coerced religious conversion cannot save anyone's soul, since only a voluntary profession of faith can be morally valid.  Hence, civil authorities have no business meddling in matters of faith.  This religious/civil distinction, in turn, is supported by his theory of government, which gives a secular account of the roots of govenment authority." This is what I find worrisome about the religious right. The right does not care about volunary profession of faith, instead trading what is voluntary for what is coercive and having no compunction about employing the organs of government to enforce its views. That scenario turns the separation between church and state on its head. By superficially employing the constitutional protection for the free exercise of religion, it more deeply accomplishes the establishment the amendement was designed to prevent.  

---

by: fordgreene @ Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 15:13:18 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yes, You've Put Your Finger On The Heart Of The Matter (4.00 / 1)

The right has been very good at promoting a very confusing and misleading narrative about church/state separation.  But you've gone directly to what's wrong with it.  It's not about religion at all, it's about coercion.

And, of course, it was coercion that was at the heart of the religious wars that tore Europe apart for several decades, and made them start thinking about tolerance in the first place.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 15:30:28 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The Value of Freedom (0.00 / 0)

In 1927 Justice Brandeis wrote

"Those who won our independence believed that the final end of the state was to make men free to develop their faculties, and that in its government the deliberative forces should prevail over the arbitrary.  They valued liberty both as an end and as a means.  They believed liberty to the secret of happiness and courage to be the secret of liberty.  They believed that freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth; that without free speech and assembly discussion would be futile; that with them, discussion affords ordinarily adequate protection against the dissemination of noxious doctrine; that the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people; that public discussion is a political duty; and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government.  They recognized the risks to which all human institutions are subject.  But they knew that order cannot be secured merely through fear of punishment for its infraction; that it is hazardous to discourage thought, hope and imagination; that fear breeds repression; that repression breeds hate; that hate menaces stable government; that the path of safety lies in the opportunity to discuss freely supposed grievances and proposed remedies; and that the fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones. Believing in the power of reason as applied through public discussion, they eschewed silence coerced by law-the argument of force in its worst form.  Recognizing the occasional tyrannies of governing majorities, they amended the Constitution so that free speech and assembly should be guaranteed."

What I dislike about the religious right is its intolerance for the freedoms claimed by others, particularly when the exercise of those freedom results in effective criticism of such intolerance.

I am not religious so I don't know too much else to say. I look at the world in view of at least a few fundamental dichotomies: kindness to cruelty; freedom to authoritarianism; honesty to lying; owning to blaming; nurturing to parasitizing.  Anything that helps bring the positive pole of those values to the fore is all right with me, as is anything that openly confronts the negative poles.    

---

by: fordgreene @ Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 14:41:44 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thanks So Much Paul! (4.00 / 3)

This is a great heads up for folks interested in these things -- or who ought to be. I stressed from the beginning that this book was more about questions than answers, but we float a few of those too.

But if there is one question that this book asks and begins to seek to answer it is this: What if there were a Religious Left in the tradition of say, Martin Luther King, Rabbi Abraham Heschel and Rev. William Sloan Coffin, that had the capacity to stop or prevent wars; substantially alleviate if not eliminate poverty, and to create a society that is base far more on justice than on charity -- and a host of other concerns. What would that movement be like, and how would we get there?

---

by: Frederick Clarkson @ Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 13:05:33 PM CDT

As Liberals/Leftists We'll ALWAYS Have More Questions Than Answers (4.00 / 2)

For us, I think, what's most important is prioritizing the most important questions, and that is certainly a great question to put front and center.

There clearly was a significant religious left during the 1960s.  The bridge between the Civil Rights Movement, the Antiwar Movement, and the Poor People's Movement forged by Martin Luther King inspired and activated a wide range of activists and both drew on and helped stimulate a great deal of thought as well.  It's amazing to me how utterly forgotten this aspect of the 1960s appears to be.

This was hardly the first religious left this country has seen, either.  The Abolitionists were heavily motivated by religious belief, for example.  And the Quakers, of course, got the anti-slavery ball rolling in the white community even before the American Revolution.  So it's not like we're talking about an impossible dream.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 13:19:38 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Indeed. not an impossible dream at all (0.00 / 0)

It is the power of the religious left of that era, which lingered on well into the 1970s and early 80s, that made it a threat to the excesses of American foriegn and military policy, as well as the suppression of domestic civil liberties. Those who were not around for that, may not know how important the moral authority and institutional capacity of the mainline protestant churches, Reform Judaism and progressive Catholicism was in stopping the war in Vietnam.

---

by: Frederick Clarkson @ Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 13:27:05 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

How do you organize? (4.00 / 1)

Hi Fred, Paul:

One question I always have is how we go about organizing a religious left. Members of the religious right follow lock-step on most issues, and brook little dissent. Since a religious left would by nature openly encompass many voices and differences of opinion, how does one organize that kind of movement, since organization tends to be about simplifying voices and opinions?

---

by: Robert Lasner @ Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 13:50:11 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

you point to an inherent problem in organizing (4.00 / 1)

and its an excellent point to bring up, Robert.

Organzing first means finding leaders and supporting them. (Marshall Ganz talks a bit about this in his essay)

Leaders bring people together who are capable of ascribing to a common vision, a common mission, and are able to sufficiently agree on how to get there, even admist differences, so that they can go forward together.

Too many groups start out not with leadership in mind but getting everyone they can think of together. That is a recipe for failure. It is the difference between organization and coalition. Coalitions work to the extent that there are a number of organizations that bring sufficient capacity to the table so that their presence is valued and respected and each party has something to contribute.

Ganz in his essay, talks about the characteristics of healthy organizations as opposed to what he calls "disorganizations" -- and we have all been a part of such things to recognize them from his illuminating list. It has been my experience and I am sure that of many others, that there are too many disorganizations. We need to change that.

 

---

by: Frederick Clarkson @ Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 14:03:19 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Leadership Is A Real Problem For/On The Left (4.00 / 2)

We too often can't see the value of leadership clearly because we associate it with it's abuses.

One reason why Altemeyer's work on authoritarianism is so valuable is that it can help us distinguish between the evils of authoritarianism, and the positive features of modeling autonomy and cooperation which is what progressive leadership is all about at its best.

Robert Fuller's work on rankism is also quite valuable in this respect, as Fuller distinquishes between rank and abuses of rank.  While some ranking (white supremacy, male supremacy, etc.) is inherently abusive, some is not, and indeed is vital for efficient social organization--provided it is not abused, and remains guided by principles and accountability.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 14:17:43 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

indeed (4.00 / 1)

Ganz discusses leadership a great deal in his work. He discusses its value, and also noting that there are varities of leadership. Good "organizers" notice people with capacity for leadership of various sorts and make sure they are given opportunities to earn it and that it is valued and respected.

He also distinguishes between leaders and activists, who he says are the folks to knock on the doors, staff the phone banks, and the zillion other tasks that make a campaign or a movement go.

Creating a culture of good followership is important. The too many voices problem Robert points too, signfies a culture that has not managed to work out the good balances of leadership and followership.  

---

by: Frederick Clarkson @ Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 14:25:21 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Looking to learn (0.00 / 0)

You guys are way well read for me. I need a primer that lists the works to which you guys make reference. As an aside, and in connection with the articulation of a vision sufficient to organize many voices, I was so impressed with many of the interviews Amy Goodman did on the DNC floor with various black people. Each one competently described what we are up against regarding intolerance, lying and the abuse of power. And then there was the interview with Rosie Grier (sp maybe), the former football player. Repeatedly crying in tune with the inspiration that Obama (and everybody else) generated on the night of his speech, when asked by Amy about crying, he said words to the effect, "Crying is good. Crying takes the mad out. Crying takes the hurt out." It seems to me that so many people are hurting about the abuses of freedom our goverment meets out every day, that until having a chance to express that hurt such as what occurred at the convention, we don't don't know how emotionally oppressed we really have been and are. That's the stuff which to me can drive the kind of power we need to fight the lies of religion that can only be right by hurting everyone who does not go along with it.  Does this make any sense?

---

by: fordgreene @ Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 14:59:25 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yes, That Interview With Rosie Greer Was Incredible (0.00 / 0)

His honesty, insight and un-selfconsciousness were nothing short of amazing.   Nothing fancy, just raw and real.

As for a reference list, we'll have to work on that--unless Fred's got one handy to link to.  It's a great question question though, and we should make sure to have one when we do a post-publication discussion here.  So if nothing else, keep an eye out for when that happens.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 15:10:21 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

And beautiful (0.00 / 0)

Absolutely, Rosie's humanity was beautiful.

---

by: fordgreene @ Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 15:15:10 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Ford (0.00 / 0)

Dispatches is intended as a place to start. And there is a 3500 word essay of the essential Ganz in there. But all of his teach notes are available on his Kennedy School, faculty web site. He has also developed an online module on organizing for the general public. http://www.hks.harvard.edu/org...

---

by: Frederick Clarkson @ Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 18:37:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Institutionalism (4.00 / 1)

in a way has had an unintended negative effect, I think.  When the Vietnam War started, only a handful of churches--chiefly the Quakers, Mennonites, UUs--were critical, much less opposed.

But in the post-Vietnam era, it seemed like virtually the whole mainline Protestant establishment had become anti-war, at least in the sense of being much more attuned to the pre-imperial roots of Christianity, and much more dubious about state power.

This was certainly a good thing in one very important sense--it definitely helped curb interventionist adventurism.  But it was bad to the extent that it seems to have removed the sense of individual activism as a moral and political necessity.  We need to think about how to create synergy between institutional and individual progressive stances, rather than having the former dampen, even replace the latter.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 13:58:25 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

yep (4.00 / 2)

Institutions have their purposes and their clear limitations. As Sekou points out in his essay in Dispatches:

Martin Luther King's understanding of religion and democracy cut hard against the dominant theology of his time, even within the African American church. In 1958, he and 2,000 other Baptist ministers were expelled from the National Baptist Convention because of their commitment to civil rights. Moreover, of the nearly 500 black churches in Birmingham, Alabama in 1963, only nine participated in the Civil Rights Movement. The "Letter from Birmingham
Jail" was partly written in response to local clergymen who found King's presence to be "untimely."

A Religious Left movement needs to be in but not entirely of the institutional expressions of their faith traditions. There is a strong need for independent, outside organizations that do not suffer the constraints of institutions.

---

by: Frederick Clarkson @ Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 14:09:55 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

That's Another Thing Most People Don't Know (0.00 / 0)

The strong association of the black church with civil rights is largely due to a small minority of churches at the time it counted most, and only became truly widespread after the hardest part of the struggle.

Of course, given that there were virtually no other black-controlled institutions, the black church played an invaluable, irreplaceable role.  But it was only a small handful of black churches that did so.

That said, however, the clergymen King was addressing were all white.  Their leader, Bishop C. C. J. Carpenter, was descended from a minister who was right in the middle of the denominational splits that occured over whether slaveholders could be ordained ministers.  This was mentioned in Parting The Waters, for example.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 14:47:57 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

sure (4.00 / 1)

and part of the lesson we take away is the formation of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference as a leading, and lasting entity that took that struggle forward, regardless of the views of denominations and other insitutions of the time.  

---

by: Frederick Clarkson @ Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 14:53:27 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Timidity (4.00 / 1)

Frederick, first let me congratulate you on the book, and add a further congrats for actually getting Sekou to write a piece and get it in print!

You mention the institutional capacity of the mainlines. Back when the Right organized its "Justice Sundays" to attack Dems around Supreme Court appointments, I sponsored and organized two counter events in Louisville and Nashville. Sekou and Joan Campbell were at both of them, by the way.

My organizing efforts there -- and events in other northeastern and midwestern cities -- opened my eyes to two problems. The first is the timidity of church leaders, panicked at their diminishing parishes. The second is the capture of some national progressive religious leaders by the D.C. consultant class.

I got zero funding and damn little support for the counter-events we did, until all the national press showed up and they turned into major successes.

My question is, how do we activate that institutional capacity they have when the leadership is, by and large, so fearful, backward looking, and timid?

---

by: GlennWSmith @ Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 15:22:47 PM CDT

Great Question, Glenn (0.00 / 0)

Frederick told me he would have to leave around 4 PM Easternm but would check in later in the evening.  I'll email him just to make sure he knows to check back in and respond.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 15:33:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thanks-- and thanks for a great question (4.00 / 2)

I think the shortest answer, having had experiences not unlike yours, is that we need leaders who are not timid. Politically, we cannot keep going back to dry wells. That is the bad news. But the good news is that the absence of leadership means that there are lots of openings at the top!  

My general philosophy is that you work with the people who you can work with, and generally ignore those who you can't, for whatever the reason.

You'll notice that the kinds of people involved in Dispatches who are  institutional people; are involved in organizations have missions that were sufficiently in synch with what we wanted to do that they were willing to participate; or they have situtations that gives them sufficient independence to say what they thought needed to be said without holding back. Or at least not too much.

There will come a time when leaders who cannot or will not lead -- will retire or be replaced. Just like in politics. We need to be ready, developing fresh leaders. At the same time, I think it is unrealistic and perhaps unfair of us to expect more of many institutional leaders than they are prepared to give. That is why I think, that the most meaningful political capacity for a Religious Left of any serious clout, will be from independent groups that are not reliant on mainstream religious institutions for much of anything; and have yet to be invented.

I don't mean for that to sound harsh, although I can understand how some people might think it is. But if we are serious, we have no choice but to see the situation as it is. This is a time of great hope and possibiity, as well as great urgency. Journlist Bill Berkowitz interivewed me for the online magazine Religion Dispatches. It has not been published yet, but at one point he asks me why this book, why now?

I said something like: The ancient rabbi Hillel asked a serious of questions for the ages that helps us place us in the context of our history that asks us If not you, who; and if not now, when?   Similarly, in his letter from Birmingham Jail, Martin Luther King in answering the criticism of the untimeliness of his work, spoke of "the fierce urgency of now."

We need leaders who have the anwer to Hillel's question in mind and understand what King was talking about. If they do not, they may be decent people and competent administrators of great institutions, and lead in many important ways, but not as prophetic leaders; not as political organizers; not as people prepared, as Joan said in the quote above, challenge the powers and principalities of our time in the interest of social justice.

---

by: Frederick Clarkson @ Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 17:23:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I was late returning, but must say thanks (4.00 / 2)

Frederick, I agree up and down the line with you. I'd add that the lack of leadership is contributing to a spiritual malaise as well as political setbacks.

I think timidity is the enemy of natural human yearning, of awareness that there is a problematic to Being. I put this another way for the Texas Observer a couple of years ago. Speaking of courtiers, I said their  political sophistication is the enemy of courage -- they are all about cowardice, about cowardice as the accepted path to economic and power success. We live with something like that today.

But people want fearlessness in their leaders. Maybe I should say, mainline pastors fail because they aren't trying to win, they're trying not to lose. But they're not the only ones, and I feel like I'm singling them out unfairly for a leadership crisis that goes far beyond contemporary religious communities.

I can't wait to read your book. Thanks, thanks, thanks.

---

by: GlennWSmith @ Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 23:36:12 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thanks-- and thanks for a great question (0.00 / 0)

I think the shortest answer, having had experiences not unlike yours, is that we need leaders who are not timid. Politically, we cannot keep going back to dry wells. That is the bad news. But the good news is that the absence of leadership means that there are lots of openings at the top!  

My general philosophy is that you work with the people who you can work with, and generally ignore those who you can't, for whatever the reason.

You'll notice that the kinds of people involved in Dispatches who are  institutional people; are involved in organizations have missions that were sufficiently in synch with what we wanted to do that they were willing to participate; or they have situtations that gives them sufficient independence to say what they thought needed to be said without holding back. Or at least not too much.

There will come a time when leaders who cannot or will not lead -- will retire or be replaced. Just like in politics. We need to be ready, developing fresh leaders. At the same time, I think it is unrealistic and perhaps unfair of us to expect more of many institutional leaders than they are prepared to give. That is why I think, that the most meaningful political capacity for a Religious Left of any serious clout, will be from independent groups that are not reliant on mainstream religious institutions for much of anything; and have yet to be invented.

I don't mean for that to sound harsh, although I can understand how some people might think it is. But if we are serious, we have no choice but to see the situation as it is. This is a time of great hope and possibiity, as well as great urgency. Journlist Bill Berkowitz interivewed me for the online magazine Religion Dispatches. It has not been published yet, but at one point he asks me why this book, why now?

I said something like: The ancient rabbi Hillel asked a serious of questions for the ages that helps us place us in the context of our history that asks us If not you, who; and if not now, when?   Similarly, in his letter from Birmingham Jail, Martin Luther King in answering the criticism of the untimeliness of his work, spoke of "the fierce urgency of now."

We need leaders who have the anwer to Hillel's question in mind and understand what King was talking about. If they do not, they may be decent people and competent administrators of great institutions, and lead in many important ways, but not as prophetic leaders; not as political organizers; not as people prepared, as Joan said in the quote above, challenge the powers and principalities of our time in the interest of social justice.

---

by: Frederick Clarkson @ Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 17:23:53 PM CDT

[ Parent ]