Revolution in Jesusland (4.00 / 1)

I agree with Paul's analysis and also find the survey data he cites very significant, though not all that surprising.

What I'd like to introduce into the discussion is the perspective reflected by Zack Exley in his new blog called RevolutioninJesusLand (http://revolutioninj...), which Matt cited the other day (http://www.openleft....). 

While some progressives may be quite wary of what Zack is saying--and, even more so, of the people he's writing about--I'm inclined to think that these trends are parallel, and potentially synergistic to each other, and to the progressive movement.  To repeat an excerpt cited by Paul:

In our interviews, we kept encountering young people - both those inside the church and outside of it - who said that something was broken in the present-day expression of Christianity. Their perceptions about Christianity were not always accurate, but what surprised me was not only the severity of their frustration with Christians, but also how frequently young born again Christians expressed some of the very same comments as young non-Christians."

One of Zack's key points is that there's a generation of young evangelicals who feel this way very strongly, and are, as he puts it, trying to "revolutionize" their churches to "act more like Jesus" than like angry, self-righteous and hypocritical right-wing Republicans.  After all, by my reading, Jesus was a radical progressive in his time, challenging the corrupt establishment, helping the poor and sick, and trying to teach people how to live truly spiritual lives.

One of Zack's main themes is that one of the strengths of this grassroots movement of young Christian "revolutionaries" is its ability to nurture and promote leaders, something he contrasts to some extent with the progressive movement.  I'm not qualified to evaluate his comments on this subject, but they seem worthy of serious and honest consideration.

Another of Zack's themes seems to be the potential for common purpose and alliances between these young Christians and the progressive movement. This too, I think is worth some serious thought that stretches beyond knee-jerk reactions and stereotypes (on both sides of the dialog).

I posted a comment on Zack's blog in a recent thread (http://revolutioninj...).  While I tried to point out some of the key problems I see with basing one's perceptions and behaviors on strict religious beliefs and selective quotations from scriptures,  I also acknowledged the possibility that the "movement" Zack perceives may indeed be a positive and important one.  My post closed with:

When I read some of  Zack's stories, I can't help but see some parallels to the 60s, when the younger generation (many of whom, including me, were raised in the suburbs, where many of today's mega-churches have sprouted up) found itself crying out for a more authentic connection to spirituality, one that impacted our everyday lives and choices (and our nation's politics and policies), not just a once-a-week attendance at church or synagogue.  One that sought to transcend hypocrisy, rather than to hide behind it.  To some extent, that same passion seems to be driving these young evangelicals, though there are real differences between the two eras and "movements", including some (e.g., abortion, sex, gay rights) that remain relatively "hot button" and potentially contentious.

If that's what's happening, then I share much of Zack's enthusiasm for it.  We need more, not fewer spiritually inspired and idealistic young people in this world. 

My hope is that Christians and those who follow other religions will come to realize that we are all children of God and brothers and sisters in this world.  Though I'm no expert in the Bible, I believe Jesus said: "The kingdom of heaven is within you...Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God...Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself…Love is the fulfilling of the law...Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the sons of God."

These statements seem like a good foundation for building dialog, and also for building meaningful and fulfilling lives and communities.  If the people Zack has been writing about are sincerely trying to do that, than I salute them and pray for their success.

---

by: mitchipd @ Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 12:12:46 PM CDT

There's Been A Real Battle In The Evangelical Establishment (0.00 / 0)

Not much noticed by progressives or the M$M, there's been a real struggle to broaden evangelical's political involvement to include concern for the poor and the environment on a par with "traditional values" over the past few years.

The Evangelical Climare Initiative has a statement which reads, in part:

While we cannot here review the full range of relevant biblical convictions related to care of the creation, we emphasize the following points:

  * Christians must care about climate change because we love God the Creator and Jesus our Lord, through whom and for whom the creation was made. This is God's world, and any damage that we do to God's world is an offense against God Himself (Gen. 1; Ps. 24; Col. 1:16).

  * Christians must care about climate change because we are called to love our neighbors, to do unto others as we would have them do unto us, and to protect and care for the least of these as though each was Jesus Christ himself (Mt. 22:34-40; Mt. 7:12; Mt. 25:31-46).

  * Christians, noting the fact that most of the climate change problem is human induced, are reminded that when God made humanity he commissioned us to exercise stewardship over the earth and its creatures. Climate change is the latest evidence of our failure to exercise proper stewardship, and constitutes a critical opportunity for us to do better (Gen. 1:26-28).

But there's opposition:

Those signing the statement and backing the initiative include the presidents of 39 evangelical colleges, leaders of churches and aid groups such as the Salvation Army, and a few evangelical superstars, such as Rick Warren, author of the best-selling book, "The Purpose-Driven Life."

Those opposed also include some high-profile evangelical leaders, such as Charles W. Colson, the founder of Prison Fellowship Ministries; James C. Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family; and Richard Land, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention.

Twenty-two of these evangelical heavyweights who oppose the initiative signed a letter in January that said, "Global warming is not a consensus issue." The letter was addressed to the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE), a group of churches and ministries, which last year was urging its 30 million members to pursue a "biblically balanced agenda" to protect the environment along with other key issues such as fighting poverty.

The letter asked the NAE not to issue any statement on global warming or to allow its officers or staff members to take a position-and that's exactly what happened.

If anything is going to substantially change direction, it would seem a good bet that it's going to be precisely this sort of pressure from below coming mostly from the younger generation.

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 12:36:36 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Is there alliance potential? (0.00 / 0)

A question that intrigues me is whether there is real potential for any forms of alliance between "progressive" evangelicals and (perhaps especially) what Exley calls "revolutionary" young evangelicals, and the progressive Democratic party, including (and perhaps especially) the netroots.

Zack seems to be laying out at least a tentative argument that there is.  I'm agnostic but hopeful on the question.  Subsets of this question are:

1) on what issues?
2) including what forms of cooperation?
3) how would such alliances deal with potentially strong intra-alliance disagreements on social issues like abortion and gay rights?

---

by: mitchipd @ Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 13:13:13 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I Think It's A Very Mixed Bag (0.00 / 0)

While some may hang everything on the idea of a broad alliance, I think that's a stretch, and I see no reason why that should be our benchmark.  The fact is, Democrats already get a good chunk of the evangelical vote, particularly the black evangelical vote, and we can get much more without getting 100% agreement.

The political question is very much a matter of salience, rather than purity.  Raise the salience of issues that are actually clearly and consistenly addressed in the Bible--such as concern for the poor and the environment--as opposed to those that are marginal and muddled--gays and abortion--and you will shift the balance.  This is what we can reasonably hope for, and should be concerned about.

BTW, I'm working on a story about bottled water, and here's an excerpt from a press call held yesterday.  There reference isn't specifically religious, but it is moral, and it clearly resonates much more powerfully with core Christianity than free market consumerism does:

[Mayor Ross C. "Rocky" Anderson of Salt Lake City, UT:] .... This is not only an economic and environmental issue it is a moral issue as well, it very clearly reflects the wasteful and reckless consumerism in this country [4:00] one has to wonder why anybody would pay up to ten thousand times as much for bottled water as tap water costs when the bottled water is so environmentally disastrous in so many different respects.

This is an example of how to frame issues in a way that invites cooperation, without requiring lock-step agreement across the board.  And that's where I think that our greatest potential lies, because it does not require anyone to sacrifice what they may see as core principles.

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 14:44:11 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Underlying themes to link the issues (4.00 / 1)

That makes sense. 
While I tend to agree with you on the value of raising particular issue salience and casting them in moral terms vs. aiming for broad alliances, I think there are shared moral elements linking these issues, and that to a large extent, these fall within the umbrella of the "dignity and security for all" theme you've discussed.  So, while a broad alliance may not be a productive goal, highlighting these underlying themes may have value in helping to expand the cracks in the Republican base and, over time, expanding the scope of the Dem base.

I wonder how these young "revolutionary" evangelicals will evolve as voters.  I'd think this will depend, at least in part, on how well the Dems are able to raise the salience of and communicate the moral nature of some key issues.  As you noted, the Christian Bible seems to have a lot more to say about helping the poor and the sick than about homosexuality or abortion rights. Based on the recent track record, however, success on this front would seem to require something of a revolution within the Democratic party, its leadership and its communication and overall strategy.

---

by: mitchipd @ Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 16:04:55 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Agreed On All Counts (0.00 / 0)

Religiously-grounded discourse is going to be inherently thematic and inter-connected, rather than segmented, and themes like "dignity and security for all" are meant to help enhance the connectedness along progressive lines that derive from multiple sources, both secular and religious.  But I don't expect everyone to magically take up that theme as their own all at once.  It does, however, seem to have a compelling logic to it, at least from where I stand.

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 17:18:46 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The survey data from Barna... (0.00 / 0)

...seem to suggest that gay rights are an extremely potent wedge issue with which to separate the younger generation of christians from the older.  Anti-gay attitudes are apparently one of the ingredients feeding the overall "unchristian" malaise.

So I don't think the answer is to downplay gay issues at all.  It's exactly the kind of topic that should be framed and discussed at the level of fundamental values.

---

by: Sportin' Life @ Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 20:40:02 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Precisely! (0.00 / 0)

Like the t-shirt says, "God don't make no junk."

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 22:18:16 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not a job for politicians. (0.00 / 0)

All they have to do is talk about what Christianity means to them, and quote a few choice Bible passages admonishing those who are otherwise inclined.

Or they could just STFU about their sectarian fantasy lives. There is no reason to degrade political discourse even further by adding "religious" disputes to liberal campaigns. If politicians can't make their points without pious posturing they need to find new careers.

I have no problem if Clinton or Obama or Huckabee et al derive their social ideas from Christianity or Judaism or paganism or atheism -- it's the ideas themselves that are of interest, not the sectarian propaganda that may have influenced them. I don't want to hear from candidates what Christianity/whatever "means to them". That's their private business and of no more political significance or attractiveness than their sexual fetishes or fashion preferences.

I don't know who you include in Versailles, but it's not the politician's role to correct Christianity or any other sectarian belief system. That role would have been the work of Christian congregations, but it was more important to maintain the Christian brand than to risk it with open theological/social confrontation. The Methodists were too busy nattering over the fine points of tolerating gay bishops to go out to Phelps and Dobson and publicly call them out on their corruption of Christianity. Now there is no credibility left on any side. The chickens have come home to roost. It's about time.

---

by: DaveW @ Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 12:59:03 PM CDT

I Beg To Differ (4.00 / 2)

I have no problem if Clinton or Obama or Huckabee et al derive their social ideas from Christianity or Judaism or paganism or atheism -- it's the ideas themselves that are of interest, not the sectarian propaganda that may have influenced them.

First off, religious traditions are far more than simply "sectarian propaganda."  If you don't believe that, then you really ought to read up on the history of Quakerism and its major role in laying the earliest groundwork for the eventual abolition of slavery.  Or the book, Daughters of Light: Quaker Women Preaching and Prophesying in the Colonies and Abroad, 1700-1775, which tells the story of what I like to call "0th Wave Feminism."

Secondly, the insistence on just talking about "ideas themselves," and not talking about the values behind them, or personal narratives that recommend them is one of the key reasons that Democrats and progressives consistently come up short.  For better or for worse, most people relate to issues, policies, and programs through the lens of personal, individual experience, and to reach them you simply have to speak that language.

There is no necessity whatsoever to talk about the fine points of sectarian doctrine.  Quite the opposite, what is most appealing is precisely the common values--the fact that, as noted in my port, "the most commonly cited positive thing said about Christianity is 'that Christianity teaches the same basic ideas as other religions.'"

Furthermore, if you read or listen to the speeches of Martin Luther King, Jr, you will find excellent examples of religious and secular moral arguments woven together.  There is nothing the least bit offensive about these speeches--even for an atheist like me.  The problem is not religion per se, the problem is religion as an authoritarian prop, presented as both infallible, and as immune from scrutiny or criticism (lest it be found to be not quite so infallible after all).  And unless we can learn to draw that much more fundamental distinction, we will repeatedly continue to shoot ourselves in the foot.

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 14:32:11 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Great diary, Paul (0.00 / 0)

Fascinating and cause for hope, I think.

On the specific point of talking about "values" and "personal narratives"--yes, yes, absolutely.  But I (and I think a lot of people) share DaveW's frustration with the overload of ostentatious piety the country has been subject to for the last decade.  Moral arguments are not necessarily religious arguments, and in fact good moral arguments aren't, strictly speaking, religious arguments at all--even when they use King James rhetoric.  Good moral arguments penetrate directly to the human conscience and transcend any and all faith traditions.

Mara Vanderslice and the other "faith consultants" are busy trying to convince Dems to talk about their personal relationships with Jesus--to disastrous effect, imo.  You're saying something different, but it's liable to be misunderstood.  The absolute last thing we need is more congresspeople talking about what this or that god wants us to do.

---

by: Sportin' Life @ Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 20:19:31 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

'Faith Consultant' Is A Blasphemy If Ever There Was One (0.00 / 0)

I guess I need to clarify here.

I'm not advocating that anyone strain to talk about their religion.  I'm not at all down with stoning.  But if I were, faith consultants would be first on my list.  The Bible is just so down on those who parade their faith, you just wouldn't believe how fast those folks are headed for hell--if you believe in that sort of thing.  (That's why it's so obvious that Pat Robertson, et. al. are a bunch of phonies.  If they really believed what they profess to, wild horses couldn't drag them in front of a tv camera to act as they do.)

I just think that we--progressives and Democrats--should not shy away from talking naturally and comfortably about whatever moral teachings, foundations, experiences or inspirations move them, just because a gang of rightwing hypocrites have been shoving their sanctimonious BS down our throats for the past 30+ years.

I am not a reactionary in any sense of the word--including reacting to how rightwingers have poisoned religion for many people.  Just because I'm an atheist I don't have any desire to squelch people of sincere religious faith.  I'm sure it's at least partly because I'm also a spiritual person, and I realize that most folks express their spirituality via a belief in God, even though I regard that as superfluous.

Finally, to clarify what I am talking about--it's something on the order of Abraham Lincoln praying (rather than assuming) that he was on God's side.  There's all the difference in the world between one and the other.

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 22:13:43 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

A Fuller Seminary student's thoughts (0.00 / 0)

I am new to seminary school and attend Fuller Seminary in Pasadena, CA.  It's a school with an interesting mix of evangelicals and liberals.  From what I've observed, there are a lot of evangelicals who get that Christianity has to include the peace and social justice element if it's going to be taken seriously.  I'm finding, as a liberal that I have much in common with these more conservative students.

We still differ on key issues like homosexuality and abortion but I think these younger students (except for those that are keen on the missionary work - the "international school" at Fuller) see the emphasis needs to be on acting in accordance with Jesus' life.  I also think there are things about spirituality and community that liberal students like myself can learn from these evangelicals - it's learning both ways.

It's all very encouraging and I'm in the heart of it in a school too liberal for many conservative churches to recommend their members to attend and too conservative for many liberal churches to recommend their members to attend.

I think naturally, things are shifting away from the perversion that Christianity has become both because of the Christian Right and because of the timidity of the mainline Christian churches to live more aggressively into the life of Christ.

All this being said, it's important as we consider the electoral implications of this shift, we don't lose sight of the importance of a) being a Christian demands political action for what we believe and b) demands we owe allegiance to know party (be equal opportunity critics).  Christians are not a group that should be captive to one party or another.

I think this shift in Christianity will lead to more accountability in both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party....if it's an authentic shift for the good.

---

by: pbriggsiam @ Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 15:01:24 PM CDT

Correct Me If I'm Wrong (0.00 / 0)

But doesn't Fuller include Fowler's application of cognitive development to spiritual development as part of its curriculum?

If so, have you been exposed to it yet?  I'd be interested in hearing about it if you have.

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 15:43:33 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

if it is, it's not apparent for new students (0.00 / 0)

Hi Paul,

No required classes stood out in my mind that are related to how spiritual development occurs.  The school of psychology on campus might spend more time on it though.

I'm in the School of Theology - focusing on biblical studies and theology.  Inspired to deepen my faith by the likes of Marcus Borg, James Carroll (Constantine's Sword is outstanding!), Karen Armstrong, Reza Aslan, Peter Gomes....

Have you read anything by Alan Watts? He wrote a book called "The Book: on the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are".  There is some interesting discussion about human beings knowing themselves best as children and how it gets deprogrammed out of us...until our 30's when we start to question things finally!  Parker Palmer offers some simple insights on this as well, calling what we seek (what I would call authentic being) vocation.

Thanks for doing that post!  It is something I will reference with people.

---

by: pbriggsiam @ Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 16:44:59 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not Only Have I Read Alan Watts, I've Heckled Him (0.00 / 0)

I have no doubt he's a good influence on most people.  But there comes a point where he's just a bit of a pompous ass, particularly if one takes the perspective that spiritual systems are at least partially replicative and supportive of cultural systems they are part of, so that values of "transcendence" must be taken with a grain of salt, particularly when land theft and the like are involved--as they almost always are when those being talked down to are indigenous people, who often happen to have an inordinate fondness for masks.

Did I say, "masks"?

A couple of years after publishing The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are, where he goes on quite a bit with his typically British air of superiority about masks and the art of the put-on, Watts was scholar-in-residence at San Jose State College, near where I lived with a bunch of beatnik/neo-Dadist friends.  We attended the his lecture based on The Book all wearing identical Colonel Sanders masks, and asked some rather pointed and disrespectful questions, doing our darnedest to represent the masks-are-illuminating-and-revealing point of view, and using all his dualism-is-an-illusion rap against his efforts to portray masks as an emblem of hiding, and self-deception.

Watts was quite flustered, probably more by the simple fact that we weren't all worshipful and reverant than by anything we actually said.  But a number of the audience were positively livid, and tried to tear our masks off, even coming close to blows.  "Take off you masks!" several of them screamed at us, and we responded in kind, turning it into a chant.

Afterwards, wandering on our way home, we came across the local Democratic Party headquarters, which of course, was primarily dedicated to trying to elect Hubert Humphrey.  It was initially my idea to go inside, but probably only because I got there first.  I started raving at them for stealing all my chickens and running them for office as a way of keeping my legal property away from me.

If only we'd had had the internet back then, we could have webcast the whole night.

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 17:10:22 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater (0.00 / 0)

Sounds like a wild and fun evening...

I'm not sure what you mean by "transcendence," Paul, nor did I ever meet Alan Watts, though I found his books helpful and interesting when I read them about 35 years ago.

But, having been around some genuine and many versions of bogus or semi-bogus "spiritually aware" people, I'd encourage you to avoid throwing the baby out with the bathwater.  The tendency to "talk down," hide behind masks, and be dishonest and abusive to others and/or oneself is pretty universal, and dogs those who claim to be on a spiritual path as much as those who claim to be educated intellectuals, tough guys, creative geniuses, hard working Americans, good Christians, or whatever.

But, as I said in a discussion that got slightly heated on the Revolution in Jesusland blog, the proof is in the pudding (or as I put it in biblical terms "Know them by their fruits"). 

The baby I hope we don't throw out is that, for some folks, myself included, certain types of meditation and related practices have helped us realize that there's a realm of inner experience that does "transcend" duality (and all of our accumulated and convoluted "identities").  As I see it, this realm and its significance is pointed to by all religions and spiritual traditions, though much else has been layered on top of it over the years (and the wars).

And, for me (and others), having some connection with this inner realm does make me less likely to hide behind masks and do harm in this world, and helps me think more clearly and creatively about how to live and work effectively, and to act with a bit more courage and integrity in doing so.  And, importantly, it can provide a sense of peace that is available even amidst the external stresses of life, where "duality" is the name of the game, and where human greed, suffering and strife are in painful abundance.

My father recently passed away and I was there with other family members at his bedside.  That experience of witnessing his physical decline and "exit" provided me an unwelcome but unavoidable workshop in dealing with painful realities.  It reaffirmed in multiple ways what I'm trying to describe here, though it's very difficult to convey in words--even to myself.  Amidst the sadness and grief, I felt a transcendent peace, and a sense that there was something in him that had passed but had not died, something that I could feel viscerally but would be hard pressed to explain.

On some level, it felt like I was connecting within me to the realm where my father had gone, and thus could sense his presence even after his body was empty of life. That sense is presumably not verifiable by today's science, and might serve as rich fodder for all sorts of psychological theories but, in my view, this reflects their still primitive state of development with regard to fully understanding the depth and richness of live on planet earth. I'm sure many will disagree with me on this, but I'd doubt that their theories would be provable either.

As I tried to convey at the RevJesus site (but maybe wasn't very effective), I think its this "inner" realm and how to integrate it in our lives that genuine spiritual teachers (regardless of whether they are affiliated with any religion, or which that might be) are trying to help us understand and experience.  Unfortunately, the simplicity and naturalness of it all has gotten lost in religions, ego-driven teachers and teachings, and complex theologies, psychologies and philosophies. 

Watching my father take his last breaths, while doing my best to be fully conscious at all levels of my being (including allowing myself to feel the sadness and pain), deepened an experience of life that I believe theology, philosophy and psychological theories are all hard pressed to understand and explain. 

To me, this "baby," which has been variously called "transcendent awareness," "inner peace" and "Self-knowledge" (among other things), is very precious.  In its simplest and most universal form, I believe it has the potential to help us shift the direction of our modern world from accelerating destructiveness to something that, starting from the inside out, begins to resemble "heaven on earth."  We already have or are developing most of the technology to achieve this, we just haven't yet found a way to live harmoniously with each other and ourselves.  That's where the stuff I'm talking about can help.  I'm not saying its a replacement for political action.  Not at all.  But I am suggesting it can help inform and guide political action, and enhance individuals' fortitude and clarity when dealing with the inevitable frustrations of political life.

When we throw out the bathwater of hype, duplicity, manipulation and abuse, my suggestion is to use a filter built not only of intelligent and careful discrimination, but also of sincere seeking for what's true and real, and a touch of humility in the face of a universe that, to understate it, is vast and still largely mysterious to modern science.  Though I often forget some of these ingredients, when I get the mix right, progress comes a lot faster, smoother and easier.

---

by: mitchipd @ Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 22:48:53 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Recall My First Sentence (0.00 / 0)

I have no doubt he's a good influence on most people.

So, no baby-throwing from me.

Just pointing out that there's a level at which our spirituality as well as our materialism and militarism is an imperialist force, in spite of itself, and it needs to find a way out of that space. 

Also important:  "Transcendence" is a verb, not a noun.

I was raised Unitarian, and the son of teachers--my mother taught grammar school in England before I was born while my dad got his PhD in English.  So I was into the Transcendentalists before I hit junior high.  But in high school, I discovered Whitman, whom the Transcendentalists considered uncouth, and while the two streams seem rather close together from our distance in time, I appreciate both, but the actual writing I identify with is Song of Myself and I Sing The Body Electric.

"Primative" cultures have some very important insights that we easily lose sight of, not just as superior military powers, but also as "superior spiritual beings."  And this is not at all about being a New Age groupie.  See, for example, Lewis Hyde's Trickster Makes This World: Mischief, Myth, and Art.  Trickster-born, appetite-driven creativity, discovery and invention is far more central to true human epistemology than all our fantasies of downward-flowing divine vision.  There's a sense in which suppression and demonization of the trickster is the source of all imperial woes.  Of course, tricksters have to be restrained to a certain extent, but demonization only makes them wilder, more uncontrolable and more destructive.

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 11:19:24 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Can't imagine you throwing babies (0.00 / 0)

I did catch and appreciate your first sentence.  And based on your writings, I wouldn't view you as a baby-thrower anyway.  Sorry if it came off at all that way. 

My main purpose was to provide a different perspective in response to some aspects of your post and how it might be read by others. And I was into this kinda thing anyway, having ventured onto a comment thread at Revolution in Jesusland, where I encountered someone who takes the Bible quite literally.  Though he seemed like a nice and sincere guy, I didn't see much room for productive dialog, so wished him well and exited the discussion. It seemed unfortunate in some respects, but necessary. So, after trying without apparent success to share some thoughts on this subject with religious bloggers, your post yesterday provided an opportunity to do more or less the same with progressive political bloggers.  I think I got it out of my system--at least for awhile :-).

As with history and other subjects you write about, you're probably much better read than I am about much of this, and I may check out some of your references.  Most of my understanding comes from practicing meditation and relatively simple exercises, with a very practical focus on the benefits I receive.  I have done some scattered readings over several decades, but never put much effort into an analytical synthesis, intriguing as this might be.  My business partner, whose got a PhD in cognitive psychology and also practices his own version of meditation, is much more interested in (and capable of) understanding it from a broader theoretical and historical perspective.  At least I can provide him with another "data point" in his effort to synthesize a range of perspectives and theories on all this stuff. 

BTW, will you be continuing to build on your series of weekend posts?  I hope so.  I may be commenting less due to time and mental-resource constraints, but look forward to at least reading more.

---

by: mitchipd @ Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 17:41:43 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Vichy or Versailles (0.00 / 0)

I get it that Versailles Democrats are Democrats that are still carrying water for the rich. But wouldn't Vichy Democrats fit in better with the Bush Dog meme?

Jeff Wegerson - Prairie State Blue

---

by: wegerje @ Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 22:09:41 PM CDT

Washington, Lincoln, etc. (4.00 / 1)

Read through some of the inaugural addresses and they belie many of the "facts" of the current religious or at least sectarian leaders. 

George Washington studiously ignored the use of the word "God" in either of his inaugural addresses, instead relying on general phrases that seem deist: Almighty Being, Invisible Hand, and Parent of the Human Race.  Jefferson used the phrase Infinite Power and cautioned about the fair practice of religion.

Lincoln's first Inaugural address made frequent references to the Constitution but none to God.  His second Inaugural contained the most specific Christian claim of any of these speeches, "both sides read the same Bible and pray to the same God."  Lincoln used the word three times in the speech including the famous phrase"with firmness in the Right as God gives us the Right."  He also used the words Almighty and Lord.  Lincoln was a highly spiritual man but certainly not in the conventional sense.  He was well known to be quite open to listen to ministers on spiritual matters but quite disappointed that most merely wanted to discuss the tactics and exigencies of the war.

Theodore Roosevelt seemed to return to the Washington/Jefferson tradition.  Not only did he avoid the word God, instead he used the vague phrase Giver of Good.

FDR faced two of the nation's greatest crises in the Great Depression and World War II.  Each of his four inaugurals contains some reference to God but it is hardly an overarching theme, in fact it is usually a grace note at the end of the speech ("thank God", "blessing of God" "will of God" "presence of God" and in the second inaugural the phrase "Divine Guidance").  Interestingly, in the midst of the lead up to World War II he lists as a great accomplishment, "the bill of rights remains inviolate."

I expected George W. Bush to flood his speeches with specific references.  Not so.  Bush used the word God twice in each inaugural.  Unlike FDR, these are not stylistic or grace notes.  Unlike Lincoln, Bush hardly shows the same desire to humbly follow what wisdom is available.  Bush's God is a God with a special relationship to America and at least some of its residents.

Ironically, at a time when the country's religious practices are the most diverse in our history, the current purveyors of religion seem to assume a version that most definitely was not practiced by the Founding Fathers and has not been a part of the American experience to date.

The American Sharia of Ayatollah Dobson et. al. has no place at the American Table. 

---

by: David Kowalski @ Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 04:38:57 AM CDT