People are leaving religion because they are more educated in science over mythology.

There is no such thing as "progressive religion." All religions are regressive and backwards.

Well that's demonstrably false. All you have to do is look at things like Unitarians, Reform Judaism and African American churches. Or take gulliameb himself. Whatever his other faults are, he is a progressive religionist.

There is no such thing as a progressive religion because the terms are mutually exclusive. You cannot be truly progressive and believe in ancient mythologies.

One is politics. The other is metaphysics. If someone takes 100% progressive political positions, does it matter if they believe in Inanna? How many civil rights activists would be there be according to your definition?

It matters right at the moment they feel the need to enlighten you to the mysteries of Inanna.

You also misunderstand my argument. I said there is no such thing as a progressive religion. I stand by that statement because I feel that any belief in supernatural beings is mythology and is not relevant in today's world. Resorting to supernatural explanations of things just because we cannot explain them at the current time with our current knowledge is really not progressive at all. It is falling back upon the old, regressive ways of our society.


I did not say there is no such thing as a progressive theist. There may exist people who hold very progressive views and ideas of how our politics and society should operate who also believe in mythological beings. Those two things are not mutually exclusive.

The first is bad but the second is okay? A progressive can believe in mythological beings but not be a member of religion that has a belief in such beings? And who said a religion even has to be about explaining anything or even have a concept of the supernatural? Buddhism doesn't require any supernatural beliefs. Unitarian Universalism does not require it either. Reconstructionist Judaism doesn't care if you believe in God or not. And if I fall back on any "old, regressive ways of our society," I am not a progressive? Does that mean I can't join the Society for Creative Anachronism? What if I start a new version of an old religion? Neo-Paganism maybe?

Your correct I misunderstand. Because it's a bundle of contradictions. Progressivism is a political philosophy. What I choose to do on Sunday morning, whether it's pray, meditate or perform pseudo-paleolithic ceremonies in the back of caves has absolutely nothing to do with do with it. Unless I want it to. With your approval or without. Based on my understanding of religion, not yours.

I thoroughly enjoy the work of Joseph Campbell, Huston Smith and others. The Vedic teachings are endlessly fascinating and insightful. Taoism and Buddhism are full of wild and crazy stories full of insight. Indigenous cultures throughout history and across the globe have amazing knowledge in their myths which I think if we could learn to understand them in a modern frame of reference could save us from ourselves (much of it dealing with right relationship to the natural world that we modern humans seem so estranged to). I recognize too that it's not everyone's cup of tea either. But categorically dismissing myth as false is throwing out a tremendous amount of knowledge that our ancestors passed onto us.

And I happily identify as a progressive.

Those two things are not mutually exclusive. Do not confuse a formal meaning of believe with a colloquial meaning of believe. We believe many, many things in a colloquial fashion. I believe the sun will rise tomorrow. I believe that when I release an object from my hand the effect of gravity will cause it to collide with the earth.

One can easily believe in feeding the poor and assisting the ill without having to believe that a Rabbi existed named Yeshua who performed miracles and was crucified and rose from the dead.

One can believe in the moral and logical teachings of just about any mythology as many of them present quite good moral and ethical ways to exist together as humans.

There is no need whatsoever to believe in supernatural beings though.

I can easily find ten far left progressives who believe in ancient crystal healing or some other sort of old timey mystic stuff.

So your position is the only true progressives are agnostics or atheists??

So Bernie Sanders is not a true progressive in your mind.

I didn't say there can be no religious progressives.

There is a difference.

Please, it's a silly argument, just stop.

Anytime someone says something can never be X or is always Y, the odds are really high there's an exception.

It's not a silly argument to say any religion based on faith in supernatural beings cannot be progressive.

It is not progressive to return to fairy tales to explain life.

naturalist and existentialist?

[I mighta concocted some non-words here..🤔😊.]

I fail to see how it is relevant to the topic.

I don't believe that's possible either.

Without doctrine and dogma you don't have a religion worth discussing and those two things are always backwards looking. Progressive ideology requires reason based solutions, not abandoning reason in favor of mythology. So while you might find examples of religions which favor progressive politics, theology by it's nature isn't progressive. Some are just less regressive than others.

If we cut out actual religions to include only those "worth discussing" then the thesis becomes meaningless.

Do you know of any? It would look something like we don't believe in anything and there's no rules to follow.

I don't know of any, but I'm not discounting the possibility. Either way it isn't worth discussing because arguably it isn't a religion at all.

intended to produce spiritual experiences. Spiritual does not mean supernatural, but specialized emotional states. Some religions claim that the practice itself creates the special states, so there is no need to believe in the teachings, just participate in the rituals.

Religions that don't have dogmas but could qualify under this definition include Buddhism, Taoism, ancestor worship, Unitarian Universalism, Reconstructionist Judiasm, shamanism and animism.

Other religions might have limited dogmas that have no direct ethical consequences or only progressive ones. Transcendalism might qualify. It's only belief seems to some type of pantheism, and adherents can draw their own conclusions from that, but they tended to be progressive, since oppressing someone else is like oppressing God.

Whether or not they have both dogma AND doctrine is debatable, but all have at least one or the other with some providing the ability to opt out of one or the other while still remaining in the club. Regardless without either you don't have religion or anything remotely recognizable as religion.

The only difference is the barriers to some aren't as high as others. It may even be true that the barrier is so low it doesn't present any significant hindrance to the application of progressive policies, but neither does it provide any inherent benefit.

Progressivism as an ideology requires solutions for reform that are bounded by reason. When you incorporate theology that departs from reason, you haven't introduced anything productive and have instead introduced an element that at least has the potential for hindrance whether or not it's realized. In other words, whenever you introduce metaphysical hocus pocus to a reason based approach, you aren't helping regardless of how benevolent those motives might be.

because if you had posted this there I could at least give you a "like," or probably a "love" heart. YOU NAILED IT!

And for progressive atheists, all that really means is that you regard progressive religionists as political allies, nothing more or less. That's effectively the situation we are in now, as black churches play an important role in representing progressive ideas and getting out the vote in their communities.

That doesn’t necessarily mean I’d want to ally with them.

But religious and atheistic progressives share the same political goals.

If the political goal is to elect more people with a D after their name, then that goal would seem to be shared by anyone who votes for more people with a D after their name.

If the political goal is to make government more secular, then I’d think anarchists would be more certain allies.

Often the goal is to vote Dems into office. Right now, that alliance includes all anti Trump people, including some pretty far to the right.

For secular government, most progressive religionists seem to believe in separation of church and state, but I can also disagreement there in some cases.

Anarchists are problematic because they push for radical anti-government solutions. I don't see them sticking with progressives very long or being willing to compromise.

Last edited Thu Nov 29, 2018, 11:47 AM - Edit history (1)

Now they run the party.

Noam Chomsky describes himself as an anarchist, which is a far more nuanced position than the vandalizing shitheels who gather the most publicity. I am somewhat an anarchist in that I believe all government power should be perpetually justifying itself or dismantled. I don't feel that's all that radical, but the problem with allying with such folks is the shitheels will always find ways to worm their way in. The same can be said for trying to ally with religionists.

Alliances aren't always situational and temporary. The suggestion the OP makes has about as much chance as a fart in a whirlwind, but what happens if it actually was successful? Once the GOP's religionists start to loose influence, they will undoubtedly seek it on the other side. If anyone wants to vote for democrats, I say if it feels good do it. That doesn't mean I want to be their allies.

It's more likely to be their progressive children. Could it be problem years down the road? Sure, a lot of other problems could break the coalition too.

I think the article exaggerates the case. It's not like we will all unite under a religious banner. It's more like religious people repelled by the right will find a home with the left.

To the detriment of the party.

When the GOP meets its inevitable demise, there's little doubt they will try to make a home back on the left and with it they will once again demand regressive policies. As you say this will be more of an effect than cause.

I'm not into populism.

Do not want any more of it, thanks anyway.

But, I can get behind Reverend Barber. If religion is about helping the poor, the vulnerable, the exiled, I'm all for it.

Sure. Why not?

The unprecedented Democratic activism and turnout in this midterm. And, dare I say it, Bernie Sanders? Or maybe Howard Dean before he got steamrolled by the stupid media. How quaint that scandal is now!

There are people/things that I like on that list.

And there are some things that I want nothing to do with.

Howard Dean we can agree upon completely, although I hadn't ever thought of him as a populist.

recently. It looks like some have tried to mold it into an exclusive group that doesn't necessarily reflect many women's views.

The devil is always in the details. I'm skeptical of "movements." They often tend to become ideologically narrow and restrictive.

Which looks like that is happening with the Women's March. On the other hand, it created a burst of energy at the beginning that bore fruit in otjer ways, so maybe it has served its purpose.

It was after that when the battle began to organize it for the future. That's when the factionalization set in, as it usually does.

Sometimes, the strong leaders are who send things off the rails, unfortunately.

https://www.vox.com/identities/2018/3/7/17082030/womens-march-louis-farrakhan-tamika-mallory-anti-semitism-controversy

I do know that it has factions that often don't agree with each other. I'm not a woman, so I don't keep up with it on a regular basis.

One or more prominent Women's March organizers have connections to Louis Farrakhan, which understandably does not sit well with Jewish Women's March supporters.

Odd that religion, the progressive panacea, has been something of a detriment to that movement.

Tying populism to a religion is a common thing, but it almost never turns out well. Given the exclusive nature of religions in general, it sets up an "us vs. them" issue every time.

Here, Donald Trump is a great example. He tied his clearly populist political campaign to the conservative fundamentalist Christian bloc. We can see how well that turned out.

Our OP has a blind spot regarding religion. He cannot, or will not, see the evil that is done by religious groups. Religion, for him, is always benevolent and kindly or something.

Populism almost always has a scapegoat group it targets. That group is held up to be the cause of all ills. Religions are quick to identify "others" as the problem as well. The combination is toxic all but members of the "in" group.

A pox on religious populism.

Like many religionists, he is quick to take vicarious credit for social progress made in the late 19th and 20th centuries because other religionists were involved in the struggle, but he is keen to avoid discussion of the fact this progress was won from people no less religious. He doesn't want to talk about religious opposition to these social movements, and how that religious component to conservatism has made injustices all the more tenacious and difficult to combat.

If that is how you view the world.....

up lame straw men...

can lead to authoritarianism, so I vote absolutely no.

Why do you want to alienate them?

The smaller tent strategy?

martyrdom?

And apply your same logic.

I think we should unite around our progressive political goals.

You think everyone should unite around your (progressive) religion.

Yes, one of us is going to alienate people. Which one do you think it is?

Hm. Not very progressive, then, are they?

Me too.

Climbing into bed with people who favor mythology over reason and have an inherent inability to compromise their dogma and doctrine.

Pretty much the only thing Goldwater got right was pointing out how bad of an idea it is.

After thousands of years of being unable to solve our political problems, perhaps religion needs to step aside.

Fuck that noise.

"MY religion is awesome and everyone needs to follow it! No trust me, I'm totally not like those other guys who say their religion is awesome and everyone needs to follow it!"

It's just another example of someone ate up with the Law of the Instrument.

No thanks. That's already been done, and it didn't work out so well.

Not a model I believe we should follow. He, too, linked religion to his populism. He lied, of course, but populists are famous for lying.

Perhaps some investigation into the subject of populism would be beneficial to your understanding.

It paves the way for orange men who shit on gold toilets yet pretend to be a man of the people by appealing to emotion rather than reason.

two completey mutually exclusive concepts. Progressives make decisions based on science and data which is complete opposite of any religion. We are a secular nation of secular laws, no religion should even be discussed by any government officials, let alone using it as a guidance for decision making. The freedom of religion is severly limited by secular laws in the US. But we do have freedom from religion which is key to any progress. The future of human development has no place for religion.

China is a majority atheist country.

You keep bringing them up.

government, and that hatred for minorities?


On the other hand, I do like Dim sum.

But you like their food!

That's very nuanced of you.

its citizens?

If not, that might explain the apparent confusion.

If so, I'm curious to know how China's atheist majority is relevant to this discussion.

People are leaving organized religion because the people who organize religion clearly do not practice the principles underlying their own religion, particularly self-described “christians” who reject anything Christ-like.