Rather than put this response within your thread, I started a new one, because I can do that here. I also replied within your thread.

Obviously, I'm responding to what you posted. Since you did not include any comment on your linked article, I assumed that you had no opinion on the matter. So, I decided to do some analysis of the concept and create a new thread with a title that clearly identified it as a response.

You did not say anything about the article. I did. Do you have any response to the substance of my post? You did not offer one. As of this writing, you have also not bothered to respond to comments in your own thread. Why not?

So, here's a new thread on the subject. I see you have replied to it, but not to its substance.

Actual history proves that your position is incorrect.

But I suspect we are referring to different things.

I understand the need of some to present religion as a bad thing. I do. But ignoring the past and present existence of religious progressives risks alienating allies. Making the Democratic tent smaller is a losing strategy.

DU is generally an opportunity to learn.

You two keep arguing right up to election day and I will see you both in line and we will vote straight democratic ticket together!

But before then, I will be working on electing a more progressive Democrat like Marie Newman to replace Dan Lipinski, the anti-ACA Representative who barely beat her in the IL 3rd District.

Perhaps in 2020. I did not know you lived in that district.

Our social justice group held and/or co-sponsored a few events. Lipinski is anti-choice, anti-ACA, and a member of the No labels and Problem Solvers groups.

Choose a different challenger in 2020.

It is a solidly blue area.

worthy of a lookup for those under 40.

to replies posted there. But, you're replying now, which was my goal.

And the regular small crowd of naysayers did an excellent job of revealing their own feelings.

In fact, you made no case at all. You simply pasted in an excerpt from an article without comment as is your wont to do.

That's why I started a new thread on the subject. You never returned to your original thread until I posted the new one. Of course, you chided me for starting a new thread, as expected.

And marylandblue did a fine job of making the points that I could have made.

represent your opinion unless you say otherwise? That's good to know, Guy. I always wondered about that, since you often post them without comment. From now on, then, I'll assume that you agree with the article unless you say otherwise.

I post what I find to be interesting.

Since your habit is usually to post such excerpts without comment, I've always treated them as mere curiosities you have discovered. But, then you just told me that you agreed with a particular one. I guess I'll go back to my original assumption, then.

You could fix that, of course, by adding comments to your copy and paste posts, to indicate how we are to take them.

If I may make a suggestion, though: Do read the entire article before pasting a portion of it. A number of times, you have embarrassed yourself by not doing so.

And it is seen in many of your posts.

And it reveals much about you, and nothing about those to whom you direct it.

And what it reveals, well that is for others to judge.

whatever it was you were trying to say.

The "history" you referenced has exactly zero examples of a progressive religious populist movement overcoming a decidedly overwhelming regressive religious populist majority.

The anti-slavery movement ws led by theists.

The Civil Rights movement was mainly led by theists.

I believe that 2>0.

...again.

And you tried to frame your question to be unanswerable, but failed.

Of all the most prominent civil rights leaders, MLK,Jr was the only one who wasn’t secular. The movement was started by the NAACP, major unions, and community organizers. Discribing the movement as led by theists(plural) is either dishonest or ignorant of “actual history”. I get you desperately want to claim everything that’s good comes from theism while disclaiming all the bad, but this one is even exceptionally ridiculous by your standards.

Getting called a history failure by someone who just tried to convince us how great missionaries have been for indigenous people is something of a knee slapper, so please do continue. Soon there won’t be a dry eye in the house.

Slaveholders were theists.

The Jim Crow laws were written by theists, who were elected by theists.

Now what?

As was Lincoln.

Now, on to the civil rights movement.

How is it relevant that the vast majority of people on both sides of these issues were theists?

Humans are not perfect.

Therefor, any subset of humans is not perfect.

So, what point were you trying to make? People's stances on these issues doesn't seem to have corresponded with their theism or lack of it. So, why do you think the theism of people on one side of an issue is relevant, and the theism of people on the other side isn't?

When it comes to the issue of slavery in particular, the Christian slaveholders could demonstrate that the Bible explicitly endorses the practice of slavery, and never specifically condemns it. It's even supported by the 10th Commandment, in which God commands the people not to covet their neighbors' slaves.

And they often attempt to justify it by citing outside sources.

Many US citizens still feel the atomic terror attacks on Japan were justified.

But progressive theists were involve in every progressive movement in the US, and to deny that is to deny history in service to an agenda.

As were progressive atheists, Guy. Apparently there is no connection between progressivism and religious beliefs, you see. As someone who was active in both the civil rights movement and the anti-war movement, I knew both religious believers and atheists who were leaders and activists in both movements.

Everyone worked together. Religion was not the issue at any time. The injustices were.

Perhaps you don't have that experience. That's sort of surprising, really.

working day and night to deprive women, LGBT people, and religious minorities of equal rights. It is theists doing that. They are motivated by their religion and they believe what they are doing is pleasing to God.

It was also theists who executed heretics, invaded Muslim countries during the Crusades, blocked the sales of contraceptives in the United State until the mid 1960s, and did a host of other decidedly non-progressive things.

Some theists, a minority, did join with other progressives in a wide range of movements. Some. A minority. When they did, they found themselves working alongside atheists, agnostics, and others on common concerns.

It is a mistake to conflate a minority with the majority. A majority of theists are conservative thinkers, rather than progressive thinkers, whether the subject is religion or soclal issues. If that were not the case, we'd have solved many very difficult problems long ago.

It's good when theists join with others for social justice. It is a shame when the majority of theists does not join in the same goals.

Some try to use faulty logic to "say the thing that is not," as the Houyhnhnms put it. That is regrettable.

And history, recent and past, shows that theists have always been in the forefront of progressive populist movements.

I have worked with Quakers and Unitarians as recently as this year on the Marie Newman campaign.

As to progressive atheists, I know a number of them, but this is the religion group, and the dsicussion centers around progressivism as it relates to theism.

of people on only one side of these issues was relevant, so much so that you pointed it out twice.

In post #45, you said: "he anti-slavery movement ws led by theists. The Civil Rights movement was mainly led by theists. I believe that 2>0."

Then, in post #60, you said: "And the abolitionists were theists. As was Lincoln. Now, on to the civil rights movement."

You conveniently left out the fact that it was theists put in place the system of slavery in the United States, and who later enforced racial segregation and systemic discrimination. Don't you think their theism is equally relevant?

And by what mechanism do people determine what it is they wish to do?

It's ok. We'll wait.

But progressive theists were involve in every progressive movement in the US, and to deny that is to deny history in service to an agenda.

If you mean "can't exist," I'd have to point you to the Episcopal church. We're a small church, and we're having internal struggles regarding LGBT justice, but for the most part, we're pretty progressive.

I realize that the Episcopal Church, along with the ELCA Lutheran church and others are more progressive in nature. They're also much, much smaller than the conservative denominations, only three of which I mentioned, since they were the largest.

Unless we elect a gay bishop or Michael Curry goes to England to preach to the royals.

Last edited Wed Nov 28, 2018, 02:39 PM - Edit history (1)

while I was in high school. My girlfriend at the time went there, so I went with her and sat with her family, to increase their confidence in me, as it were. After we broke up, though, I went back to the Presbyterian church I normally attended.

so not sure how you get a Dem or a progressive elected President without a whole lot of Christians voting for said person.

He focused on the conservative Christians. They turned out for him, too. It was very, very close, and wound up being a state-by-state win, despite losing the popular vote.

Trump is a populist. He won, with the help of the religious right.

she did get 3 million more votes, and I'm fairly confident that demographically the majority of them were Christians.

Obama won twice, again, majority of the folks that voted for him were also Christians.

Populism worked quite well for Dems in another time and era, it's working for Trump now. It will work for the next person who can wield it in the future who could easily be on either side of the aisle. Heck, Sherrod Brown uses it to win red Ohio quite easily.

Most of those who did so still support him and would enthusiastically vote for him again if given the chance. We'll get nowhere if we pretend this isn't true.

I don't know what the numbers were for Obama's elections.

She got 3 million more votes. The vast majority of this country is Christian so the vast majority of voters are Christian.

Regardless, Obama got a lot more votes than his rivals, particularly McCain. I'd wager he got more Christian votes.

The point is refuting the argument that Christian populism can't work on our behalf. Of course it can. Doesn't mean it will, and doesn't mean it can't work for the other side.

Protestants voted 58% Trump and 39% Clinton.
Catholics voted 52% Trump and 45% Clinton.
Mormons, whom some people count as Christian, voted 61% Trump and 25% Clinton.

Christianity is a misogynist religion, so this shouldn't be any great surprise.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/how-the-faithful-voted-a-preliminary-2016-analysis/ft_16-11-09_relig_exitpoll_religrace/

This link also shows data from some previous elections.

This is also exit poll data which is usually off one way or the other by a bit.

I strongly suspect some of those "religiously unaffiliated" self-identify as Christian. Both Obama and Clinton won that group handily.

Point is, plenty of Christians vote Dem, and it's not like it's some blowout except among evangelicals.

It makes sense that a higher percentage of Catholics voted for Obama than for Clinton.

Yes, plenty of Christians vote Democratic. In 2016, most of them didn't. It's foolish to pretend otherwise just because you wish it wasn't so.

five percentage point change between Obama 12 and Clinton 16.

that's a pretty small change relatively speaking.

Most? There was a seven percentage point gap between Trump and Clinton among Catholics. Hispanic Catholics voted for her at a 71 percent clip. Higher than Obama in 12.

There are racial and other components here as well. It isn't simply "misogyny." It's a host of things.

Courtesy of Merriam-Webster

Definition of most (Entry 1 of 6) adjective
1 : greatest in quantity, extent, or degree
2 : the majority of

Most Christian voters went for Trump. I never said it was a huge majority, but it was a majority. That means it was most of them, by definition.

you'd define it as "most?"

I'd wager "most" people wouldn't define it that way, and to do so would be technically correct but pretty disingenuous.

That is the definition of the word. I didn't make it up.

At this point and I think you know it

If you parse out the white evangelical and non-Hispanic white catholic vote you get a whopping 2:1 margin of people who reliably vote R.

For the time being, anyway.

They are far more likely to be more regressive on social issues like abortion and LGBT. So it’s not as if they are the most progressive on the left to begin with.

Some theists right here on DU have said outright that they think abortion is wrong, that it's taking a life, but they're not inclined (right now anyway) to favor forcing women to give birth. Isn't that generous of them?

I can't help but wonder what those numbers would look like if the Republicans had put up a candidate whose political positions were identical to Trump's, but who didn't have such a long public history of amoral, disgusting behavior.

Whenever you start assigning hocus pocus spirits to protoplasm it leads to all sorts of bad decisions.

A) Most Americans identify as Christian
B) Obama got the most votes

Ergo Obama must have gotten more Christian votes.

I shouldn't have to explain the fallacy here.

If the DNC were to adopt a platform of misogyny, homophobia, racism, and xenophobia, then yes a religious populism movement might work for them, but then they would no longer be the party of progressivism.

Are in disaggreement with their Clerical Overlords about such things as divorce, abortion, birth control, etc. When Hispanic Catholics are factored in, even more so.

As long as those in the pews continue to support the hierarchy, their Clerical Overlords have no motivation to change.

Many are not in disagreement, too.

People outside of the church organization have no legal standing regarding the RCC, it’s assets, it’s operations, it’s organization.

Inside the RCC it is an authoritarian hierarchy.