The quickest way to screw up a religion is to get it involved in politics. Just look at the Roman Catholic Church, which WAS the governing authority in much of western Europe at one time. We can look to our religions for guidance on morality. But we have to make our decisions on governing based upon a kind of practicality in which we decide what can or should be accomplished through the power of government. Enforcing or even encouraging a particular moral view isn't always appropriate.

...people who support Buttigieg because they think he can peel votes away from the evangelicals don't understand evangelicals.

Trying to counter religious conservatism with religious liberalism is a waste of time. Anyone who honestly still thinks otherwise hasn't been paying attention.

Those who support Buttigieg because they think he will peel votes away from evangelicals are one subset of those who support Buttigieg. No doubt there are many other groups who support him for many other reasons.

And if you do know that, how do you distinguish those people from the religious left, who are already in competition with the religious right for souls as well as as votes.

Otherwise there would be no point to wearing the religiosity on the sleeve. If such people don’t materialize, and there’s little reason to suspect otherwise, that only underscores part of the point it’s a failed strategy. Regardless it’s not a direction worth going even if the remote possibility of success is realized. Once you crawl in bed with organized religion they will inevitably expect power in return.

because that's who he is. And he is running as who he is. As a opposed to the Democratic politicians who are either closet atheists or like to hide their religiosity from secularists to get their votes, but maintain religious ties enough to keep the religious vote.

So it's perfectly reasonable the intent of that is to capture those who vote based on religious preference. It doesn't seem to be working all that well.

One thing I like about him is that he has no secret strategy. He tells you exactly what he is doing.

The book is not yet written on how well this works. Even if he doesn't win the primary (and he knows he probably won't), he's raised the issue and will probably continue to use it in his future career.

"As a opposed to the Democratic politicians who are either closet atheists or like to hide their religiosity from secularists to get their votes".
Why should there have to be Democratic politicians like that?

I would argue against the second part. https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=President+obama+quotes+scripture

One is just how much religion you wear on your sleeve, and Obama was relatively mild compared to some Bible thumping Republicans. The other is that it's more common and therefore more acceptable for African Americans to be religious.

If most Americans distrust atheists (and they certainly do), then politicians putting on a show of their religiosity because it goes over well with the electorate are reinforcing this bigoted perception.

So they are always in a catch 22. They have to stand up for what is right, but if they are too far ahead of they crowd, they could lose to someone more prejudiced than themselves.

In the case of personal religious beliefs, if there are any closet atheists in Congress, I think they believe it sufficient to claim religious affiliation and support separation of church and state.

If kindness, humility, taking care of the poor, taking care of your elders are too "Christian left" you can count me in and I am not a Christian.

It's sad. Fanboyism makes for dangerous politics.

The MAGA club does it, and liberals aren't immune it seems.

As is evidenced by this thread. And pretty much every other thread in GD and Primaries.

Is it OK to base policy on religious beliefs, as long as they're *your* religious beliefs?

that the policies of Democrats in general are in line with the religious left, like it or not. We believe in caring for the poor, the sick, in sex education, in science. Those are the same beliefs of the religious left. If you don't want Christians to vote for Democrats because they're religious people, then we've got a problem.

The "religious left" does not believe in basing policies on religious beliefs. It's just that those policies often are in line with their religious beliefs. I suppose you can't see the difference here?

I think most in the "religious left" believe in the separation of church and state. How's that?

Does everyone on the "religious left" believe that?

but yes, most believe that. That's why they're "left."

One of America's greatest presidents did not try to hide his Christianity. His faith may very well have informed his policy, but he didn't force religion down people's throats. I think it would be much the same with President Pete.

Always the bloodiest wars.

Do explain why it's OK for us to base policy on religion.

He's not basing policy on religious beliefs. He's using his personal beliefs as a moral guide along with other factors. If you have an example that proves otherwise, go ahead and share it.

So there's that.

so no.

If you're looking to pass the Lemon Test, you offer the following platitude: "I'm not legislating my religious beliefs; my legislation is based on my morality, which is informed by my religious beliefs".

As if adding a middle-man changes things.

But if I agree with the legislation anyway and there is no religious reference in the law itself, I don't care if some people came to the same conclusion for religious reasons.

A Christian who knew where to draw the line. So there's that.

I'm at a loss for words.

But a welcome change of pace.

Agree or disagree?

So much for honest discussion.

Christianity has always had a political expression, at least since Constantine, but probably going back to when it was just a Jewish sect, and all the Jewish sects then were political.

Some have always thought Christians should not participate in politics as Christians, some don't even vote for this reason. But that was never the dominant strain. There has always been Christian politics in this country. It has leaned right wing since the 1970s, but prior to that it was more mixed.

So the question is not whether there will be Christian politics. There will be for as long as there are Christians. The question is what sort of Christian politics will we have? One dominated by the right so that the Church becomes an arm of the Republican Party? Or one with more diversity, reflecting the diversity of America? In either case, you don't really have a say in the matter, Christians will make their own choices and you may chose to either ally with some of them or reject them.

I don't think policies should be based on religion and I believe that is unconstitutional. But I don't see anything wrong with an organized religious group engaging in political action. It might jeopardize their tax exempt status, but that's okay with me.

So I really don't see that changing, and I have no particular objection to it. I only object to the right-wing policies themselves, whether they are based in Christianity, Ayn Randism, or both.

Attacking someone's policies becomes attacking their religion.

That's bad for our country, I think.

Some people get upset when you attack their policies and some people don't. That's how politics works sometimes. But I don't see anyone on the religious left arguing that their political positions are unassailable or that attacking their policies is the same as attacking their religion. That's more of a right-wing thing.

Insisting that your position is the correct one because the creator of the universe agrees with you and no one can question you is another.

Is anyone on the left doing this right now? No, not that I'm aware of.

Still doesn't make it OK to do. Base policies on reason and evidence, not on what someone thinks their god wants. That's what the author is saying (they're even Christian, how nuts is that?) - why is it so controversial?

Between religion as an inward looking personal relationship with Christ and religion as an organized social force.

At.least the religious left is committed to separation of church and state, so that any policy they advocate has to have a rational basis. Religious left Christians say that Jesus teaches that we should heal the sick therefore they back universal health care, but recognize any healthcare legislation has to have a secular basis and be executed without religious discrimination such as denying individuals healthcare for "religious" reasons.

I mean, if as you say they're already committed to supporting policies with secular and rational principles, then the author is correct. There shouldn't be a "religious left." Be religious if you want, justify your positions to yourself, but don't base policy on those reasons. The concern here is that the entanglement has the potential to be dangerous no matter how noble your intentions are.

His argument is that Christian theology is meant to be apolitical and otherworldly. But a lot of Christians disagree with him. As we often discuss here, one Christian's theology is no better than another's and secular observers have very little say in it.

My view is that if we are going to have political Christians, better they align left than align right.

The nature of religious belief is the same regardless, and not a good foundation for policy OR politics. That's my argument.

Not all religious belief is dogmatic. The dogmatists get the most attention so they make it seem that way.

but all is based on faith.

It's often used to assert that a legend is a proven historical fact, but not all religion makes this assertion. Rather I'd say religion is based on emotion. But so is politics. As a group, humans are much less rational than they think they are.

Particularly the kind that says not only is faith without evidence good, but faith *despite evidence to the contrary* is even better.

I'm not one to take the equivocation path and throw up my hands to say "humans are irrational, whatcha gonna do."

Because I've pretty much thrown up my hands. I just assume we are all nuts until proven otherwise.

We don't have to give up and say it's all bad. Breaking free of the divine right of kings was a huge step forward.

Now I think the best form of government is Plato's philosopher-kings. The Pre-modern Chinese government gives us a glimpse of what that could look like. Even though there was a emperor at the top, the civil service, which chosen by merit, had a lot of power and maintained stability no matter who the emperor was.

when people began to equate the religious right with Christianity as a whole. It is not. In fact, what the religious right believes is the total opposite of the Christ that Christians are supposed to emulate.

"what the religious right believes is the total opposite of the Christ that Christians are supposed to emulate"

How do yo know? Are you the final word on what Jesus is or is not? You may not believe the same things as a member of the religious right, but you have the same fundamentalist-style fervor and certainty.

Jesus also said that those who do not accept him shall burn forever. Was he just bullshitting about that, or was he serious?

when you claim Jesus says that. I suspect you've plucked it out of context. Most of the times he said things about "hell," he's chastising the people for not being the kind of person they should be (taking care of the poor, for example).

Primarily the teachings of Jesus are about loving your neighbor, giving to others and taking care of the poor. Some of his words can be interpreted in different ways, but much of it (at least according to the translated versions) is quite definitive. There are so many denominations of Christianity because there are vastly different views of what a Christian should believe and do.

Look, I'm not necessarily a believer, so I have no fundamentalist fervor or certainty, right or left. At best, I'm an agnostic. I did grow up in the Church (attending almost daily... I won't go into why) and have some knowledge of the Bible and the words of Christ. I also maintain an interest in Christianity as a whole. Jesus tells his followers without equivocation to do things the religious right ignores and on that I base my opinion that the religious right does not represent what Christ preached. Obviously, the "Christian left" feels that way or they would not have actively worked to try to change the Christian narrative the right has espoused.

Religious beliefs can no doubt be dangerous when taken to a level of fervor that everyone must believe the same thing, and in that, I agree with you. My comment about the religious left is what I believe but no one else has to believe it and I'm certainly not going to try to twist anyone's arm. It is also what the Christian left apparently believes and I was attempting to explain that to you.

The same certainty that Pat Robertson has about the things he thinks Jesus wants.

And naturally, just like Pat, when you're confronted with a verse you don't like, you make excuses. "That's out of context." Actually, no, it isn't. Matthew 13:47-52 where Jesus is clearly referring to people being cast into hell with the "weeping and gnashing." And Mark 9:42-50 where he says explicitly those who sin will be thrown into hell where "their worm never dies, and the fire is never quenched." There are more verses supporting the same thing.

Where did I say that I know what the true message of Jesus is? Where did I ever say that policy should be ruled by religion? Not only did I not say that I directly said it should not.

The verse you first referred to

This is what you said:

Even if you're oblivious to the multitude of problems throughout the past 50 years alone just tuning in today and seeing what's going on in Mississippi, Georgia, Ohio, Kentucky and Alabama should be something that's not OK.

Once a political power crawls in bed with organized religion, they will always demand power and that power will always result in forcing their warped idea of morality on everyone else. This has been the case for thousands of years. Even if it weren't for that, when organized religionists mix with politics there's never any compromise. If they think their invisible friend is telling them to do something, there are no other options.

There's never been a time religion hasn't influenced politics. The current situation is unusual in American because the last 50 years has seen a white religious right wing church vs. a black religious left wing church while white religious leftists sit it out. The result is, of course, the white religious right wins everytime.

It's time the white religious left join their black brothers who have been fighting almost alone. Few Democrats complain that black churches foster religious activism. Many candidates showed at at Rev. Sharpton's forum. It's a only problem now that there might be white people.doing the same thing.

As long as Christianity exists, there will be political Christianity. I can understand if you don't like it. But you are not being honest about what you don't like. You don't like religion itself, so of course you don't want to a religious left, no matter how reasonable. You don't want a religious anything else either.

Maybe you'll get your wish and someday religion will die out, but not in our generation.

A good portion of Europe is now secular with religion having next to zero influence. As far as progressivism goes the US simply trails behind the trends of Europe. So no, I don't see it as far off as you see it especially given the current trend.

I'm talking about the sweep of history measured in centuries.

You might be right that religion will continue it's decline faster than I think.

On the other hand, Europe has a rising right wing now. It hasn't affected religion in Western Europe, but it has helped religion in Eastern Europe. Things may change in Western Europe as well.

"Prediction is hard especially.about the future."

if they happen to coincide, then lucky them, but they need to be separate.

As for the religious left, it may be a minority thing that attracts some who are already on the left, but it's misunderstanding what the religious right is, which is a massive political force that is driving policy and laws backed by rich religious dudes. The left will never match that.

It's very interesting how upsetting this is for some people to consider, even otherwise secular liberals.

The same reason they say "God bless you" to sneezing strangers. They think the sentiment is good, so why wouldn't anyone want to accept to it?

despite it being based on a forgotten medieval tradition that not even the most brain washed fundamentalist believes.

I guess if you think it imposes some sort of religious privilege on you, you can ask people to say "Gesundheit" or nothing at all, instead.

Some customs are just stupid and should go away.

It was and is a quaint custom in some regions of this country for white people to refer to African Americans using the N-word. Just let that slide too?

As much as I may like Pete and his policy positions, he will never win a "religion" battle with the religious right and, more importantly, pushing a religious view in policy making is a HUGE slippery slope and breaks down the wall of church and state.

Keep your religion away from the government.

Or perhaps you regretted the way President Obama carried himself in office?

in fact it was weaponized against him, and he was forced to abandon his church and pastor.

So he did leave that particular church. He did not abandon his religion, but he wasn't a "hardliner" either. That's the sort of open-mindedness that can allow a president of faith to appeal to non-believers (like myself).

2016: Final Easter Prayer Breakfast

“(O)ur faith changes us. I know it’s changed me,” Obama said. “It renews in us a sense of possibility. It allows us to believe that although we are all sinners, and that at times we will falter, there’s always the possibility of redemption. Every once in a while, we might get something right, we might do some good.”


2015: Eulogy for the Rev. Clementa Pinckney, pastor of Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, S.C.

“Our pain cuts that much deeper because it happened in a church," Obama said. "The church is and always has been the center of African-American life, a place to call our own in a too often hostile world, a sanctuary from so many hardships. … That’s what the black church means. Our beating heart. The place where our dignity as a people is inviolate.”

This wasn’t an “unfortunate linkage”.

It was a church he attended. The pastor wasn't someone Obama vetted and endorsed. The pastor expressed views, on his own volition, that Obama obviously found offensive.

Obama left that particular church. He did not abandon religion. So if you choose to keep ignoring the overarching argument that a religious individual can still make a forward-thinking and widely-admired, respected and cherished political leader, then you're wasting everyone's time.

Let's see how you'd handle this question:

What would you have had Obama do in light of controversial statements by Reverend Wright? Stand by him? Obama had no control over what Wright chose to say publicly.

And regardless of that, the larger point still stands: Obama was a principled president who abided by the tenets of his chosen religion. Pete Buttigieg could most certainly follow suit.

was weaponized against him.

And yes of course he should have stood up for Wright. But the political circumstances made that impossible. So what Obama demonstrated was that his religious convictions were subservient to his political ambitions. And that is ok with me, obviously, but not what he was trying to do, which was to somehow undermine the GOP’s stranglehold over religious voters.

Oh, really?

You think you truly know all of Obama's motivations? And you disagree with him disowning Wright?

So you also believe Hillary Clinton had this issue all wrong too?

There is no religious principle that required him to stand by the politically ill-advised and/or weaponized remarks of his pastor, even if he did officiate at his wedding.

And even if you are right about whatever Obama did or did not do correctly, this is a different time, with different candidates. They say generals always fight the previous war, now it seems you are fighting the previous 3 elections.

I responded to a post claiming that somehow Obama got it right with respect to religion and politics.

He didn’t. It nearly derailed his campaign right at the start.

In another 20 years this bullshit won't be a factor (Thank God)

You are a little hard to talk with, now that you mention it.

So what about the non-religious origins and nature of much progressive thought? Shouldn't it be acknowledged?

And many religious progressives speak of the faith based roots of their progressivism.

And among the non-religious, there are progressives, and the not progressive. That too should be acknowledged.

Doesn't matter if that theocracy is right-wing OR left-wing.

Keep your dogma out of my government, guillaumeb.

the dictatorship of the dictator who holds power.

Could we?

We want to preserve the non-theistic "dictatorship" we have in the US, not make it a theocracy, left or right.

China made an effort at that, with the People's Revolution.

antithesis of popular democracy. They have proven themselves incapable of relinquishing authoritarian rule and inevitably descend in Stalinist corruption.

Last edited Mon May 27, 2019, 12:11 PM - Edit history (1)

... advising them how to deal with Muslims, though, probably isn't helping.

Background Summary of .modern Chinese History?

Mao on his long march had at least claimed to be supported by the peasants he promised to help; against centralized capitalists/empirialists. Mao though WAS excessive. And eventually Maoism was partly given up.

China retains a nominally Marxist goverment. But allowed a capitalist economy. Which resulted in a much better economy, and trade with America and the west.

In the absence of any reliable religion, China long ago sought social stability through a Confuscian bureaucratic/ethical state. When western imperialism interferred, imperialists were eventually thrown out. And then compromised with.

To retain social control, government and education remained.

... as I told him...

I don't want to live under Evangelical rules, I'm sure they don't want to live under the more progressive.

Build that wall.. between Church and State.. and enjoy religion as you deem fit.. not as your neighbor deems fit.

If we had more pastors actively promoting the principle of Separation of Church and State, rather than standing by and shaking their heads at those who actually work to preserve it, I think we'd all be a lot better off.

That's the title of this article, but they get it wrong. God has taken over the GOP, now he wants the Dems.

https://www.ncronline.org/news/politics/god-becoming-non-partisan

"We're seeing not just the religious right but we're seeing the emergence of, perhaps, a religious left,"

I do not want to hear about the religious beliefs of candidates for any office. I want to hear plans to help people live their lives better.

So, please, Democratic candidates, leave your religion in the sanctuary of whatever church you attend.

Biden talks about growing up in Scranton and having to move to Delaware. People seem to like that, but it's not a plan.

I never heard anything about Pete Buttigieg leading the religious left.

making any official public proclamation reqarding religious doctrines and practices so long as participation is consensual and no harm is done.

Other than the routine celebratory and goodwill messages that are commonplace in statecraft, similar to birthday greetings and sympathy remittances released for any personage of note, the state should never start down that slippery slope of religious endorsements.

The public, however, can engage in most any type of religious furor on their own time and time, and the state should make that separation clear. The faithful cannot expect the state to use the Treasury, or its mighty powers to endorse or enable their preferred diety when their own efforts at attracting followers have failed.

And it has no official place. But expecting people to erect some type of intellectual wall between their faith and their actions seems counterintuitive at best.

Religiously processed people selectively ignore history, science, archeology and objective evidence to maintain the fiction of their chosen supernatural fairytale. They deny other religions the right to adhere to their chosen dieties. And let's not forget how the pious would treat atheists if only they could get away with murder without getting caught.

There's nothing "intellectual" involved in the fantacies, fears, hatreds and taboos of religion. It's just another very effective brainwashing technique that is used successfully by every relgious sect, large and small, the world round.

Last edited Wed May 29, 2019, 03:50 PM - Edit history (1)

...you're doing it wrong.