Posted on 02/17/2007 6:23:04 AM PST by NYer
As I have traveled around the country, one line in my speeches always draws cheers: "The monologue of the Religious Right is over, and a new dialogue has now begun." We have now entered the post-Religious Right era. Though religion has had a negative image in the last few decades, the years ahead may be shaped by a dynamic and more progressive faith that will make needed social change more possible.
In the churches, a combination of deeper compassion and better theology has moved many pastors and congregations away from the partisan politics of the Religious Right. In politics, we are beginning to see a leveling of the playing field between the two parties on religion and "moral values," and the media are finally beginning to cover the many and diverse voices of faith. These are all big changes in American life, and the rest of the world is taking notice.
Evangelicals — especially the new generation of pastors and young people — are deserting the Religious Right in droves. The evangelical social agenda is now much broader and deeper, engaging issues like poverty and economic justice, global warming, HIV/AIDS, sex trafficking, genocide in Darfur and the ethics of the war in Iraq. Catholics are returning to their social teaching; mainline Protestants are asserting their faith more aggressively; a new generation of young black and Latino pastors are putting the focus on social justice; a Jewish renewal movement and more moderate Islam are also growing; and a whole new denomination has emerged, which might be called the "spiritual but not religious."
Even more amazing, the Left is starting to get it. Progressive politics is remembering its own religious history and recovering the language of faith. Democrats are learning to connect issues with values and are now engaging with the faith community. They are running more candidates who have been emboldened to come out of the closet as believers themselves. Meanwhile, many Republicans have had it with the Religious Right. Both sides are asking how to connect faith and values with politics. People know now that God is neither a Republican nor a Democrat, and we are all learning that religion should not be in the pocket of any political party; it calls all of us to moral accountability.
Most people I talk to think that politics isn't working in America and believe that the misuse of religion has been part of the problem. Politics is failing to resolve the big moral issues of our time, or even to seriously address them. And religion has too often been used as a wedge to divide people, rather than as a bridge to bring us together on those most critical questions. I believe (and many people I talk with agree) that politics could and should begin to really deal with the many crises we face. Whenever that happens, social movements often begin to emerge, usually focused on key moral issues. The best social movements always have spiritual foundations, because real change comes with the energy, commitment and hope that powerful faith and spirituality can bring.
It's time to remember the spiritual revivals that helped lead to the abolition of slavery in Britain and the United States; the black church's leadership during the American civil rights movement; the deeply Catholic roots of the Solidarity movement in Poland that led the overthrow of communism; the way liberation theology in Latin America helped pave the way for new democracies; how Desmond Tutu and the South African churches served to inspire victory over apartheid; how "People Power" joined with the priests and bishops to bring down down Philippine strongman Ferdinand Marcos; how the Dalai Lama keeps hope alive for millions of Tibetans; and, today, how the growing Evangelical and Pentecostal churches of the global South are mobilizing to addresse the injustices of globalization.
I believe we are seeing the beginning of movements like that again, right here in America, and that we are poised on the edge of what might become a revival that will bring about big changes in the world. Historically, social reform often requires spiritual revival. And that's what church historians always say about real revival — that it changes things in the society, not just in people's inner lives. I believe that what we are seeing now may be the beginning of a new revival — a revival for justice.
The era of the Religious Right is now past, and it's up to all of us to create a new day.
You do realize, of course, that every group on the right that is devoted to a single aspect of conservatism feels the same way, don't you?
No. I distinguish between conservatives and the RR.
Were you or were you not implying that conservatives (like us)deserve the turmoil and grief from the terrorism that is occurring because of said history?
Huh? Are you sure you are on the right thread? I would simply prefer a president who goes after terrorists rather than gays and lesbians.
No..I am not in politics..I'm just sick of everyone being "right" in this country but the type of people who have worked and strove for freedom here for over 200+ years.
We are a wonderful Nation with a generally good history. But to suggest that it has not been clouded by 80 years of slavery, and an additional 100 years of black codes, prejudice and all the laws favoring one group of people is ludicrous. We are a great Nation because we are not afraid to confront the evils within and without. You may not be political, but the thread is, and that is the issue.
Yes..the same people who brought true liberalism to the world....the kind of people who tolerate people from all walks of life yet still allow religion to flourish.
Absolutely, in spite of those who would curb such tolerance and freedom.
...the same people who brought down Hitler and the KKK by their own hands. The same people who welcomed immigrants from many countries and from many religious beliefs and brought women more freedoms then the have ever known.
Absolutely, again in spite of those who stood in the way.
I'm sick of being told by intolerant biased people who discriminate against my family because of "history" that I'm not tolerant enough and deserve everything I get from any journalist with an agenda or mad man with a gun.
Which has what to do with the discussion?
If you want to talk about history, let's talk about more recent history and the fact that the leftist agenda has gone too far in it's discrimination against the Christian right. They have played the hand of the European "Enlightenment" in an age when the enlightenment has proved to be just as discriminatory to freedoms then any other movement.
And just what religious freedom do you no longer have because of the leftist agenda? I can go to any church of my choosing; I can worhip any God I want, or none if I desire. I would suggest less whining and more enjoyment of the freedoms we have.
Lastly, I am sick of being told that I should not be proud of my country and my Christian Conservative heritage and that it is not worth fighting for because of our "history"...the same precious history of America that is currently being rewritten by the very immigrants that we so graciously welcomed and now dominate our elite establishment and the media.
Who has suggested you should not be proud of your Country? It is well worth fighting for. But while we are a Nation of Christians, we are not a Christian Nation. And I prefer to keep it that way. All religions are welcome here, but none to govern.
And take pride in your Christian heritage. But when religious fundamentalists want to decide who my Party's candidate will be based on their litmus tests, I draw the line. I too will shout it from the rooftops, as apparently are many in the Republican Party...finally.
The debacle last year should have told everyone that the catastrophe already happened. To put up a candidate that is acceptable to the RR would continue that catastrophe for another 8 years at least. Most Americans are not tuned in to the RR and its agenda any more.
Nice red herring there.
You raised the issue of colors, not me. Must be your red herring.
As with evangelicals, real conservatives are an obstacle to the conversion of America into a socialist and Third World nation. Thus, conservative Web sites are to be neutralized, by either liberals or their RINO allies.
That's my whole point. The 109th gave up on every legitimate legislative initiative, but had plenty of time to debate stem cells, abortion, prayer in schools, gay marriage and a few other social issues, which most of America didn't give a tinker's damn about. But of those issues of interest to mainstream conservatives include fixing social security, tax reform, immigration reform, strong national defense, energy independence, and a balanced budget, none will be accomplished without bi-partisan collaboration. That means working with the other side to get our main priorities while giving the other side some of theirs. Because Republicans who controlled Congress refused any kind of negotiation, nothing was accomplished. And they paid the price.
Because there are tens of thousands who read this forum but do not post. They deserve to know that not all conservatives are embedded with the RR, and desire a president with an agenda that corresponds with the mainstream of America.
Once again, this is the process. True to the board's founding principles, we hold to actual values. We do not discard them in the face of popular opinion, which can turn on a dime. Sorry if that befuddles some.
If that's the process, then why do so many "social" conservatives try to shut up the majority? And BTW, I doubt the RR has the market cornered on actual values.
"The problem is, they are simultaneously closing the gap between the two evils."
SHOULD READ: The problem is, they are less concerned with preserving the illusion that there is a gap between the two evils.
Appeasement will never replace surefootedness and steadfastness.
LOL!
Nah. I was the sick kid marginalized and demonized by a Christian community and accused of everything you said and worse. Good grades, never a trouble maker, but there was no way I could actually be sick: I must have been crazy, or on drugs, gay and/or sleeping around and getting unheard of diseases.
What's funny to me is how many groups of society that Christians often attempt to legislate against happen to be the only groups that would accept me as a kid (immigrants, homosexuals, dope smokers, heavy metal and punk rock musicians). Anyway, they're all so deadset against anything "conservative" because of the bad history that they become vulnerable to socialist/commie-lite propoganda. I can't help but feel they could be cured of their political delusions if they weren't met with so much hostility by the more logical economic side. And either way, we need a freedom party. We're down to choosing who is going to lose freedom next, already marginalized individuals? already taxed businesses? already taxed consumers? All the politicians agree: someone's gonna have to give up what they have left.
I think its time for a new conservative revolution, and nothing could appeal to the broader American public than freedom from federal interference in personal AND business matters. Whadda concept, I mean, before Bush that type of language was actually written in the Republican Party Platform. (And yes, when he got the nomination back in 2000 he changed the platform and limited government was deleted.)
Pure freedom is the ONLY alternative to socialism. Many on the religious right are merely inventing a new form of economically friendly religious socialism.
"The evangelical social agenda is now much broader and deeper, engaging issues like poverty and economic justice.."
Listen Jim, believe what you want but don't grab my wallet and toss it onto Hillary's collection plate.
Don't they wish! What they don't understand is that, even though folks may not CALL themselves members of the 'Religious Right', they certainly VOTE that way. THAT has been the problem for the Democrats since Reagan, and frankly, with the way the Dems have moved more left the last decade, I can't see it changing. They may try to fool voters with 'conservative' candidates, like they did in the last election, but when push comes to shove, if the Dems are in charge of the House and Senate, more legislation will go their way, and folks aren't gonna like it.
All the while smirking as he said it. Billy Graham always struck me as a phony and therefore I never did like him.
Find the current candidate who is sincerely bleives the above and who can defeat Hillary and I will be happy to support him/her. There isn't one. You have to work with what you got.
I have always considered myself a Reagan conservative, believing that the "religious right" label was to exclusive and limiting. Many conservatives, regardless of how they characterize themselves, are religious and on the right and this will always be so. As much as the left would like to end the political participation of such people, they will never succeed. They have as much right to be politically involved as anyone else.
To the author of this piece, nice try but no cigar.
"and a whole new denomination has emerged, which might be called the "spiritual but not religious."'
Well, in Salzburg on Getreidegasse I myself saw the members of "spiritual" denomination emerging from the place with shop sign "Spirituosen". It must have been a place of worship. In the US we have the people like ted kennedy, spiritual [enspirited] to the point of being a fire hazard. I would argue, however, that this denomination is nothing new, has not "emerged", but has been with us since the dawn of history.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.