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.
Are you sure you're on the right forum? This is not myspace.com. If you want to debate an issue, fine. If you want to make silly inane remarks, try someone else, or ask your folks to explain it to you.
Any court that can find a constitutional right to partial birth infanticide will have no problem finding a way around the Defense of Marriage Act. It is ludicrous to think otherwise.
The constitutionality of this act is even questioned by some who believe in the original interpretation of the Constitution.
What he really means is the religious will no longer have rights now that the left has won control of the house and senate...and they hope the whitehouse.
Rudy versus any Dem will gaurantee that an anti-Christian will be the next President.
LOL
Wishful-thinking Alert
Our founding fathers clearly wanted freedom of religion, but wanted our Nation governed in a secular manner. As I have stated before, 'We are a Nation of Christians, but we are not a Christian Nation".
Then why did they not insist that the states who had explicitly Christian state constitutions at that time amend them before they could join the United States?
Definitely something to consider. I don't think that the religious right's era is over by any stretch, and most of us can agree with their message. Yet, I think the movement should consider reevaluating its messengers and the way in which their message is received perhaps.
So then let's make a list of all the things we fear a court could ever rule on that we wouldn't like, and have a whole series of amendments. I fear that one day a court somewhere might find capitalism unconstitutional. Should we start an amendment process?
Silly? Yes, and so is the unwarranted fear of the loss of DOMA. Sure a district judge somewhere might rule against it, but no circuit court including the 9th will ever rule DOMA unconstitutional. And if per chance that ever happened, no USSC would agree. So you are worried about something that has less of a chance of happening than you winning the lottery.
The constitutionality of this act is even questioned by some who believe in the original interpretation of the Constitution.
Who? Here is the wording of Article IV:
Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.
The DOMA was enacted pursuant to that clause by Congress and signed by Clinton. On what basis is DOMA inconsistent with the original intent of the article?
As if slaughtering unborn babies was a form of "social justice".
There were many things they failed to do to live up to the greatness embedded in the Constitution, including slavery, child labor, women's rights. But time has resolved many of those shortcomings. Every one of those so-called Christian state constitutions, and there were several, violated the US Constitution with their explicit religious tests. I don't make excuses for the failure of the federal government to protect the rights of its citizens. But it has learned over the years that a government's first duty is to protect the rights of all of its citizens, not just good Christian white male landowners.
Something the left doesn't begin to grasp...Christianity thrives under persecution.
I don't read it that way.
As far as the court issue goes, I hope you are right.
However, a couple more appointments of liberals to the SC, and all bets are off.
I think it is pretty clear to a reasonable person, whether they agree with the result or not, that the Supremes have functioned for about 50 years as a "super legislature." Personally, I will be quite surprised if within 20 years the Supremes have not only invalidated the DOMA, but discovered a positive right in the Constitution for gay people to marry each other.
Nonsense on stilts.
The Constitution prohibited any religious test for officers of the United States, not for those of the states.
The 1st Amendment prohibited congress from establishing a religion, it made no comment on whether a state could do so.
It wasn't until the post civil war amendments that the bill of rights was applied to state action.
Only a fool makes national predictions based on the opinions of "people I talk to."
Maybe it's because the social conservatives tend to support nannystating politicians who are the exact opposite of what real conservatism is supposed to be?
Uh no.
Social conservatives need to get it into their heads that most people in this country don't like being told how to live their lives. Under a socially conservative president, we have seen more expansion of government than any president at least since LBJ.
And many destined for martyrdom again. But you know, I think that's when the church is at it's best anyways.
A true follower of Christ knows you can not extort money from one to give to another.
Then look up the cases. There are several.
However, a couple more appointments of liberals to the SC, and all bets are off.
The next two appointments will be replacing liberals. And the court will be dependable for the next 30 years before any shift in the balance.
I think it is pretty clear to a reasonable person, whether they agree with the result or not, that the Supremes have functioned for about 50 years as a "super legislature."
Most of those I think you are referring to have been interpretations of the 14th Amendment right to due process and equal protection of the law. The recognition of rights for those previously denied such protection has traditionally brought out cries of anguish from those already protected. From my perspective, most of that legislation from the bench comes out of the district court and the 9th Circuit. And most of it is reversed.
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.