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.
Well perhaps you can help then. Of the approximately 1000 bills initiated during the 109th covering Social Security, how many were voted through? Of the major SS legislation, which bills passed either house?
HR 440 to provide for individual security accounts was referred to Ways and Means on 2/1/05, the beginning of the 109th.
Of course the Senate was kicking butt too. There's S-857, a bill to reform social security by establishing personal savings accounts and limit the budget. It was read twice in April of 2005.
That's quite a record. Didn't see anything in them about tax increases though.
So I appreciate your counsel to keep away from the left wing talking points. I should probably stay off those left wing House and Senate web sites too....
Mt 10:23 But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.
That is a response to what I said, exactly, how?
You are full of it. Get over yourself.
I stated that the Republican Congress failed to do anything meaningful, including social security reform which they and the President promised. You told me they did all they could and even offered up higher taxes, but those Democrats just stopped them cold. And you suggested I stop listening to leftist talking points.
In response I gave you all the major legislation on social security offered up by both the House and Senate in the first year of the 109th Congress, none of which got out of any committee or even subcommittee. Nor was any action taken after March of 2005 on any of those bills.
Now I don't know how the House Democrats stood in the way of anything. Perhaps you can enlighten me as to how the minority in the House can use procedural rules to stop all legislation. Even in the Senate, there is no record of any attempt to bring the bill up, so I don't know if there was a vote to cut off debate or not, but I'm sure you have kept up with it. Nor did I see any tax increases reflected in any of that proposed legislation as you said.
You are full of it. Get over yourself.
Perhaps if you're going to try and flame someone, get some help.
Jim Wallis can kiss my pious @$$!
Thanks for the scripture, it's much appreciated. Paul didn't employ that universally, so I suspect it's not a blanket directive, but point well taken. God bless.
We are, of course, 17 months away from the GOP convention and 20 months away from the general election. Any one of the candidates might be found with a "live boy or a dead girl" or can shoot themselves in the foot with stupid statements. (Hillary is extremely vulnerable in this area, BTW.) In any case, almost 75 years of expanding government and shrinking personal freedom must be reversed. The track records of the three Republican front runners offer little hope of any progress, and the party leadership and the large contributors must be made aware of the intensity of dissatisfaction with these candidates.
It wasn't for you; but for ME! ;^)
OK - from WHAT, then??
Nonbelievers in a higher being still believe that certain natural rights exist in all humans that are part of the human makeup.
Huh??
NON-believers 'believe'??
Not I'm completely befuddled...
Rights do NOT 'evolve'.
Why 'obviously'?
I've not seen it put this way. You are RIGHT!!
What horse$hit is this?
I've never bought into the "religious right" label in the first place.. but the left is finding its religion? Get out of here... the left just makes up what it wants to be religion as it goes... it appeals to no one but those whose actions are not condoned by traditional societal values.
"I'm awaitin' for the debatin'!!!"
Can you not accept that man is a much higher intellect than any other member of the animal kingdom? If you can accept that, then why can you not accept that man has developed characteristics both bad and good which include jealousy, envy, greed, morality, justice? Why does it require a higher being than humans to see that other humans have needs? Why does an understanding of the term "justice" by man require a higher being?
Chimpanzees have been observed demonstrating the obviously human trait of empathy. Was God necessary to give him that? Or could the continual development of a brain finally reach the stage where those higher level characteristics manifest themselves, simply as a product of the evolutionary process?
NON-believers 'believe'?? Not I'm completely befuddled...
I said that non-believers in a higher being believe.... Why does that statement trouble you?
Rights do NOT 'evolve'.
Perhaps, but what is your authority for that statement? I'm not interested in a discussion of evolution, because Christians can and do believe in evolution. I'm concerned about now. And now persons have rights. Some believe they were endowed by a Creator; others believe that humans have those rights as a result of being a human. Were slaves endowed by their Creator with the same rights as say Thomas Jefferson?
But by what Standard are they bad/good?
With no external reference point, it's mere circular logic.
Why does it require a higher being than humans to see that other humans have needs?
What do I care if some other poor sap has 'needs'? What's in it for me?
I'm bigger and stronger than him, so if he's got something I want, I'll take it and he'll have MORE needs!
By the standard that has evolved through the development of society. I told you that your belief that those qualities can only be imbued by a higher being is no more valid than my belief that the evolution of the human brain brings about those qualities...both bad and good. And the standard is natural. Bad is what hurts other people, good is what helps other people. As I said, Chimps can do it, why can't humans?
With no external reference point, it's mere circular logic.
Evolutionary development is not circular logic.
What do I care if some other poor sap has 'needs'? What's in it for me?
Recently, a group of chimpanzees in a zoo were observed for some time. Each day, twice a day, the feeders would call them over to a gate to get their food. They would all go. One chimp was becoming disoriented and could not see well. Another chimp went over took the disabled chimp by the hand, and led it to the gate. "What was in it for the helping chimp"? Did God give it the understanding to see the other chimp's need...and to know how to help that chimp?
So if morality and justice are qualities that can only have been provided by the Almighty, are hatred, envy, greed and the other evil, bad qualities also imbued by God? And if so, why?
I'm bigger and stronger than him, so if he's got something I want, I'll take it and he'll have MORE needs!
Well, there are plenty of those people around. Is that also part of God's work? Chimpanzees can also be brutal, and even kill their young and others for little reason.
Still circular logic:
Circular Reasoning – supporting a premise with the premise rather than a conclusion.
Obvious because he stopped the crowd from enacting their violent religious law? Let whoever is without sin cast the first stone? "Go and sin no more" is a lot different than "our divinely inspired human law demands that you suffer."
You may wish to retake a course in debate and logic.
Your thesis: Man is moral and just because of a higher being.
My thesis: Man is moral and just because of the evolutionary process.
I at least provided a background and gave examples. You merely challenged with your silly circular reasoning response. You may not believe that a human can exhibit higher level traits because of the evolutionary process, and that is fine.
I've had this argument before with fundies and their belief is that only a belief in God and an afterlife can prompt a human to want to show justice and mercy to other humans. When I ask why then do atheists exhibit the same or even more moral traits, I'm usually met with silence.
Not that I have bought in yet, but scientists believe that even higher level computers will begin assuming some human traits both bad and good. If so, I imagine many of the fundies will go out and commit suicide, just as when small forms of life are found on Mars and elsewhere.
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.