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.
HE stopped nothing.
HE knew what the law said: 2 or more WITNESSES to the crime were needed to carry out the sentence.
None came forward, therefore, in perfect HARMONY with 'The LAW', she was set free.
You provided examples of the QUALITITES; NOT from where they came. You merely STATED they evolved in Man.
When I ask why then do atheists exhibit the same or even more moral traits, I'm usually met with silence.
Usually; but not now.
Atheists are still HUMAN and can CHOOSE to not 'believe' in a higher power than themselves if they wish.
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.
(There's that belief again.)
"Hal - open the pod bay doors..."
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.
Great imagination!
(There's that belief one more time.)
And the court system (Federal courts in general, SCOTUS in particular) depend on the presidency.
Q.E.D.
It appeals to no one but those whose actions are not condoned by traditional societal values.
________________________________________________
Bingo........all a liberal really wants is for his sin to be condoned.
Give me a break.
Where does all this trembling fear of the "Religious Right" come from? I have a good friend who actually told me he fears the "Religious Right" more than radical Muslims. ...and he was raised in a conservative, Baptist home!
I just don't understand where the irrational fear and loathing comes from.
You answered your own question: the friend was raised in a conservative, Baptist home. The porno groupies, the one-night-standers, the abortion aficionados, and so on all know that what they're doing is wrong. That "internal parent" we call conscience lets them know it long after their parents have gone to the grave, which is why they waste so much time and effort trying to convince the rest of us that it isn't so. If it were so, after all, if the Mommy and Daddy inside their head were really right, why, they might FEEL BAD - and in today's culture, absolutely nothing is worse than feeling bad. As things stand, if somebody makes you feel bad, you can sue them! And if you can't sue them, well, you can try to kick them out of your political party. That's what the Rudyphiles are trying to do to the rest of us. We remind them of the Mommies and Daddies they know are really right.
Grassroots social conservatives with the sense to separate themselves from that albatross still have a chance of exercising leadership by persuasion and example, though it will take a decade or two for the bad smell left by the Big Government Religous Right to dissipate.
Jefferson's dismissal of the notion that his neighbor saying that there were twenty gods, or no gods, was anybody else's business.
Next question?
LOL!
Again??
Ya gotta love Time magazine.
And I'm quite comfortable in the notion that the person I vote for will look to judicial nominees who understand that the first purpose of the Constitution is the protection of the rights of all of its citizens, and secondarily can distinguish between the judicial and legislative branches of government, especially their job descriptions.
It is particularly amusing when they've just gone on at length about interpreting the Constitution based on "Original Intent"[tm], and are confronted with multiple quotes from the drafters of the Fourteenth Amendment indicating that, yes, its original intent was to make the federal Bill of Rights binding on the states.
Judges have engaged in corrupt legislation from the bench, not in creating the Incorporation Doctrine (which was the part of the intended effect of the Fourteenth) but in making it "selective" (e.g. some of those quotes expressly state that one of the reasons for the Fourteenth was to abolish the "gun control" laws passed to disarm the freedmen).
Well, I cannot explain to you that higher intellect is an evolutionary process. I gave you an example of the chimp to demonstrate an abstract ideological characteristic. I could tell you that the higher the intellect in various species within the animal kingdom, the more of these qualities one will encounter. But apparently that does not satisfy you.
You can tell me that unless God provided them, they could not exist, but then one could ask you why God provided them, and where his power to do so came from, and we would be in exactly the same place.
Atheists are still HUMAN and can CHOOSE to not 'believe' in a higher power than themselves if they wish.
Which means what? If a non-believer can demonstrate the same qualities of morality and justice as one who believes he has received them from a higher being, so what? Was the chimp in my example a moral animal? Did God or evolution provide him that instinct to assist another less able chimp? Why don't worms act accordingly?
Great imagination! (There's that belief one more time.)
You seem incapable of distinguishing between belief and faith. I believe something because I have observed sufficient evidence to warrant that belief. I have faith because I have no evidence, but still accept it.
Well, that's two of us who know it. But is still remains one of the great all time secrets....
Judges have engaged in corrupt legislation from the bench, not in creating the Incorporation Doctrine (which was the part of the intended effect of the Fourteenth) but in making it "selective" (e.g. some of those quotes expressly state that one of the reasons for the Fourteenth was to abolish the "gun control" laws passed to disarm the freedmen).
The 14th is perhaps the most interesting of our "rights" amendments, in that is has been the most fought over of all of them, and even the courts were afraid of it for almost a hundred years.
You may think this is going to be a sarcastic post, but it's not. I'm looking for insight here.
The "Big Government Religious Right" which wants to terminate Planned Parenthood's multi-million dollar annual government funding?
The BGRR which wants -0- government funding for Embryonic Stem Cell Research?
The BGRR which wants the govt. NOT to entitle man-on-man sexual unions with those famous 1049 federal rights, benefits and privileges that are supposedly given to married couples?
The BGRR which believes that the education of children is the proper domain of parents (primarily), churches, local school districts, and states (in that order) and that the federal government should butt out?
The BGRR which believes that the government has -0- authority to authorize the deliberate killing of an innocent human being -- ever?
It appears that all these positions call for a smaller, scaled-down, humbler idea of government funding, prerogatives and power.
But I think you must have something else in mind. Please illustrate what you mean by the BGRR.
Your answer, steve-b, seems to jump into a different category from the one addressed by Mr. Silverback.
Laws against prostitution are related to ethics, public health, and the stabilty of marriage, which has ramifying impacts on public order, since every society, including this fair Republic, is built on the primary social building-block of marriage and family.
These are legitimate this-worldly public policy concerns.
In contrast, polytheism, monotheism, agnosticism, atheism, etc. have to do inherently with supernatural or naturalistic philosophical claims which do not impact directly on secular government concerns.
Hence voters in a democratic republic could find justification for repressing prostitution, bathhouses, public indecency, sexual contact with minors, and so forth, but not for repressing polytheism per se.
be·lief (b -l f )n.
1. The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another: My belief in you is as strong as ever.
2. Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something: His explanation of what happened defies belief.
3. Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons.
[Middle English bileve, alteration (influenced by bileven, to believe)of Old English gel
afa; see leubh- in Indo-European roots.]Synonyms: belief, credence, credit, faith
These nouns denote mental acceptance of the truth, actuality, or validity of something: a statement unworthy of belief; an idea steadily gaining credence; testimony meriting credit; has no faith in a liar's assertions. See Also Synonyms at opinion. Antonym: disbelief
|
th) s; see bheidh- in Indo-European roots.]Nope...
I KNOW something because I have observed sufficient evidence to warrant that KNOWLEDGE.
The "Big Government Religious Right" which wants to terminate Planned Parenthood's multi-million dollar annual government funding TAXPAYER MONEY?
The BGRR which wants -0- government funding TAXPAYER MONEY for Embryonic Stem Cell Research?
The BGRR which wants the govt. NOT to entitle man-on-man sexual unions with those famous 1049 federal rights, benefits and privileges that are supposedly given to married couples? (RIGHTS are not GIVEN; only PRIVILEGES are!)
The BGRR which believes that the education of children is the proper domain of parents (primarily), churches, local school districts, and states (in that order) and that the federal government should butt out?
The BGRR which believes that the government has -0- authority to authorize the deliberate killing of an innocent human being -- ever?
It appears that all these positions call for a smaller, scaled-down, humbler idea of government funding TAXPAYER MONEY, prerogatives and power.
But I think you must have something else in mind. Please illustrate what you mean by the BGRR.
We MUST quit using THEIR terms!!!! It's OUR MONEY!!!!
Divide and Conquer still works.
It's no WONDER all these fringe loonies UNITE in the Demcratic Party, for by themselves they'll get none of their crap passed!
You scratch MY back.....
If the RR fragments to 'lead' by example and persuasion, guess what will be accomplished in the long run.
But did you before going to the dictionary? Again for the umpteenth time, what is your point?
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.