Home › Blogs › Michael Connery's blog ›

Faith and Politics

My man Samuel Taylor has a really interesting post giving his perspective on religion and politics:

My point, simply: Jesus rapped for the ones that Johnny Cash wore the black for.

And behind the curtain: my agenda is not to convert you to Christianity. Ecgh. Disgusting. I’m trying to reconfigure some of the assumptions [people] (seem to) have about Christ and Christians. I think that’s important, partly because we will never have meaningful change in this country until we have a reevaluation of Christ, and how the secular left treats christians has a lot to do with whether or not that reevaluation is possible.

Emphasis is mine.

I think this is a really important topic. I was raised outside any spiritual tradition (my religion is “Hippy”) and so I more or less line up with “the secular left”. But I agree with everything Samuel has to say, and as the son of a preacher man he’s got some cred. I want to help us get on with this reevaluation he speaks of. I wonder what it will take.

I had to include this:

Jimbo:      Hey, Simpson, I hear your sister dumped 
            Christianity.
Bart:       Who cares?
Dolph:      I'll tell you someone who cares.  He's got long 
            hair, works as a carpenter, has a lot of crazy ideas 
            about love and brotherhood.
Jimbo:      His name's Gunnar and he's dating my mom.  Sometimes 
            he buys us beer.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
  • Delicious
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • Propeller
  • Reddit
  • Magnoliacom
  • Newsvine
  • Furl
  • Facebook
  • Google
  • Yahoo
  • Technorati
  • Icerocket
March 17th, 2007 3:41pm
Tags:

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

The Reintegration of Spirit and State~

Submitted by Joshua Gorman on Sat, 2007-03-17 18:24.

Glad to see someone on this blog bring up the contentious issue of “faith and politics” (an even more controversial issue than “manifesto”).

My favorite line from Samuel Taylor’s post: “The Man behind the Curtain: if we could listen to what the guy actually said, then we might start to make a move to set a few things right.”

As someone who was raised in a practicing Christian family, became secularized during my break-away teen years, and later in life swallowed the red pill and discovered the “Man behind the Curtain,” I can resonate closely with his quest.

But while I understand the context in which Taylor is coming at this from, I don’t fully align with his statement that “meaningful change in American politics is impossible without a reevaluation of Christ.” Or at least, I feel that this will only be a part of a much broader and deeper ‘reevaluation’ that needs to take place if there is a future for our world.

Waking up to “the Christ-Man behind the Christian-Curtain” is important, but while Christ may be one of the greatest exemplars of ethics, he’s still only one of thousands. And while Christianity and its modern mutations may remain the largest religion in the US for quite some time, we are undeniably a multi-faith society, along with strong trends toward both the secular and the spiritual. Personally, I’m more interested in framing the statement this way: “meaningful change in American politics is impossible without a reevaluation of ‘faith and politics’.”

In my book-in-progress there’s a section on faith & politics that touches on the following: Yes, there needs to be a separation of Church and State, but not of Spirit and State. This is one of those “don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater” situations. In a democracy where freedom and equality reign, we have to ensure that Religion does not Rule, especially one religion over the others. This is pretty straightforward.

But we still need that vital ingredient that healthy religion offers humanity: morality, ethics, values, etc. The story goes: when we threw Religion out of the public sqare, we also threw out our most dynamic ‘source’ of morality (the baby and the bathwater). What’s needed is not a reintegration of religion, but a reintegration of ‘spirit’ - that universal source within all religion/spiritual teachings/practices that gives rise to moral lives, moral action, moral politics, and a moral society. Until we arrive at the recognition of a New Consensus - a universal morality founding in all religious/spiritual/humanist traditions - secular society and its corruptions will continue to reign.

I realize that there are those who will argue with the idea of a universal “spirit” or ethos itself, but that’s not an argument I want to take up here. For clarification though, by “spirit” I mean that inner part of human beings which gives rise to our morals, integrity, love, altruism, justice, brotherhood/sisterhood, community/civic engagement, etc. It is that which allows us to value people, the planet, and all of Life. It is also what has inspired the “dream of Democracy”, an ideal that if truly realized and embodied, would be the furthest thing from the secular spirit-less society we live in today.

In summary: part of our generation’s quest is to champion this New Moral/Spiritual Consensus and build a movement of “meaningful change” through the reintegration of Spirit and State.

(obviously there’s an incredible amount more to it than just this, but you get the gist.)

the man behind the curtain, and defending my thesis

Submitted by imaginarysamuel on Sun, 2007-03-18 09:19.

duder!

you spliced together two lines from my post to make your favorite line. (remix culture?) the man behind the curtain in my piece refers to my agenda in writing the letter to gary. just to clarify. although i can see how the man behind the curtain is an apt analysis for the historical jesus.

as for my basic point, which is that meaninful change is impossible in this country without a reevaluation of christ, lemme self-cannibalie from my olden days at MFA.

So many Christians vote, and so many semi-christian people (C & E christians, if you’re down with my jive-talkin lingo) vote what they think the Christian ticket is. It’s at the core of our nation’s psyche. Now. That being said, no reevaluation of Christ can come from Atheists. It cannot come from Jews. It cannot come from Buddhists, Sikhs, or Muslims. It must come from Christians, and it must come. And in a very important sense, those of us in the movement who aren’t christian have no control over that. Bummer. But picture that Reevaluation as a man dropping seeds on the ground as he walks: blindly. Some of them fall along the path, and birds come and devour them. Other seeds fall on rocky ground, where they have not much soil, and immidiately spring up. But when the sun comes they are scorched, and wither away. Other seeds fall among thorns, and are choked. Still others fall on good soil, and bring forth grain. Sweet, sweet grain. You pickin’ up what I’m puttin’ down?

our job as christians is to spark that reformation. our job as non-christians is to allow it and encourage it where we can.

i don’t think it’s as useful to cultivate a pseudo-state consensus morality - that’s part of a project that is always ongoing, and is too large and ephemeral to really impact. but encouraging such mainstream protestant reformations as the one going on in the ECUSA… there’s something about the right size.

and for the record, no, i don’t really know how you encourage that unless you’re in it.

thanks~

Submitted by Joshua Gorman on Sun, 2007-03-18 09:52.

gotcha! sorry for the remix (monkey mind) and thanks for the clarification! just glad to see some dialogue about faith & politics in our generation.

the myth of swing voters

Submitted by MarkRistaino on Sun, 2007-03-18 13:59.

hey Sam,

While I love to talk about this topic, I disagree with this statement:

we will never have meaningful change in this country until we have a reevaluation of Christ, and how the secular left treats christians has a lot to do with whether or not that reevaluation is possible.

In 2004, christian voters arrived at the polls for the two big devisive faith issues, and that’s abortion and gay marriage- more specifically, lack of support for both abortion and gay marriage.

Historically, it’s always been tough to change peoples minds on any issue, esp abortion and gay marriage. Sure, we can go down that road, but its a long and winding road, and its certainly a bad road to base an electoral strategy on.

There are a lot of people who don’t vote every election, and the left would do better reaching out to people who are more open to the message we’re already preaching (young voters anyone?) than spending energy trying to change people’s minds regarding devisive issues. That’s poor strategy.

That being said, I totally agree that the left needs to stake their claim to god a little bit better, because they certainly do have a legitimate claim. And if some positive political effects occur when election time rolls around, well, all the better.

i think you're making my point for me

Submitted by imaginarysamuel on Sun, 2007-03-18 15:59.

perhaps i have used the editorial we a little too loosely. my statement ought to read: we will never have meaningful change in this country until christians have a reevaluation of christ. and you’re right that it’s by and large a waste of our (progressive infrastructure) time to go down that road, and a poor strategy. it goes deep.

perhaps a more generous and optimistic reading would be: were christians to have a reevaluation of christ, we would see meaningful change in this country.

you’re right that christian voters showing up to put the beat down on abortion and gay marriage were probably pivotal in getting bush within striking distance of the throne the first time, and elected the second time. this is exactly what i mean, see? as long as the popular understanding of christ allows for this kind of thing in our country, we’re going nowhere, because christian voters are such a pivotal part of electoral politics. not to say that they’re the only deciding vote - but they pack a lot of weight.

a practical example of what i’m talking about is this: y’all saw the christian evangelical bigboy get down with the earth-first kids in Inconvenient Truth, yeah? I can’t imagine a better ally in the fight against global warming. environmentalists could spend some energy embracing these new converts into the fold. that would help. you know. associate with the wrong sort of people.

which is, ironically, a very christian thing to do.

you’re right that it’s

Submitted by MarkRistaino on Sun, 2007-03-18 23:38.

you’re right that it’s by and large a waste of our (progressive infrastructure) time to go down that road, and a poor strategy.

Just wanted to make sure you get it. Not everyone does. Cheers.

y’all saw the christian evangelical bigboy get down with the earth-first kids in Inconvenient Truth, yeah? I can’t imagine a better ally in the fight against global warming.

Fuck yeah. I think the christian verdict on environmentalism is still up for grabs, and this is a perfect and meaningful place to further build a relationship. That’s… well… to be honest, that’s brillant. Does anyone know any environmentalism friendly bible quotes? There’s gotta be a few and they might be good to know in this instance.

Is that cliche? To find bible quotes in support of your issue? I don’t even know.

This is not the place

Submitted by jpb on Sun, 2007-03-18 09:53.

for a heated theological debate, so I’m going to hold my breath and count to ten and just mention a few things the might not have occurred to you as offensive. I’m sure yr aim in writing this post wasn’t to piss people off.

Until we arrive at the recognition of a New Consensus - a universal morality founding in all religious/spiritual/humanist traditions - secular society and its corruptions will continue to reign.

Society’s corruption is due to being secular? Sorry, no.

I realize that there are those who will argue with the idea of a universal “spirit” or ethos itself, but that’s not an argument I want to take up here.

Again, sorry, no. You can’t dissociate the argument about “is ‘spirit’ meaningful term?” from the argument about “will more ‘spiritualism’ help society.” Its not just that people disagree on what “spirit” refers to. Some of us don’t think that its a meaningful term, much less a valid category to govern by.

I appreciate yr acknowledgment that this is a heady topic and this probably isn’t the place to debate it. I’ll take a wild guess and say that the two of us don’t agree on matters of religion. But I don’t spend time at Future Majority to debate religion, so I’m going to leave this thread as cordially as I know how, and reiterate that, while I’m appreciative that you’re treading as gingerly as possible around some territory that you recognize as being pretty hairy, you still stepped on a mine or two.

The "story" might just be that.

Submitted by Josh Koenig on Sun, 2007-03-18 14:03.
The story goes: when we threw Religion out of the public sqare, we also threw out our most dynamic ‘source’ of morality (the baby and the bathwater).

I get this from a lot of places, and I have to say I don’t get it. When did it happen? Who threw religion out? I don’t think it really happened: the law on this is right in the source code of the country.

In terms of judicial rulings, you have courts striking down reimbursement for parochial schooling (now on it’s way back in via vouchers) and basically saying that you can’t have public schools enforce religious observance. You also have a womans right to choose (which had been there all along in real terms) and the downfall of anti-sodomy laws. That has more to do with kicking religion out of schools and bedrooms, which aren’t the public square.

Until we arrive at the recognition of a New Consensus - a universal morality founding in all religious/spiritual/humanist traditions - secular society and its corruptions will continue to reign.

John called this out as well, but it bears repeating. I think I know what you’re going for — peace, love and brotherhood — but this formulation is pretty unhelpful. It’s going to alienate a lot of your would-be allies, and probably pique the interest of folks who think you’re talking about making buttfucking illegal again.

For what it’s worth, I don’t think there’s any way of making everyone do right all the time. People make mistakes, and people get damaged, and people do bad things. It’s part of the human condition. We can certainly do better, but I don’t think the issue is really a lack of values. If you survey people about right and wrong, I think you’ll find that the moral consensus is latently present. The problem is that a lot of people tend to think that their moral obligations only apply to their tribe, and this permits all sorts of amoral or even immoral behavior via rationalization. So it’s ok to bomb those people over there, and I don’t need to worry about that homeless man either. He’s not one of mine.

I think the hard work is in building a common trust (faith, if you will) in humanity. This means a more integrated national (and global) social fabric, something that’s increasingly possible in the 21st Century, though by no means inevitable.

As a fairly militant athiest

Submitted by jpb on Sun, 2007-03-18 10:14.

I’d like to say that most atheists would welcome reform from within the religious community. There are certain issues that are intractable, but there’s plenty we can agree on (particularly in the realm of charity and social justice). There’re large swaths of American Christianity that’ve lost the thread, and the sooner they rediscover Jesus, the better off we’ll all be. As far as I can tell, there isn’t much Jesus at Thomas Road Baptist Church.

Moral people who choose religion and take the name of a group that harbors immoral practitioners (gay-hatin’ “Christian” Falwell, jew-hatin’ “Muslim” Ahmadinejad; I’m looking at you) have an obligation to speak out against that immoral behavior. They do so too infrequently, and Sam, yr to be commended for speaking up.

One Thing I've Noticed

Submitted by Josh Koenig on Sun, 2007-03-18 13:38.

One thing I’ve noticed is that the political leaders of religious groups tend to put off a lot more intolerance than their erstwhile followers. For all the heavy rhetoric that comes through the TeeVee, over the radio, down the intertubes, or even sometimes off the pulpit, I tend to find that actual real live people are surprisingly compassionate. People may act in aggregate ways (voting) which appear bigoted — demagoguery works! — but this is largely a matter of following a tribal identity, which is what I think Samuel is talking about opening up and reevaluating.

In very real ways, the darker aspects of our politics — whether it’s anti-gay agit-prop or immigration paranoia — are driven by division and ignorance and fear. They stop working when the parties in question actually know one another as human beings (e.g. if you actually know gay people, you’re 90% likely to want to let them marry the people they love). So we should all get together and sing Kumbaya. Really. It’s what Jesus would have wanted.

One of the core values of the Future Majority (which I’ll go stick in the manifesto page now) is pluralism, meaning we recognize that people believe different stuff, and that’s ok, and generally we can work together anyway.

As for whether you’re going to heaven, or hell, or rot in the ground… what does that really have to do with politics? These are matters for individual believers and communities to work out on their own terms, and I tend to think a lot of the conflicts around this — are high school football coaches allowed to lead the team in prayer? do we keep “under god” in the pledge? can a city office have a christmas tree? — are about as substantive as Anna Nicole Smith’s autopsy. They create false divisions.

Question on Groups

Submitted by Michael Connery on Mon, 2007-03-19 03:53.

So a question - for Samuel and maybe Joshua.

What progressive groups are out their doing a good job “recapturing” religion from the Right, or pushing this reevaluation? Are there any that are youth focused and belong in the sidebar on this site?

What does this field actually look like?

Crossing left~

Submitted by Joshua Gorman on Mon, 2007-03-19 05:44.

I’m sure Samuel can speak on this at greater length than I can. A year ago I met a founder of an organization called Crossleft. (http://www.crossleft.org)

“CrossLeft is a strategy clearing-house and central hub for grassroots activism among progressive Christians. We bring in news from other progressive Christian sites, and all of our efforts are geared towards coordinating action, educating the country, and providing a strategy for long-term change.”

As for groups that are solely youth focused, I can’t think of any off-hand but I’m sure they’re out there. As a whole, it seems like there is plenty of crossing over, with more to come.

Jim & Tammy Faye's kid - "One Punk Under God"

Submitted by jpb on Mon, 2007-03-19 12:16.

Pretty much everything i know about [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Bakker|Jay Bakker]] (“One Punk Under God”) comes from a vague recollection of an ad campaign for the Sundance Channel documentary (which I’ve never seen; has anyone here? Is it any good?) and that wikipedia article. His website doesn’t lead me to believe that he’s at all interested in political organizing. But damn! What an interesting study in Millennials-vs-Boomers.

see this is where you gotta think different.

Submitted by imaginarysamuel on Mon, 2007-03-19 12:06.

you can’t think in terms of the political christian organizations ou there. or maybe you can, i don’t know. maybe that’s a useful way to spend your time building partnerships as a progressive org.

but where the realy interesting stuff is going on is in church groups. the emerging or emergent church seems pretty exciting. it’s an evangelist movement dedicated to bringing post-modern people into the church. as such it allows for a lot more diversity in doctrine and technique. it’s fairly decentralized, and it’s making inroads on the typically conservative evangelist youth stuff which is absolutely booming.

wiki’s got some pretty involved stuff on the subject.

the new priest at my church is big into the emerging church, i think there’s a book lying around my pa’s house somewhere on the subject. maybe i’ll ask some questions…

This is perfect

Submitted by Michael Connery on Mon, 2007-03-19 12:26.

Admittedly, I was looking for something like Street Prophets or the Cross Left, but this is even better. It's good to have organizations to build bridges with, but just knowing about this movement is equally valuable.

I had no idea about this. Thanks for the wiki link. It's highly informative. If church was like this when I was a kid, I probably wouldn't be the agnostic that I am today. I'm really digging this part:

Generous orthodoxy
Proponents of the movement advocate an ecumenical, non-dogmatic view of doctrine in which they embrace a continual reexamination and flexible approach to theology which causes them to see faith as a journey rather than a destination, and to accept even radical differences in doctrinal views and moral standards. This humility and generosity leads most emergents to extend an invitation to people of all religions and beliefs to contribute to the conversation.
Postmodern Hermeneutics
Since emergents generally deny the perspicuity of Scripture they admit a plurality of its interpretations, emphasizing the effect of the modern reader's cultural context on the act of interpretation in contrast to the Evangelical emphasis on the primacy of the author's intent and cultural context. The influence of postmodern thinkers such as Jacques Derrida and Stanley Fish is evident in the emerging church movement's subjective approach to interpreting Scripture.
Authenticity
Emergents favor the sharing of experiences and interactions such as testimonies, which they believe are personal and sincere over "scripted" interactions such as propositional, evangelistic preaching and exegetical bible teaching. Emerging church participants are thus true to the social constructs of their local narratives rather than to any absolute, ahistorical, cross-cultural authority.
Conversation/dialog
The movement's participants claim they are creating a safe environment for those with opinions ordinarily rejected within historic orthodoxy. This contrasts historic Christianity's "prophetic" proclamation of dogma which many emergents view as intolerant.

please clarify

Submitted by jpb on Mon, 2007-03-19 12:36.

see this is where you gotta think different…you can’t think in terms of the political christian organizations ou there. or maybe you can, i don’t know.

Not really sure what you mean by this. Think different than what? Personally (Jewish by birth, atheist for the last 15 or so years), I’m pretty unaquainted with the Christian ecosystem. I’ve heard a bit about Thomas Road Baptist Church and New Life Church, but that’s mostly from Harpers articles (so you can guess the tone).

maybe that’s a useful way to spend your time building partnerships as a progressive org.

You nailed it; this is the real question; what’s the most useful way to spend time building partnerships? Getting the lay of the land (which it sounds like you’ve got the broad outlines of) is the first step.

Are there enough Christians that are potential political partners for FM that we should be on the lookout? Is it a small enough number that its not really an issue in 2008? Who are they? Who are the leaders of the movement? How do we talk to them? How do we encourage (to the degree that FM’ll spend its time on religious matters) the progressive Christian movement to grow and counter the far right Christian mainstream?

I’d love to hear what you and yr Pa have to say on this stuff.

No doubt

Submitted by Josh Koenig on Mon, 2007-03-19 22:55.
Are there enough Christians that are potential political partners for FM that we should be on the lookout?

I think the answer to that is almost certainly yes. At MFA, I got more than a few emails from kids who wanted to know why we didn’t table at Christian rock concerts. They were upset that only rightwing/conservative politics were being represented. Cursory googling turns up interesting things:

A myspace profile, a college group, and an active organization.

I’m pretty sure that there’s a lot of potential here.

Bong Hits for Jesus

Submitted by Michael Connery on Tue, 2007-03-20 08:53.

Sorry for the off-topic comment. I didn't see this as fully deserving its own post, and it kinda fits here.

Did everyone see about this Bong Hits for Jesus thing?

This case fascinates me. Short version: Frederick, then a senior, was off school property when he hoisted the banner but was suspended for violating the school’s policy of promoting illegal substances at a school-sanctioned event.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overruled a lower court saying: The federal appeals court said even if the banner, however vague and nonsensical, could be construed as a positive message about marijuana use, the question came down to whether a school may punish or censor a student's speech because it promotes a social message contrary to one the school favors. "The answer under controlling, long-existing precedent is plainly, 'No,'" wrote Judge Andrew Kleinfeld in an 18-page opinion.